The First Presidential Spanish Debate...Yo hablo what did you say?

In the spirit of pandering to illegal immigrants crossing into our country from the southern border, in the spirit of rejecting the insistence of a growing number of Americans demanding that we have a national language of English, the Democrats set forth tonight to sponsor the first ever United States Presidential candidates debate done in English AND Spanish.

Dems' bilingual debate 'a historic moment'

In the first TV debate of its kind, questions and answers will be translated as Democratic candidates face off on Univisión.

BY GLENN GARVIN
ggarvin@MiamiHerald.com

Would that 1984 presidential debate have been as memorable, or as decisive, if Walter Mondale had fixed Gary Hart with an exasperated glare and demanded: Dónde está el bistec? We could find out tonight when eight Democratic candidates square off in Miami in the first nationally televised debate en español.

In an acknowledgment of the explosive growth of Hispanic voters -- more than 16 million will be eligible to cast ballots in next year's election -- all the declared contenders for the Democratic nomination are joining in a debate sponsored by and televised on the Spanish-language network Univisión.

The candidates won't actually be speaking Spanish, a language most of them don't understand. Instead, questions and answers will be simultaneously translated.

''It's a great moment, a historic moment,'' says Maria Elena Salinas, who along with her fellow Univisión anchor, Jorge Ramos, will moderate the debate. ``The candidates will be speaking to the fastest-growing segment of American society. It's a sign of respect.''

It's also uncharted territory on the maps of both politics and television. Will the debate's novelty draw a bigger audience than the two million viewers who usually watch Univisión's Sunday-night reality shows? Or does boredom with public-affairs programming cross cultural lines?

UNCERTAIN PROCESS

Will the candidates engage in a lively, thoughtful exchange on issues like U.S. relations with Latin America that are rarely discussed in mainstream political forums? Or will they crack up on stereotypical assumptions that Los Angeles Chicanos and Miami Cubanos all think the same way about the issues?

Nobody knows. Which, a lot of people think, is a good thing.

''I'll certainly be watching with a good deal of curiosity,'' said David Bohrman, CNN's Washington bureau chief. ``It's been an interesting year of experimentation in debates. We've all recognized that the old rules are really rules, and we can reinvent debates. . . . A fresh look at the debate process, that's a good thing. It was a pretty stuffy old process.''

As the presidential campaign trail lengthens and debates multiply -- tonight's will be the 10th one televised this year -- organizers have gone to some exotic lengths to make each one stand out. There've been debates themed at black, gay and labor forums and even one built around videos submitted to the YouTube Internet site in which questions were asked by characters dressed as Vikings and snowmen.

''The more debates, the more creative the outlets,'' said Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution think tank and a former speechwriter for California Gov. Pete Wilson. ``God forbid, there could even be an MTV debate at some point.''

Wouldn't that be LOVELY? A Presidential debate hosted by MTV. I wonder if they could book Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake for some sort of intermission halfway through? HMMMMMMMMMM.

So how did the debate go? Let's take a look at what the Washington Times has to say about how it went, shall we?

Panic in the press room
Christina Bellantoni

"Are we going to have audio?"
"Vamos a tener audio?"


Reporters who didn't speak Spanish were already anxious about the translation devices that didn't quite fit in our ears. (Porque soy de California, yo hablo un poquito Espanol.)


But 90 seconds before the forum began tonight, the Media Room had no sound - not in Spanish, English or French. Nada.


Spanish- and English-speaking reporters in the room erupted in a panic, sending University of Miami staff scrambling to try and fix the feed. What most reporters heard for the first 16 minutes of the debate was static - both from the closed television feed and from the translation device.


Even Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) seemed to have trouble, yanking the earpiece from his ear mid-way through his answer to a question on Iraq.

Isn't that just LOVELY? A HISTORIC moment. A complete and utter disaster. Barack Hussein Obama even got frustrated. I'm sure Hillary Clinton was cool as a cucumber. I don't know of much, other than Bill, that can perturb that ice queen...

Is this what we, the American people, want or deserve as our current and rising leadership? Do we want candidates and leaders who are interested in dividing our nation further by PANDERING to those divisions?

How is this something that unifies us as a nation? Can anyone answer that one for me? I would TRULY love to know.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Fred Thompson: the Water is Fine!

You've heard the news by now. You've read it in the papers, online, in spree's posting earlier today. Or you've been under a rock.

Fred Thompson is officially in the race for the office of President of the United States of America.

Talk radio has been abuzz with discussions about his entry into the Republican race Why did he wait so long? Will it affect his race that he waited so long? Why did he not come into the race sooner?

I hate to toot my own horn, I really do, but I'm going to take credit for being one of the FIRST to mention Fred Thompson as a possible Presidential candidate, and I did so on this site WAY BACK on 9JAN07 in the comments section of spree's posting Deja vu, where I said this:

Ahem...

Has anyone approached Fred Thompson?

I know I tend to be partial to Tennesseans because I am one (we don't talk about Al Gore though, other than with dismay and amazement...) but I have heard his name mentioned a couple of times recently on talk radio.

Might be worth looking into.

It wasn't just because of talk radio that I mentioned Fred Thompson. Everything I've seen of the man, I'm impressed with his integrity, his forthrightness, and his calm, confident demeanor. To criticize Thompson for waiting until September to announce his candidacy is to criticize our entire process up until this year. Traditionally, candidates haven't formally announced until after Labor Day. Fred Thompson is merely staying in step with tradition in doing so.

By now you've had time to read the commentaries, to watch the youtube clips, and to see Thompson's own announcement clip on his site. Listen to Leno's audience. That was no canned applause, that was the audience. They were excited. Look at Thompson himself. Does he seem anxious? Does he seem tense? Quite the opposite. The man is the picture of calm and cool. Listen to what he says. Does he deride the other Republican candidates? He doesn't. In my own mind, he's already taking the stance that he's the man. That his announcement was more widely watched than the Republican debates FEATURING the other candidates speaks volumes in and of itself; candidates who, when asked ABOUT Thompson, had snide comments to make about him, by and large.

As I said, I first forwarded my opinion about Fred Thompson entering the race back in January. In the months that have passed, nothing has changed my mind that Fred Thompson should be the Republican candidate for President in the 2008 election. If anything, I'm more convinced than ever, having watched the other candidates through the passing months from then to now.

I suppose it goes without saying, my personal support goes to Fred Thompson.

Will it be a difficult campaign? What Presidential campaign isn't? Thompson has a few things in his favor that the others don't have. He's the fresh face in the crowd, the new voice, and since he hasn't been doing the active "hot" campaigning that the others have been doing this year, he's coming into the race fresh. The other candidates have had time to make their pleas, begin repeating themselves, in some cases redirecting their "spin" on things (McCain and his stand on illegal immigration, just as a case in point).

I DO see a man who WILL NOT apologize for our war, who will not apologize for America, backing down from anything he says. To my knowledge, he never has, in the political realm.

The primaries are drawing near.

Hang on to your hats, folks, it's going to be an interesting ride from here on out...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Superhighway? WHAT superhighway?

Hell must have frozen over again, because I'm including something from CNN on my posting. You will recall the first time Hell froze over was some years back when the Eagles toured together again...



More typical shifting and slithering from Washington. It's very easy to deny something if you call it something else, obviously.

From WorldNetDaily:

WND Exclusive PREMEDITATED MERGER
Name changed to hide 'Superhighway'?
WND obtains secret document revealing original moniker of 'SuperCorridor'
Posted: September 2, 2007
8:14 p.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A 1998 document which WND has obtained shows the North American SuperCorridor Coalition, or NASCO, was originally named the North American Superhighway Coalition.

The document plays into an emerging debate in which a number of critics, including President Bush, want to deny that a NAFTA "Superhighway" exists.

Christopher Hayes, writing in the Aug. 27 edition of the Nation claimed that, "There is no such thing as a proposed NAFTA Superhighway."

President Bush at the third summit meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in Montebello, Quebec, on Aug. 21, answered a question from a reporter at Fox News that NAFTA Superhighways were part of a "conspiracy theory..."

Someone better inform Mel Gibson. How is it that so many people KNOW about something, have information and maps regarding something, that the government is denying the existance of? This isn't something like Area 51, people, we have the maps and the details on how it's supposed to come into play laid out for us to delve into like a Sunday morning brunch buffet. And more information is coming to light daily. Is it going to take convoys of Mexican trucks rolling up through Texas before people WAKE UP?

From NaftaSuperHighway.info:

Kansas City SmartPort Uncovered!
Pieces of the NAFTA Superhighway are falling into place, behind the scenes.
The Winners:
China & Corporate CEO's
The Losers:
US Citizens & Mexican Citizens

Since the passage of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Act) there has been talk of a “superhighway”, or a series of “superhighways” that allow the efficient movement of cargo and laborers within North America.

Although there have been denials of such a highway, the North American Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO) exists to promote just such a system of highways. One piece of it is in progress in Kansas City, Missouri. The Kansas City SmartPort is an “inland port” that is proposed to handle Mexican customs and inspections. It is to be the link between seaports in Mexico and major truck, air and rail lines in the United States, all the way to Manitoba, Canada. (Another piece of the NASCO super corridor, is the Trans-Texas Corridor-the TTC)


Here’s the troubling part. After cargo arrives at Mexican seaports (mostly from Asia), it is to be shipped to Kansas City, and from there to the rest of the US and Canada. The cargo will be approved and screened for security in a Mexican port. Trucks and rail are to be inspected for safety in Mexico. According to press reports, there will be a US “border inspection" when the cargo reaches the Mexican border.

However as we now know, a very small percentage of cargo is inspected by Homeland Security. They will rely primarily on the port personnel in Mexico. The vast majority of cargo will pass through the border unimpeded and will not be inspected. We will be relying on other countries to keep us safe from terrorism, nuclear waste and semi-trucks full of illegal immigrants, guns, drugs or other illegal cargo...

Illegal cargo. Doesn't that just sound LOVELY?

I can't say that I agree with Ron Paul on a great many things. On THIS issue, however, we see eye to eye, regarding this as an up and coming fiasco for our nation.

The NAFTA Superhighway

by Ron Paul

By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.

This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.

Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it.

The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.

The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.

The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.

The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.

A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election...

Contact your legislators, people. Let them know that YOU KNOW that this is going on, and demand that they take action to stop it.

We are on the verge of handing our nation over to others.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man



(NOTE: One of the videos from Freedoms Watch) [30 second video.]





Another Wounded Veteran speaks about anger at Congress and Victory:






.