Monday, October 17, 2016
Newt Gingrich: Hillary's dangerous dream of open borders
We finally know why Hillary Clinton refused to
release the transcripts of her paid speeches to bankers and special
interests: When her staff assembled a list of the most damaging comments
in those transcripts, they must have seen immediately that they could
not afford for the material ever to be made public.
In one speech, Hillary described how politicians often “need both a public and a private position.” She elaborated that at times, Abraham Lincoln had a public position that was different from the private, secret goal he was actually pursuing.
The list of speech excerpts, in emails made public this month by WikiLeaks, didn’t require us to look far to discover Hillary Clinton’s own secret goal.
In a secret, $225,000 speech to Brazilian bankers in 2013, she let her mask down revealed the goal she truly wants to pursue.
In other words, open borders and open trade for the entire hemisphere—all of the countries in North and South America.
Not just her hope. Not just her wish. Her dream.
Let’s consider the implications of Hillary’s dream.
Hillary wants an open border with Canada and an open border with Mexico, our two closest neighbors.
She also wants open borders with and among all of the countries in Central America and South America.
In addition to open borders with all of those countries, she us to have open trade with them, so that all of their people can choose to live and work in the United States if they please.
There are about 210 million people in North America outside the United States, including the entire populations of Mexico and Canada.
There are 42 million people in Central America—the seven countries from Guatemala to Panama, some of which are among the most violent places on Earth.
There are 422 million people in South America—more than the entire population of the United States.
How many of those roughly 675 million people do you think would like to come and work in the U.S.?
Hillary’s dream of open borders would send the wages and incomes of millions of Americans into a free fall. At the same time, it would mean an explosion of welfare costs for the states and federal government.
Hillary’s dream would literally drive Americans, and America, bankrupt.
But it’s not just our jobs and our economy that Hillary’s dream would destroy.
Consider what else this radical vision of open borders would mean.
It would mean we’d have no capacity to stop terrorists from entering the United States. ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists could come in through any one of more than two dozen countries, and make their way freely to the U.S.
We’d have no capacity to stop Mexican heroin and Columbian cocaine, or gangs, like the violent and vicious MS-13 from El Salvador.
And it would mean no capacity to stop the spread of diseases from around the world into the United States.
For most Americans, this isn’t a dream. It’s a warning of a future that could be all too real. Because if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, she’d have the power to make these ambitions a reality. She would only have to continue and expand President Obama’s policies of deliberate non-enforcement of our immigration laws.
There would be no check on Hillary’s power to realize her dream of open borders—and for millions of families, that would mean the destruction of the American dream.
Newt Gingrich, a Republican, was speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. He is the author of the new novel "Treason" (Center Street, October 11) and co-author, with his wife Callista Gingrich, of "Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation's History and Future" (Center Street, May 17, 2016).
In one speech, Hillary described how politicians often “need both a public and a private position.” She elaborated that at times, Abraham Lincoln had a public position that was different from the private, secret goal he was actually pursuing.
The list of speech excerpts, in emails made public this month by WikiLeaks, didn’t require us to look far to discover Hillary Clinton’s own secret goal.
In a secret, $225,000 speech to Brazilian bankers in 2013, she let her mask down revealed the goal she truly wants to pursue.
Hillary’s dream of open borders would send the wages and incomes of millions of Americans into a free fall.“My dream,” she said, “is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”
In other words, open borders and open trade for the entire hemisphere—all of the countries in North and South America.
See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections. See Predictions Map →
Let’s consider the implications of Hillary’s dream.
Hillary wants an open border with Canada and an open border with Mexico, our two closest neighbors.
She also wants open borders with and among all of the countries in Central America and South America.
In addition to open borders with all of those countries, she us to have open trade with them, so that all of their people can choose to live and work in the United States if they please.
There are about 210 million people in North America outside the United States, including the entire populations of Mexico and Canada.
There are 42 million people in Central America—the seven countries from Guatemala to Panama, some of which are among the most violent places on Earth.
There are 422 million people in South America—more than the entire population of the United States.
How many of those roughly 675 million people do you think would like to come and work in the U.S.?
Hillary’s dream of open borders would send the wages and incomes of millions of Americans into a free fall. At the same time, it would mean an explosion of welfare costs for the states and federal government.
Hillary’s dream would literally drive Americans, and America, bankrupt.
But it’s not just our jobs and our economy that Hillary’s dream would destroy.
Consider what else this radical vision of open borders would mean.
It would mean we’d have no capacity to stop terrorists from entering the United States. ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists could come in through any one of more than two dozen countries, and make their way freely to the U.S.
We’d have no capacity to stop Mexican heroin and Columbian cocaine, or gangs, like the violent and vicious MS-13 from El Salvador.
And it would mean no capacity to stop the spread of diseases from around the world into the United States.
For most Americans, this isn’t a dream. It’s a warning of a future that could be all too real. Because if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, she’d have the power to make these ambitions a reality. She would only have to continue and expand President Obama’s policies of deliberate non-enforcement of our immigration laws.
There would be no check on Hillary’s power to realize her dream of open borders—and for millions of families, that would mean the destruction of the American dream.
Newt Gingrich, a Republican, was speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. He is the author of the new novel "Treason" (Center Street, October 11) and co-author, with his wife Callista Gingrich, of "Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation's History and Future" (Center Street, May 17, 2016).
North Carolina GOP headquarters firebombed
A Republican party headquarters in North Carolina was firebombed and a nearby building was vandalized and those responsible were still on the loose, authorities said Sunday.
The Charlotte Observer reported that the inside of the Orange County Republican Party headquarters in Hillsborough was severely damaged from the attack Saturday and an adjacent building was marked with spray pained graffiti reading “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else.” No one was injured.
“The office itself is a total loss,” state GOP Executive Director Dallas Woodhouse said. “The only thing important to us is that nobody was killed, and they very well could have been.”
He said Republican offices around the state were re-examining their security.
The walls over the multi-room office were covered in black char, and a couch against a wall had been burned down to its springs. Shattered glass covered the floor, and a melted campaign yard signs showed warped lettering. According to WNCN-TV, a bottle of flammable liquid was thrown through the front window of the office.
The violent act in the key battleground state was condemned by public figures across the political spectrum.
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president said on Twitter that the attack "is horrific and unacceptable. Very grateful that everyone is safe."
Republican nominee Donald Trump blamed the act on Democrats in a tweet and also he encouraged local Republicans, saying: "With you all the way, will never forget. Now we have to win. Proud of you all!"
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory said in a tweet that the firebombing was “clearly an attack on Democracy.”
At a news conference, Woodhouse urged Republicans to respond peacefully by turning out to vote in November. He said he'd received messages of support from Democrats.
Orange County GOP chairman Daniel Ashley told reporters that no one had previously made violent threats against the office several miles from the town's historic square. The GOP office is several doors down from a shuttered ice rink in what was once a frontier-themed amusement park that is now a retail complex known as The Shops at Daniel Boone.
Tom Stevens, mayor of the town about 40 miles northwest of Raleigh, said that it was fortunate the fire didn't burn the office and other adjacent buildings that are decades old to the ground.
Stevens, a Democrat, said the act doesn't represent the character of Orange County, which also includes much of Chapel Hill and the University of North Carolina campus. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 3-1 margin in the county that picked President Barack Obama by a lopsided margin in the 2012 election.
"I'd like to believe we aspire to respect hearing differing views," Stevens said in an interview. "This is very troubling."
Stevens said he wasn't aware of any leads on suspects. Police and officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were investigating.
WikiLeaks: Podesta lamented that a Muslim, not a white man, named as killer in 2015 massacre
Top Hillary Clinton aides were upset a Muslim man was publicly named as the shooter in a 2015 massacre that left 14 people dead, and a longtime Clinton confidant even expressed regret that the terrorist wasn’t a white man, according to purported emails released by WikiLeaks on Sunday.
The emails were part of a trove of messages stolen from the gmail account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, who has had a long association with the Democratic presidential nominee and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. The email chain began on Dec. 2, when digital operative Matt Ortega forwarded a tweet from MSNBC host Christopher Hayes that named one of the shooters in the San Bernardino, Calif., attack as Sayeed Farook. Consultant Karen Finney forwarded the email to Podesta, commenting, “Damn.”
Podesta responded: “Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk [sic] was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.”
Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, gunned down 14 people and injured 22 in a terror attack during a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center on Dec. 2. The attackers pledged their allegiance to ISIS before dying in a shootout with police later in the day.
But Podesta’s written lament of the shooter’s ethnicity underscores a long-running aversion in the Clinton campaign – and many in the Democratic party at large – to associating terrorist acts with any aspect of the Islamic religion.
In a 154-page debate prep book that was developed two months after the San Bernardino attacks, and also unearthed in the WikiLeaks document dump, topic 47 is devoted to “Should we call this Islamic terrorism?” Nowhere in the suggested seven-point answer does “Islamic terrorism” make an appearance. Instead, it’s suggested that Clinton call the enemy “radical jihadists.”
See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections. See Predictions Map →
Point seven states: “Radical jihadists underestimate us. We won’t turn on each other or turn on our principles. We will keep our country safe and strong, free and tolerant. And we will defeat those who threaten us.”
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has made a concerted effort to note that Clinton and President Obama don’t use Trump’s preferred descriptive term, “Radical Islamic terrorism.” Obama held a lengthy press conference earlier this year to specifically address why he refused to link Islam and terrorism. But in the wake of the Orlando nightclub terror attack in June, and amid more Trump prodding, Clinton relented somewhat.
“Whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I’m happy to say either,” she said at the time. “I think they mean the same thing.”
The latest email release was the ninth day this month that emails from Podesta's account were revealed on WikiLeaks. So far, about 12,000 of 50,000 alleged emails have been released.
Hillary Clinton backers worried about Clinton Foundation scandals
Notable revelations in 9th WikiLeaks dump of Podesta emails |
Opinion columnist Brent Budowsky was chiefly concerned with the potential damage that could be caused by the publication of Peter Schweizer’s 2015 book “Clinton Cash,” emails show. The bestseller explored whether there was a relationship between donations made from foreign entities to The Clinton Foundation and the contracts that were approved by then-Secretary of State Clinton for foreign companies. Hillary Clinton has denied the allegations of quid pro quo.
“I have been vigorously criticizing the Schweizer book, but I absolutely believe the Clintons have a money problem, and they are not fully aware of the danger of this,” Brent Budowsky wrote in an April 26, 2015, email to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.
Budowsky warned that congressional Republicans could try to ensnare Clinton in “a long-term perjury trap and endless cycles of news stories.” He was also troubled the public could grow weary “talking about Clinton issues and may simply want to move on.”
“The net net of everything HRC has done since leaving the State Department is that her trust numbers have fallen dramatically,” Budowsky wrote.
Budowsky advised ending “ALL foreign donations to the foundation NOW.”
See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections. See Predictions Map →
“The views I express here represent the overwhelming majority of private views of Democrats I know, but I am not convinced they have expressed this to her, as directly as I am expressing this here……” Budowsky wrote.
But it may have initially appeared to Podesta that Budowsky’s worries were unfounded. A May 2015 New York Times poll apparently found that controversies regarding The Clinton Foundation since the publication of Schweizer’s book were gaining little traction with the public. Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri sent an email to Podesta advising him of a conversation she recently had with an unnamed individual who had access to an early version of the Times poll and its accompanying story.
“He also said the foundation story wasn’t breaking through with real people,” Palmieri wrote.
But internal polls taken just two months later painted a different picture.
“Secretary Clinton’s top vulnerability tested in this poll is the attack that claims as Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over 20 percent of America's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over $140 million to the Clinton Foundation,” a June report from the Benenson Strategy Group concluded. “Half of all likely voters (53 percent) are less likely to support Clinton after hearing that statement and 17 percent are much less likely to support her after that statement.”
Sunday’s release was the ninth day of WikiLeaks’ steady disclosure of purported emails stolen from Podesta. The anti-secrecy website has said it has 50,000 of Podesta's emails, though only about 12,000 have been made public so far.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Fox Television Stations CEO Jack Abernethy and Senior Executive Vice President Bill Shine
FOX News co-presidents Jack Abernethy and Bill Shine |
Rupert Murdoch, Executive Chairman |
In making the announcement, Murdoch said, “Jack and Bill have been instrumental in FOX News’ continued dominance in the ratings and historic earnings performance. I am delighted they’ve each signed new deals, ensuring stability and leadership to help guide the network for years to come.”
Abernethy and Shine added, “We’re thrilled to have the opportunity to continue leading FOX News and FOX Business into the future and look forward to working alongside the incredible roster of talent, both on and off air, to make each network even more successful.”
Promoted to co-presidents in August, Abernethy and Shine oversee both FOX News Channel (FNC) and FOX Business Network (FBN), dividing responsibilities for all facets of the networks. While continuing to run FOX Television Stations (FTS), Mr. Abernethy manages all business components of FNC and FBN including finance, advertising sales and distribution units. Mr. Shine runs all programming and news functions of each network, including production, technical operations and talent management.
In his role as CEO of FOX Television Stations, Jack Abernethy oversees 28 owned and operated stations in the nation’s largest television markets, including WNYW/WWOR in New York, KTTV/KCOP in Los Angeles, KDFW/KDFI in Dallas, WTXF in Philadelphia, WTTG/WDCA in Washington, D.C. and KTVU/KICU in San Francisco. He also operates FOX Television Stations’ first-run development and the programming service, MyNetworkTV.
Prior to this position, Mr. Abernethy served as the Executive Vice President of FOX News, where he led development for long-term strategic and business plans for the network. His responsibilities at FOX News evolved to include oversight of finance, legal & business affairs and affiliate sales. Mr. Abernethy also spearheaded the launch of FOX News Radio to more than 500 stations across the country.
Bill Shine has served as Senior Executive Vice President of Programming for FNC and FBN since August 2014. In this capacity, he ran all programming and synergies for both networks. Previously, he oversaw all opinion programming and production as an Executive Vice President.
Mr. Shine notably launched a new primetime line-up in the fall of 2013, which included the debut of The Kelly File, now the second highest rated show in cable news behind only The O’Reilly Factor. He has led FNC’s powerhouse daytime and primetime programming to its number one status in cable news for 176 consecutive months, routinely topping basic cable for multiple quarters as well. Under his leadership of both networks, FNC is on track to have its highest rated year ever and FBN’s key programs continue to edge CNBC.
Mr. Shine began his career at FNC as producer of Hannity & Colmes when the network launched in October 1996. Under his direction, Hannity & Colmes’ ratings grew 200% and became a formidable competitor to CNN’s Larry King Live. He also served as the executive producer of The Pulse, an investigative newsmagazine on FOX Broadcasting from 2001 to 2003. Shine was named Network Executive Producer in December 2000 and was promoted to Vice President, Production in 2003.
About FOX News Channel
FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. A top five cable network, FNC has been the most-watched news channel in the country for more than 14 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre. On the web at www.foxnews.com
Fox News Channel Just Received TERRIBLE NEWS – BREAKING!
For more than a decade, Fox News Channel has attributed its success to conservatives tuning in for their programming. For years, hosts Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, and Sean Hannity have enjoyed incredible success with millions of viewers. They have always left competitors – CNN and MSNBC – in the dust, and went on to compete against large cable channels for impressive viewership numbers.
Several studies have confirmed: Conservatives no longer trust Fox News for “fair and balanced” coverage:
Since the first GOP presidential debate last August, Fox News Channel seems to have lost its perception mojo with its core right-leaning audience.Via Brand Index
By mid February, FNC’s perception by Republican adults 18 and over had reached its lowest point in more than three years, and has declined by approximately 50% since January of this year.
Coinciding with Trump’s rise to front-runner in the GOP presidential race, Fox News Channel has seen its perception by Republicans slide. In early August 2015, right after the first GOP debate aired on Fox News Channel,Trump went on a Twitter war with moderator Megyn Kelly, saying she “bombed” and calling her “a lightweight reporter.”
Their survey collects data while asking viewers if they have heard anything – positive or negative – about the Fox News Channel. The score range is between -100 and 100, with a score of 0 being neutral, it’s clear that Fox News is in major trouble:
On January 1, 2013, Fox News Channel’s Buzz score with Republican adults 18 and over was 49. By the first GOP debate last August, the score had dropped to 38. The downward momentum accelerated earlier this year when Fox News Channel’s score dropped from 36 on January 18th to 14 on February 12th. Trump declined to participate in FNC’s sanctioned GOP debate on January 28th. Fox News Channel’s current Buzz score is 17.Below shows the poll results from Republicans (in red) and Democrats (and blue)… The recent dip is quote pronounced:
Fox News was set to make money off the 2016 presidential campaigns and down-ticket races, as their viewers are so conservative that advertising on that channel is an effective use of resources for many campaigns. But if those viewers turn off Fox News because they can no longer trust the network, that is bad for Fox News’ bottom line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...