Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Home Blog Page 18

Parking politics—a war on drivers or a step toward safer streets?

The ongoing global push for climate initiatives has sparked heated debates over their true intent and impact. Among the most contentious measures is the perceived assault on private vehicle ownership. Many argue that behind the lofty rhetoric of combating climate change lies a concerted effort to erode personal freedoms—starting with our parking spaces. The latest parking restrictions in cities like San Francisco are emblematic of a broader trend, raising concerns about whether this is a war against drivers or a legitimate effort to promote safety and sustainability.

Parking woes and the climate agenda

For decades, cars have symbolized freedom and personal mobility. However, recent policies—from vehicle emission restrictions to city planning that prioritizes pedestrian zones—have sparked criticism. Central to this backlash is the belief that global elites, often working through entities like the United Nations, are orchestrating an agenda to create car-free cities under the guise of fighting climate change.

Removing parking spaces, critics argue, isn’t just an inconvenience; it’s a calculated move to make driving impractical and punitive. Cities worldwide have begun replacing parking spots with bike lanes, bus-only corridors, and pedestrian walkways. While these changes aim to promote greener transportation options, many citizens feel excluded from the decision-making process.

The case of “Daylighting” in California

The new “daylighting” law in California underscores this tension. By prohibiting parking within 20 feet of intersections to improve pedestrian visibility, cities like San Francisco are losing thousands of parking spots. While advocates like Jodie Medeiros, Executive Director of Walk San Francisco, emphasize the measure’s life-saving potential, drivers feel the sting of yet another restriction on their mobility.

“I live in a dense area, and this law makes finding parking even harder,” said John Goins, a San Francisco resident. He believes the measure disproportionately impacts urban drivers who already struggle with limited space. Critics argue that the law lacks nuance—failing to differentiate between large SUVs that obstruct views and smaller vehicles that don’t pose the same hazard.

The law’s implementation also leaves much to be desired. With no dedicated funding for repainting curbs or removing obsolete parking meters, the burden falls on drivers to navigate unclear rules—at the risk of incurring fines.

A war of convenience or necessity?

Proponents of these measures argue that prioritizing pedestrian safety and reducing car dependency are essential for sustainable cities. Yet, skeptics see a more insidious motive: a war against the everyday driver. Removing parking spaces, increasing fines, and promoting public transit, they contend, are part of a broader strategy to discourage private transport. This not only limits individual freedom but also hits low-income communities hardest, as they are less likely to afford alternatives like electric vehicles or rideshares.

Moreover, the broader implications of such policies cannot be ignored. When drivers are forced to park illegally or spend excessive time circling for spaces, it fuels frustration, not environmental change. For many, the car remains a necessity—not a luxury. Parents shuttling kids, small business owners making deliveries, and workers commuting long distances all depend on reliable access to their vehicles.

A path forward: balance, not extremes

Climate-conscious urban planning and private transport are not mutually exclusive. Policies must balance safety, environmental goals, and the practical realities of modern life. Measures like daylighting, while well-intentioned, should be implemented with input from communities, considering their unique needs and challenges. For example:

  • Targeted rules: Tailor restrictions to vehicle size and street conditions, instead of blanket bans.
  • Incentives over penalties: Provide incentives for eco-friendly behaviors, such as subsidized electric vehicles or discounted transit passes, rather than relying solely on fines.
  • Public engagement: Involve residents in urban planning to ensure new policies align with local realities.

The parking wars in California are a microcosm of a larger battle over the future of transportation. While safety and sustainability are vital, these goals must not come at the expense of citizens’ autonomy and livelihoods. Governments must tread carefully, balancing the urgency of climate action with the everyday needs of those they serve. Anything less risks alienating the very people whose support is essential for lasting change.

The road ahead is clear: collaboration, not coercion, is the key to a sustainable and equitable future.

-With contribution by ABC7News report.

spot_img

UK weather agency accused of ‘inventing’ temperature data to push climate change narrative

Chenies, Buckinghamshire, Reino Unido - 11.09.23: cartel del radar meteorológico de la Oficina Meteorológica con un radomo estilo pelota de golf. -- Chenies, Buckinghamshire, UK - 09.11.23: Sign for the Met Office Weather Radar with a golf ball-style Radome

Following Freedom of Information requests to the Met Office and diligent field work, citizen journalist Ray Sanders has discovered that 103 stations out of 302 sites supplying temperature averages do not exist

por Chris Morrison

Shocking evidence has emerged that points to the U.K. Met Office inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather stations. The explosive allegations have been made by citizen journalist Ray Sanders and sent to the new Labour Science Minister Peter Kyle MP. Following a number of Freedom of Information requests to the Met Office and diligent field work visiting individuals stations, Sanders has discovered that 103 stations out of 302 sites supplying temperature averages do not exist. “How would any reasonable observer know that the data was not real and simply ‘made up’ by a Government agency,” asks Sanders. He calls for an “open declaration” of likely inaccuracy of existing published data, “to avoid other institutions and researchers using unreliable data and reaching erroneous conclusions.”

In his home county of Kent, Sanders charges that four of the eight sites identified by the Met Office, namely Dungeness, Folkestone, Dover and Gillingham – which all produce rolling temperature averages to the second decimal place of a degree – are “fiction.” Sanders notes that there has been no weather station at Dungeness since 1986. The Daily Sceptic is able to confirm that none of the four stations appear in the list of Met sites with a classification from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). The Met Office directs online inquiries about Dover to the ”nearest climate station” at Dover Harbour (Beach) and provides a full set of rolling 30-year averages. According to Met Office co-ordinates, the site is on Dover beach as the Google Earth photo below shows. It seems unlikely that any scientific organisation would site a temperature monitoring station that is likely to be submerged on a regular basis. Who is running this station on the beach, have accurate records been kept for 30 years and why is it not listed under the 380 sites that are given a WMO rating?

Of the 302 sites quoted, Sanders notes that the Met Office “declined to advise me” exactly how or where the alleged “data” were derived for these 103 non-existent sites.

The practice of “inventing” temperature data from non-existent stations is a controversial issue in the United States where the local weather service NOAA has been charged with fabricating data for more than 30 percent of its reporting sites. Data are retrieved from surrounding stations and the resulting averages are given an “E” for estimate. “The addition of the ghost station data means NOAA’s monthly and yearly reports are not representative of reality,” says meteorologist Anthony Watts. “If this kind of process were used in a court of law, then the evidence would be thrown out as being polluted,” he added.

In its historical data section, the Met Office lists a number of sites with long records of temperature data. Lowestoft provides records going back to 1914 but it closed in 2010. Since that date the figures have been complied on an estimated basis. The stations at Nairn Druim, Paisley and Newton Rigg are similarly closed but still reporting estimated monthly data. “Why would any scientific organisation feel the need to publish what can only be described as fiction?” asks Sanders. “No scientific purpose can possibly be served by fabrication,” he suggests.

It is possible that the Met Office has a reasonable scientific explanations for the way it collects temperature data. Temperature calculation is an imprecise science but concerns have mounted because the data are being used for overtly political purposes to promote the Net Zero fantasy. Alarmists claim that very small temperature rises can make a large climatic difference. To whip up global fear, temperature figures supposedly compiled with an accuracy to one hundredth of a degree centigrade are quoted from sources such as the Met Office and NOAA. To date, the Met Office has been silent over the gathering storm surrounding its figures and the organisation refuses to return the calls of the Daily Sceptic.

Sanders refers to another large temperature measurement problem at the Met Office surrounding the WMO classification of its sites. Almost eight in 10 sites are rated in junk classes 4 and 5 with possible “uncertainties” of 2°C and 5°C respectively. This means, notes Sanders, that they are not suitable for climate data reporting purposes according to international standards which the Met Office was party to establishing. Only 52 Met Office stations, or a paltry 13.7 percent, are in Class 1 and 2 with no suggested margin of error. Actually, mark that down by at least one. In his travels, Sanders pointed out the possible heat corruptions at Class 1 Hastings and this site has now been dropped to Class 4. The Met Office is said to have confirmed that the default classification for stations is set at Class 1, “unless manually adjusted.”

The Daily Sceptic has investigated the poor siting of many Met Office stations with obvious heat corruptions making a mockery of attempts to measure the naturally occurring air temperature. Sanders lists the problems of many of these unsuitable sites including those placed in walled kitchen gardens and botanical gardens specifically designed to produce artificially increased temperatures and microclimates. Other unsuitable sites include in or near car parks, airports, domestic gardens, sewage and water treatment plants, electricity sub-stations and solar farms.

Sanders has an interesting take on the recent closure of many rural temperature measuring sites. In 1974 there were 32 operational sites in Kent, but this has now fallen to seven. The switch to new electrically-operated platinum resistance thermometers required a reliable electricity supply and data communication. Many rural sites were closed down because such facilities were not available in the early days of automation. But by eliminating cooler recording sites from the overall data record, this left predominantly urbanised sites to cause an unrepresentative temperature uplift from the slewed averages. “Statistical sleight of hand (however inadvertent it may have been) produced inaccurate historic misrepresentation,” observes Sanders.

In his open letter to Peter Kyle MP, Sanders states that he has demonstrated with hard evidence that the Met Office is “clearly fabricating” data. In addition, it is failing to meet high standards of scientific integrity and is not producing reliable or accurate data for climate reporting purposes from a network of poorly sited and inadequately maintained locations. Peter Kyle is the Minister responsible for the Met Office and has yet to respond to Sanders’s allegations. Ray Sanders has done an excellent research job in providing new and highly relevant details in what is becoming a significant scientific scandal. To date, despite repeated requests, the Met Office has refused to make any comment and defend its own temperature measurements and calculations. While the silence in Government, Parliament and the Met Office, aided by a total lack of interest in the mainstream media, is maintained, it can only be assumed that the interests of the Net Zero promotion override any concerns about the underlying scientific data.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Sceptic.

spot_img

How prepared is Mexico for a mass US deportation operation?

Es probable que México reciba un número significativo de deportados durante el segundo mandato de Trump como presidente, si no los millones que ha prometido expulsar. -- Mexico is likely to receive a significant number of deportees during Trump's second term as president, if not the millions he has promised to expel.

by Mexico News Daily

United States President-elect Donald Trump confirmed on Monday that he plans to use the U.S. military to carry out his proposed mass deportation operation, an initiative that could result in millions of immigrants being sent to Mexico.

On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump shared a Nov. 8 post by the president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, who, citing “reports,” wrote that the incoming Trump administration is “prepared to declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program.”

The Times also reported that “one major impediment to the vast deportation operation that the Trump team has promised in his second term is that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, lacks the space to hold a significantly larger number of detainees than it currently does.”

However, it noted that Stephen Miller, Trump’s top immigration policy adviser, said in late 2023 that military funds would be used to build “vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers” for immigrants as their cases progressed and they waited to be flown to other countries.

The news website Axios reported that “Trump’s mass deportations are expected to impact roughly 20 million families” across the United States.

There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, a significant number of whom are Mexican. Former foreign affairs minister and current Environment Minister Alicia Bárcena said in February that there were 5.3 million undocumented Mexicans living in the United States.

In addition to Mexicans, the United States could attempt to deport nationals of other countries, such as Venezuelans, Nicaraguans and Cubans, to Mexico.

Citizens of those nations “are sometimes unable to be deported to their origin countries for diplomatic reasons,” The New York Times reported.

Mexico ‘must be ready’ for mass deportations, but is it?

Mariana Aparicio Ramírez, a National Autonomous University (UNAM) academic and member of the Observatory of the Mexico-United States Binational Relationship, said in an interview with the newspaper El Financiero that “Mexico must be ready for arrests [of immigrants in the United States] and the mass return of Mexicans and other latinos.”

“Trump has the support of the citizens and that means that what is politically incorrect can be politically viable,” she said.

President Claudia Sheinbaum has pledged to “defend” Mexican migrants at risk of deportation, and advised them to seek advice or assistance at Mexican consulates in the United States.

Sheinbaum, who spoke to Trump by telephone two days after his Nov. 5 election victory, hopes that Mexican officials can meet with the incoming president’s transition team before he takes office on Jan. 20 to put forward a case against mass deportations.

The United States economy would inevitably suffer from the deportation of a large number of workers, a point Mexican officials would likely raise with members of Trump’s team.

Nevertheless, it appears likely that Mexico will receive a significant number of deportees during Trump’s second term as president, if not the millions he has promised to expel.

As Mexico News Daily reported earlier this month in an article on what a second Trump presidency will mean for Mexico, the Mexican economy — currently slowing — could struggle to provide jobs for large numbers of deportees who suddenly find themselves in Mexico after being uprooted from their lives in the U.S.

The Washington Post reported last week that migrant advocates in Mexico “are alarmed at what’s coming,” noting that they have said that “sending millions of jobless Mexicans back to towns they left years ago could create chaos in areas already suffering from poverty and organized crime.”

The Post spoke to two men who run migrant shelters on the Mexico-U.S. border for an article it headlined “Trump promised mass deportations. Mexico isn’t ready.”

“Neither the shelters nor the border area nor Mexico are ready for this,” Héctor Silva, a Protestant pastor who runs the Senda de Vida migrant shelter in Reynosa, Tamaulipas, told the Post.

Migrant shelters in Mexico’s border cities already struggle to accommodate migrants who make the long and dangerous journey through the country in their attempt to reach the United States.

Francisco Gallardo, a Catholic priest who runs the Casa del Migrante shelter in Matamoros, another border city in Tamaulipas, told the Post that “no one is prepared for deportations” of the magnitude Trump has spoken about.

“Neither the governments nor the civil society organizations,” he said.

Adam Isacson, a migration analyst and director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), said that deportees to Mexico “will be thrown into a new kind of poverty” because they won’t be able to find jobs with wages comparable to those they earned in the United States.

That situation “will make them more desperate,” he said.

Deportees could even be tempted to work for organized crime groups in Mexico, one of the largest employers in the country, according to a 2023 study.

One person who is less concerned about Mexico’s capacity (or lack thereof) to absorb large numbers of deportees is Arturo Rocha, a former senior immigration official in Mexico.

“We are prepared to receive large numbers; we have done this before,” he told the Post. “But the key question is, how massive will massive deportations be?”

Sheinbaum, who also faces the task of defusing Trump’s tariff threats, appears optimistic — or at least hopeful — that the number of immigrants deported won’t be as high as the incoming U.S. president has said it will be.

Asked last week about the potential impact of deportations on remittances to Mexico, Sheinbaum simply said, “We hope there is no impact,” i.e. that no, or virtually no, Mexican immigrants are deported.

For his part, Trump’s incoming “border czar” Thomas Homan said in October that deportations during the second Trump administration wouldn’t be “a mass sweep of neighborhoods” to detain undocumented immigrants.

“It’s not going to be building concentration camps. I’ve read it all. It’s ridiculous. It’ll be concentrated. They’ll be targeted arrests,” he said.

With reports from Axios, The New York Times, El Financiero and The Washington Post

spot_img

‘A pivotal moment?’ Why many Latino voters in California chose Trump

Adrian Jurado, un pintor, pinta una pared para un negocio en el centro de Los Banos el 7 de noviembre de 2024. -- Adrian Jurado, a painter, paints a wall for a business in downtown Los Banos on Nov. 7, 2024. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local.

In part due to economic and border security concerns, Latinos in California appear to have moved toward Donald Trump. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re abandoning the Democratic Party

by Yue Stella Yu

CallMatters

MERCED – At first, Marlyn Huesgew Mendoza registered as a Democrat. In 2020, she re-registered as a Republican and voted for Donald Trump for president, as she did this election.

The reason is simple: It was in 2018 — when he was in office — that her family was finally able to buy a house in Merced. The same year, the Trump administration approved her Guatemalan mother’s citizenship application — one that had been rejected under President Barack Obama, she said. The approval letter had Trump’s signature on it.

“She’s like: ‘Look who adopted me,’” said Huesgew Mendoza, a 25-year-old graduate from University of California Merced and an administrative assistant at the Merced County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

“Once he came in and it was just so easy for us, I was like, ‘Huh, he might not be as scary as people may think.’”

Most — if not all — of California’s 12 Latino-majority counties gave a larger share of their vote to Trump compared to 2020, and counties with a higher share of Latino population swung further toward Trump, according to a CalMatters analysis of state voting data. Trump also expanded his vote share in most other counties in California.

But does that signal a rightward shift among Latinos and a departure from the Democratic Party in California?

Absent conclusive demographic data on votes cast in this election, pollsters disagree over how much their surveys show Latinos shifting toward Trump. The AP VoteCast, which surveyed more than 120,000 voters nationwide in English and Spanish, shows 55 percent of Latino respondents supported Vice President Kamala Harris, while 43 percent backed Trump. In 2020, Joe Biden won 63 percent of the vote among Latino respondents versus Trump’s 35 percent.

But almost all polls reached the same conclusion: Latino support has grown for Trump.

A mix of factors contributed to the apparent shift: Inflation blamed on an unpopular administration, concern over border security, resistance to Democrats’ messaging on cultural issues and Harris’ lack of appeal, according to pollsters, experts, political consultants and a dozen Latinos in the Central Valley who spoke to CalMatters.

How much other Republicans gained from the growing support for Trump remains to be seen. Nationwide, Democrats won four of the five battleground U.S. Senate seats and declared victory on abortion rights ballot measures in Arizona, Missouri and Nevada.

In California, with 88 percent of the estimated vote counted, Trump has received slightly fewer votes than Republican U.S. Senate candidate Steve Garvey. And in some counties within the state’s toss-up congressional districts, Democratic candidates appear to be outperforming Harris. In Merced County, which falls entirely into the 13th Congressional District, Democrat Adam Gray has received 5 percentage points more of the vote than Harris, with nearly 80% of the votes counted.

For Gray, who is narrowly trailing Republican Rep. John Duarte, this election does not reflect voters flocking toward Republicans.

“What you want to call a rightward shift, I would call a rejection of more of the same. Voters are saying … ‘We want you guys to change,’” he told CalMatters. “I think people want to see us get back to the basics, and if I’m elected to Congress, I’m going to do just that.”

But Mike Madrid, a longtime GOP consultant with an expertise in Latino politics, called this election a “five-alarm fire” for Democrats, who he said have gradually lost support among Latino voters since 2012. He pointed to a pair of Pew Research Center surveys, which suggested Latino support for the Democratic presidential candidate dropped from 71 percent for Obama in 2012 to 59 percent for Biden in 2020.

In California, a majority of Latinos have firmly supported Democrats after former GOP Gov. Pete Wilson championed Proposition 187, which was approved by voters in 1994 to deny benefits to undocumented immigrants but was blocked by the courts. But that support could erode as cost of living increases, alienating working-class residents, many of whom are Latinos, Madrid said.

“I think this is a pivotal moment. I think it’s as significant as the Prop. 187 moment in 1994, except it was a wake-up call for Republicans,” Madrid said.

But some experts warned it may be too early to tell if the past three presidential elections are a referendum on the Democratic Party, given that Democrats have won toss-up statewide races in battleground states and have won every statewide race in California since 2006.

This election is an outlier, with Biden withdrawing from the race and passing the torch to Harris so late in the campaign, said Roberto Suro, a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California.

“You’ve got to put an asterisk on this election, or actually, multiple asterisks. Trump as a candidate is a giant asterisk,” Suro said. “Trying to say we are seeing any kind of permanent realignment is a mistake.”

‘The bottom line is money’

Huesgew Mendoza isn’t alone in believing that her life changed for the better after Trump took office in 2017.

Sandra Izaguirre, a 34-year-old in-home caretaker from Lancaster in Los Angeles County, said she supported Obama in 2008, but not in 2012. Then a first-time mother working at a fast food restaurant, Izaguirre needed health care. Obamacare required bigger businesses to provide full-time employees health benefits or pay a fee, so Izaguirre said her employer just cut her hours to disqualify her.

“I wasn’t improving. If anything, I was hurting more,” she said. “I just wanted a change already.”

That drove her to vote for Trump in 2016. A year later, Izaguirre said, she was able to buy her first home.

But because she couldn’t work as an in-home caregiver during the COVID-19 pandemic, she said she almost defaulted on her house but was saved by a federal mortgage relief program approved on Trump’s watch. The economic downturn, mixed with the state’s failure to stop unemployment benefits fraud, was “a recipe for disaster,” she said.

Even economic concerns, however, weren’t enough to drive Izaguirre to the polls this November. But that’s not because she didn’t support Trump: She said her vote for him in deep-blue California would not have made a difference anyway.

But the economy is top of mind among Latino voters, as well as among voters overall, as polls have consistently shown throughout the 2024 campaign. Latino and Black Americans are the most likely to feel the pinch of high inflation compared to the overall population, according to a 2022 analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Latinos in California make up 40 percent of the state’s population but more than half of poor Californians, according to an analysis by the Public Policy Institute of California last year. The poverty rate among Latinos rose to 16.9 percent in fall 2023 compared to 13.5 percent in fall 2021, the analysis shows.

It’s a pain felt by Annissa Fragoso, a Merced insurance agent who voted for Harris this year. As a business owner, she said, she’s “struggling a lot with the insurance industry” and growing frustrated with state Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, a Democrat.

“The Latinos in the past were registered and supportive of the Democratic Party, but it has not been very supportive of us,” she said.

Fragoso, who lost in the March primary for the Merced County Board of Supervisors, said she spoke to a lot of Latino voters who saw Trump as an agent of change on the economy.

“The bottom line is money,” she said.

Adrian Jurado, a painter in Los Banos who said he never registered to vote since he believed he couldn’t make a difference, said that ever since the pandemic, there were fewer painting jobs because people weren’t willing to spend anymore. But when Trump was in office, he said, the economy seemed better.

“I’ve never had it like this,” he said. “It used to be that you could put a little bit away. I wasn’t able to put nothing away.”

While consumer prices have climbed by 20 percent over the past four years, average wage gains actually outpaced inflation, according to an analysis by the NBC News. But that does not match people’s perception, as expenses keep rising, the analysis says. Many voters frustrated with the economy embraced Trump, even as economists warn that Trump’s proposed tariffs could hike prices even further nationwide as well as in California.

But voters may be punishing incumbents rather than voting for Republicans, said Rodrigo Dominguez-Villegas, research director at the Latino Policy & Politics Institute of UCLA.

“You get reminded of those high prices every single day because you are buying something every single day,” he said. “High inflation was a global phenomenon. It was not unique to the United States. But who happened to be in power when it happened? It was Biden and Harris.”

Julián Castro, CEO of the Latino Community Foundation, said Trump’s win resembles the victories of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George W. Bush in 2000: All three campaigned against a Democratic administration that “faced headwinds,” he said.

“In 1980, the economy was similar to 2024, at least in people’s minds,” Castro said. “In 2000, after eight years of Democratic governance, there was a pent-up demand for a change.”

But even though they are frustrated at the economy under the Biden administration, most Latinos who spoke to CalMatters said it doesn’t mean they will continue to vote Republican.

“I’ll just see how it goes in the (next) four years,” Izaguirre said.

‘That’s not me’

Trump has promised to conduct the largest deportation in American history, targeting immigrants in the country illegally, with or without criminal records.

But Izaguirre, as well as other Latino Trump supporters who spoke to CalMatters, said they do not want undocumented immigrants who have been working in the country for years to be deported. The majority of them supported providing legal status for those immigrants — a policy Democrats have championed.

Trump’s victory has terrified some migrants at the border and undocumented immigrants in California.

“I feel worried because I don’t know what the future will be for us people who don’t have documents, and we work here,” an undocumented immigrant in Delano told CalMatters in Spanish. CalMatters is not naming him due to his concern for his safety.

But others said Trump’s mass deportation plan would not touch them.

“He said he was going to deport people who have a bad record. That’s not me. I don’t have a bad record,” said a farmworker in Stanislaus County who spoke to CalMatters on the condition of anonymity and who said she came to the country by paying off a “coyote” — a term for smugglers — 20 years ago.

Huesgew Mendoza likened Trump’s mass deportation to yelling fire in the theater. “It just sounds too scary, too major,” she said.

And Aaron Barajas, 46, who voted for Trump this year in his first presidential election, slammed policies that would “rip people apart from their family,” arguing those who are already established in the United States should be allowed to obtain legal documents. But he distinguished between those who are already living here and those who wish to come in, arguing Trump merely wants to “bring people into our country, but do it the right way.”

It appears Trump’s rhetoric on immigration has not deterred Latinos from voting for him, unlike the assumption Democrats have made following the passage of Prop. 187, Suro said.

“The hypothesis was that, when confronted with threats to the immigrant population and xenophobic rhetoric and harsh exclusionary measures toward immigrants … you would alienate Latinos,” he said. “Trump has very vividly disproven that.”

That’s in part because of “scapegoating” by Trump and his allies, who targeted migrants “physically at the border” for mass deportation, Castro said. “They cleaved the recent arrivals from people who have been here for a long time, and that’s why I think you hear people express confidence that he doesn’t mean them.”

Another factor could be the rapidly changing demographics among Latinos in California, as more young, U.S.-born Latinos become eligible to vote, experts say.

“Overall, fewer Latinos are as close as they used to be to the immigrant experience,” said Mindy Romero, founder and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC. “How close you are to the immigrant experience can directly affect how you view policy on internal (immigration efforts) versus border (immigration).”

The anti-immigrant sentiment could even be appealing to some Latino voters who are “fueled by a deep desire to assimilate or to be seen as belonging to a larger American culture and to differentiate themselves from those who are seen as outsiders,” said Dominguez-Villegas at UCLA.

A referendum on Democrats?

While it’s too early to draw firm conclusions from the election, the takeaway for Democrats is that they must be better at reaching Latino voters, something both major parties have done poorly in California, political consultants say.

California Democrats are “clearly in danger of losing Latino support long term” due to “bad branding” that lasted for more than a decade, Madrid said.

But, he added, “there’s very little evidence that suggests Latinos are becoming more conservative. There’s a lot suggesting they are becoming more populist.”

Michael Gómez Daly, a senior strategist with the progressive California Donor Table, said he’s unsure how best to counter the backlash Democrats faced from voters hurt by inflation, stressing that voters may remember Trump with “rose-colored glasses.”

However, he said, Trump proved “inspiring” among Latino voters even with his “problematic” rhetoric. Living in the toss-up 41st Congressional District where GOP Rep. Ken Calvert narrowly defeated Democrat Will Rollins, Gómez Daly said he saw conservative YouTube ads targeting young men all the time.

“I think Democrats need to recognize the economic situation that much of inland California is facing and speak to those problems and give hope to people,” he said. “I think that was lacking.”

CalMatters’ data reporter Jeremia Kimelman contributed to this story.

spot_img

Intergenerational Art Exhibition – Danilo and his Orchestra – Las Migas present their new album

La Migas

by Magdy Zara

The Sausalito Art Center is back with its innovative exhibits, this time sponsoring an Intergenerational Art Exhibit, in which the participating artists are over 60 years old and under 12.

The featured young artists are students at the Martin Luther King Jr. Academy, while the featured older artists live or have a studio in California.

All the works that will be exhibited were produced in the community by the inspiring residents.

The exhibit will be open starting this Nov. 14 and will conclude on the 24th of the same month, from Wednesday to Sunday, during the regular hours of the SCA, from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The organizers of the event invite the community in general to an artists’ reception with music by the Northern Mother Brothers, to be held this Sunday, Nov. 17 from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.

SCA is located at 750 Bridgeway in Sausalito.

Danilo and his Orchestra perform on a salsa Sunday

Danilo and his Universal Orchestra, along with Robert Santana and Norine Rodriguez, will perform every Sunday to offer Santa Clara salseros a pleasant moment that will include live salsa classes.

John Rodríguez, coordinator of the event, reported that the doors open at 5 p.m., the salsa classes begin at 5:30 p.m., while the live band begins its concert at 6:30 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.

In addition, there will be DJs Candela and Antonio playing the best Salsa Dura, Cha Cha, Merengue, Mambo, Son and Bachata.

Tickets cost $10 at the door. Danilo and his Orquesta Universal will be performing at Mama Kin, located at 374 South First Street in downtown San Jose Santa Clara.

SOMArts showcases 2024 Murphy & Cadogan Contemporary Art Awards

With an exhibition Curated by Kevin B. Chen, SOMArts Cultural Center partners with the San Francisco Foundation to present the 2024 Murphy & Cadogan Contemporary Art Awards Exhibition, a focused look at the future of the Bay Area’s visual arts.

The Jack K. and Gertrude Murphy Awards are presented to an MFA student of unusual caliber and great artistic promise. Edwin Anthony and Adalaine Boudreaux Cadogan experienced financial challenges as art students and understood the huge difference scholarships can make in the early phase of an artist’s career. Murphy and Cadogan scholarship recipients receive support for their MFA studies. All students benefit from participation in a professionally curated exhibition at the SOMArts Cultural Center and mentorship by curator Kevin B. Chen.

The 2024 Murphy & Cadogan Contemporary Art Awards Exhibition Honors 15 Emerging Artists Shaping the Future of the Arts in the Bay Area

This exhibition began on November 2 and ends on December 6 of this year. At the SOMArts Art Center located at 934 Brannan Street in San Francisco.

Disney Concerts presents Encanto: Music and Film for the Whole Family

Disney’s popular animated film Encanto comes to life in an interactive presentation and screening, organized by Disney Concerts, which is expected to be a perfect opportunity to share with the family.

La Banda de la Casita will be in charge of bringing to life the soundtrack of this film that tells the story of the Madrigal family, who live in a charming town in the mountains of Colombia.

All the children in this family have magical powers, with the exception of Mirabel, who discovers her own talents as she sets out to save her village from danger.

For this opportunity you can dress up as your favorite character and sing chart-topping hits like “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” and “Surface Pressure.”

The date is this Nov. 24, 2024, starting at 2 p.m., at Zellerbach Hall, UC Berkeley, located at the University’s headquarters.

Las Migas present their new album

As part of their tour of the United States, Las Migas, the talented female quartet that has been recognized worldwide for its flamenco and Mediterranean music, will be performing in San Francisco.

To present their most recent album and celebrate their nomination for the 2024 Latin Grammy in the category of Best Flamenco Album, Las Migas decided to conclude the year by touring the United States.

Rumberas, their latest album, presents different styles of rumba and pays tribute to iconic musical artists such as Rosario, Lola Flores or Celia Cruz.

The dance floor will be open all night with Carolina La Chispa, who will sing passionately alongside the twin guitars of Marta Robles and Alicia Grillo and the violin of Roser Loscos.

They have performed in over 50 countries, including the United States, India, France, Egypt, Mexico, Cuba, Italy, Hong Kong, and Morocco, making appearances on some of the world’s biggest stages.

In San Francisco, they will perform on Nov. 24 at 7 p.m., at Freight & Salvage, located at 2020 Addison Street Berkeley. Tickets are $29 and $49.

spot_img

Templo Mayor archaeological site reopens in Mexico City featuring new exhibit

El Templo Mayor estaba en el corazón de la vida política y religiosa mexica (azteca). -- The Templo Mayor was at the heart of Mexica (Aztec) political and religious life. (Daniel Augusto/Cuartoscuro)

by the El Reportero‘s staff and news services

The Templo Mayor archaeological zone, a sacred site in the heart of Mexico City containing remnants from the ancient metropolis of Tenochtitlán, has fully reopened to the public following extensive repairs to its roof, damaged by a rare hailstorm in 2021.

In conjunction with last week’s reopening, there is a new exhibition in the Templo Mayor Museum that includes more than 100 artifacts recently repatriated from the United States — among the more than 14,000 returned to Mexico during the six-year term of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

The items on display include stone, ceramic and organic materials that were recovered through an undercover operation by Homeland Security agents in the U.S., according to an Oct. 31 press release from Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH).

The centerpiece is the “Ce ozomatli” (one monkey) tombstone which was donated to López Obrador last year. The round stone piece, with shell and turquoise inlays, includes the date “ce ozomatli,” indicating a predisposition for crafts and manual labor for those born under this date on the Nahua calendar.

The updated roof — a restoration milestone achieved under a joint project of INAH and the Mexico City government — now shields the oldest remnants of the site, including the shrines dedicated to war and sun god Huitzilopochtli and rain and fertility god Tlaloc, dating back to approximately 1390 AD.

Part of a larger complex and city, the Templo Mayor (Great Temple) was at the center of the political and religious life of the Mexica (Aztec) society. The temple itself consisted of four pyramids and the two shrines where Huitzilopochtli and Tlaloc were venerated with elaborate pageantry and sacrificial offerings.

It was destroyed by Spanish invaders during the Conquest and fall of Tenochtitlán in 1521, and a Catholic cathedral was built with many of the same stones next to where it once stood. A key archeological finding in 1978 helped shed light on the site and the Mexica civilization.

Today the museum includes more than 3,000 important artifacts of Mexica culture.

The new roof installation required careful handling due to the site’s fragile relics and limited accessibility within Mexico City’s historic center.

“The site has not only improved physically, but has regained its relevance in the cultural narrative of the country and, above all, of Mexico City,” INAH Director Diego Prieto Hernández said in a press release. “The preservation of heritage is not limited to techniques and methods. It also involves understanding the meaning that these places have [within] the richness of our history.”

The Oct. 31 reopening also included a Day of the Dead altar dedicated to the states of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Puebla and Veracruz.

Officials said the museum — the third-most visited INAH museum in Mexico City with an average of more than 500,000 visits per year — anticipates a renewed wave of visitors. The exhibit of repatriated items is open daily except Mondays, and will run through February 2025.

With reports from Infobae, El País and La Jornada.

spot_img

California educational leaders reassure students amid Trump policies

by El Reportero staff and Ed Source reports

After Donald Trump’s electoral victory, education leaders in California have intensified their efforts to reassure vulnerable students, particularly those from immigrant, personal identity, Black, and Latino communities, who fear the return of restrictive policies similar to those from his first term.

Alejandra López, a political science student at Cal Poly Pomona, reflected the fear of many: “I was really upset… I never thought I’d see a second term,” she said, considering the deportation threats her parents, undocumented immigrants from Mexico, face.

Amid this uncertainty, state leaders assure that students’ rights remain protected in California. Xilonin Cruz-González, deputy director of Californians Together, emphasized that there are legal protections for immigrants, such as Assembly Bill 699 of 2017, which defends immigrant students against discrimination and limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Moreover, the historic 1982 Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe guarantees all children, regardless of their immigration status, access to public education. State Attorney General Rob Bonta pledged to defend these rights through litigation if necessary, preparing for any reduction in protections under a second Trump term.

Concerns have also been raised about students with disabilities and those whose personal identity experiences do not fit traditional norms. Megan Stanton-Trehan, a lawyer for Disability Rights California, warned that while state protections remain in place, the impact of federal changes will affect local communities. “It is more important than ever to focus on the needs of these students,” she emphasized.

In response to the growing anxiety, California’s public higher education systems issued a statement reaffirming their commitment to inclusion. “We understand there is a lot of uncertainty,” the statement said, underscoring the state’s commitment to diversity and student protection.

Educators are also mobilizing to support their students. “A teacher told me, ‘I feel like I have to protect my students,'” shared Lindsey Bird, a teacher coach. She reflected the widespread sentiment among educators: “Teachers are heartbroken but ready to defend their students’ rights.”

Despite the widespread anxiety, California remains a stronghold of support, ensuring that all students, regardless of their background, feel welcomed and protected.

spot_img

Mexico warns how it will respond if Trump imposes tariffs on its products

Marcelo Ebrard

by El Reportero‘s wire services

Marcelo Ebrard insisted that the tax policy is inconvenient, in the first instance, for the US economy

The Secretary of Economy of Mexico, Marcelo Ebrard, warned that if the president-elect of the US, Donald Trump, decides to impose a 25 percent tariff on Mexican products, his country will respond with an identical measure, which will be highly detrimental to the US economy.

“If you apply 25 percent tariffs to me, then I have to react with tariffs and I am your main importer, along with Canada. So, if you put tariffs, […] we are going to have to impose tariffs. And what does that lead to? Well, to a huge cost for the North American economy,” said the senior official, in an interview given on Monday to a local radio station.

He also assured that although the Republican magnate could “think about and put on the table” that decision, his “main promoters” would not support it, given the high economic impact of the measure. “Structurally we have conditions to go in favor of Mexico,” he added.

When detailing the concrete consequences of the imposition of taxes on Mexican goods, he mentioned that this will translate into an immediate increase in prices.

“That 25 percent translates to you the next day – I am not talking about the medium term – in an increase in prices in the US,” he explained, so it can be considered as “an important limitation” that cannot be omitted, despite the fact that the Mexican economy is “20 times smaller” than the American one.

Ebrard called to remember that it is not the first time that Trump threatens to tax Mexican products, if measures are not taken to stop migratory flows. In fact, the Republican had already tried, without success, to get Mexico to sign a “safe third country” treaty, which implied that all migrants who arrived on US soil without complying with the legal requirements would be returned to the neighboring country, which was rejected by all instances of the Administration of the then president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

“We took measures, we regulated that flow or helped regulate that flow, but we do not accept that treaty,” he said.

https://mf.b37mrtl.ru/actualidad/public_video/2024.11/6733c4b3e9ff71777f0c359d.mp4?download=1

In other unrelated news

Bukele’s recommendation to reform the Costa Rican penitentiary system

Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves said that his Salvadoran counterpart has given them “key messages”

The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, assured this Tuesday that “the penal system must be reformed” and “must be completely controlled by the Government” in Costa Rica, where he closes a two-day visit today.

“Clearly prisoners in Costa Rica have many more rights than in El Salvador,” said Bukele after visiting, together with his Costa Rican counterpart, Rodrigo Chaves, the La Reforma Penitentiary Center, one of the main prisons in the country.

He then said that “it would be immoral, unethical and lacking in all justice for a prisoner to live on more” than what a citizen with a minimum wage and an average family earns. “The maximum rate should be how a working Costa Rican earns, who pays taxes to support the prisons,” he said.

Once Chaves confirmed that the State currently pays much more than that, Bukele reacted: “In other words, they are spending almost two minimum wages per inmate. It is an injustice for good Costa Ricans.”

At the end of a press conference, a journalist asked Bukele about any recommendations for the Costa Rican model and the head of state insisted that “the penitentiary system should be made less permissive,” especially because of the “access to the outside that prisoners have.”

“It is a fairly permissive regime with regard to intimate visits,” responded the Salvadoran president. “It cannot be that [a prisoner] sees a different young lady every time,” he added.

In turn, Chaves said that Bukele has given them “key messages” to resolve the security problem. “The gentleman has enormous wisdom and credibility to speak to the people of Costa Rica,” he added.

spot_img

2024 elections in San Francisco: A change of direction and new hopes

Marvin Ramírez, editor

The 2024 elections in San Francisco have revealed clear winners and losers, marking the beginning of a new era of change. Mayor London Breed lost her position, becoming one of the biggest losers. Her administration, which attempted to tackle issues such as crime, shoplifting, and homelessness, was not enough for the citizens, who saw these problems worsen. Part of this rejection is due to controversial policies such as Proposition 37, which reduces penalties for thefts under $950, creating the perception of permissiveness toward crime. This approach weighed on the public’s perception, seeing her as too lenient. Breed hands over the position to Daniel Lurie, the newly elected mayor, who arrives promising a renewed approach and concrete solutions.

Lurie, with a strong background in social and philanthropic work, is known for founding and leading Tipping Point Community, a nonprofit organization that fights poverty in the Bay Area. Heir to the Levy fortune, Lurie has demonstrated leadership skills and experience in organizing community projects. His profile has generated expectations among San Franciscans, who hope for clear solutions to homelessness, crime, and public service efficiency.

However, like previous leaders, Lurie has avoided mentioning the issue of disappearing parking meters in the city, a topic affecting residents and business owners. While politicians focus on macro issues, small business owners and their customers face growing parking problems. It is forgotten that a prosperous city depends on commerce, and commerce depends on access to parking. In San Francisco, the reduction of parking spaces and increased fees not only complicate life for residents but also deter those wanting to support local businesses.

Nationally, the elections also brought surprises. Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency, which has generated division and unity across the country. However, in San Francisco, a progressive city, Kamala Harris emerged as the winner of the “symbolic presidency” of the city, surpassing Trump with 307,774 votes to his 58,555 in the area. Although this result has no real implications, it represents a relief for residents, who see Harris as a reflection of their values and aspirations.

Locally, another point of interest was the campaign of Roberto Hernández, an activist and cultural advocate, who was seeking a seat on the District 9 Board of Supervisors. Hernández, known for his work promoting Latino identity and pride, as well as for organizing the famous (and secular) San Francisco Carnival, aspired to represent his community. However, his style and connection with the “Cultural Neighborhood,” homeboys, and lowriders did not manage to garner enough votes outside of his traditional followers. Although he did not win the position, his popularity could strengthen his role as a defender of his community’s interests, especially in the fight against parking policies affecting residents, particularly him, as he owns several cars.

Parking has been another point of controversy in San Francisco, with thousands of parking meters disappearing and the announcement that around 14,000 additional spaces will be converted into no-parking zones. The city expects to generate additional revenue from this measure by fining drivers forced to park in these restricted areas and using the funds to hire more traffic officers. This plan has generated discontent among residents, especially those who frequent local restaurants and businesses. While the intention is to improve traffic flow and generate funds for the city, many believe it will negatively affect local businesses by discouraging visitors and creating a less consumer-friendly atmosphere.

The disconnect between these policies and residents’ needs is evident, and parking is likely

to become a point of pressure for the new local government. San Franciscans hope that Lurie and his team will find a balance between raising funds and the well-being of the community. San Francisco, known for its innovative spirit and social commitment, needs a policy that allows for economic development without disadvantaging residents.

In this context, this year’s elections have brought new faces and renewed expectations. Lurie has the opportunity to demonstrate that his philanthropic experience can translate into effective policies for a complex and diverse city. San Francisco requires a pragmatic approach that is not afraid to challenge external pressures limiting private mobility in the name of globalist policies.

The challenge for Lurie will be great, and San Franciscans will be watching. The prosperity of San Francisco depends not only on being progressive or conservative but also on creating an environment where policies address the daily needs of its people: no tax increases, return the missing parking meters and create new ones, deter thieves with appropriate punishment, and house mentally ill homeless people safely.

spot_img

How the Biden-Harris admin pushed Russia into war with Ukraine

Vice President Kamala Harris and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Kamala Harris blames Russian President Vladimir Putin for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, but Biden-Harris foreign policy and eastward NATO expansion have contributed significantly to the historical context of this war

by Bob Marshall

In September, Vice President Kamala Harris stated several points at the White House as to how she would handle the Ukraine-Russia war: “I will work to ensure Ukraine prevails in this war.… Putin started this war, and … Putin could set his sights on Poland, the Baltic states, and other NATO Allies.… [S]ome in my country … demand that Ukraine accept neutrality, and would require Ukraine to forego security relationships with other nations. These proposals are the same of those of Putin.”

But these are the same Biden-Harris tactics and policies that provoked war.

Harris blames Russian President Vladimir Putin for the war. But the proximate source of the Russia-Ukraine conflict goes back beyond Putin to the breakup of the Soviet Empire and even earlier.

End of the Cold War

In late October 1989, the famed Berlin Wall as a dividing line between Socialist German Democratic Republic (GDR) and West Germany, called a “wall of mistrust” by then former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, was crumbling.

Obviously, Gorbachev, with almost 400,000 troops in East Germany could have stopped the reunification. But Western officials gave Russian leaders assurances there was nothing to worry about. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Gorbachev that NATO expansion would proceed, “not one inch eastward.” The next day, West German chancellor Helmut Kohl assured Gorbachev, “NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.”

The Los Angeles Times noted, “Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.… NATO’S widening umbrella doesn’t justify Putin’s … incursions in Ukraine or Georgia. Still, the evidence suggests that Russia’s protests have merit and that U.S. policy has contributed to current tensions in Europe.”

Documents at George Washington University testify to agreements made between Western leaders and Russian officials at this time – that western nations would not expand NATO to the East.

Boris Yeltsin was the first president of the Russian Federation from 1991 to 1999, coming to office immediately after Premier Gorbachev’s resignation with the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. In 1995, President Yeltsin met with President Clinton in St. Catherine’s Hall at the Kremlin.

Yeltsin said to Clinton, “I want to get a clear understanding of your idea of NATO expansion, because now I see nothing but humiliation for Russia if you proceed. How do you think it looks to us if one bloc continues to exist while the Warsaw Pact has been abolished? It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner, they ask. I ask it too. Why do you want to do this?”

When Clinton spoke to Yeltsin in 1995, there were 15 NATO member countries. When Clinton left office, there were 18.

Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion

In 2016, President Clinton’s former Defense Secretary Bill Perry said, “In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years … the United States deserves much of the blame.… Our first action … in a bad direction was when NATO started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia.”

Former CIA Director Robert Gates, who also served as Secretary of Defense for President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, opposed the policy of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”

In June 1997, 50 former senators, retired military officers, diplomats, and foreign policy academics wrote to President Clinton about the problems and ill consequences of NATO expansion:

[T]he current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions.… NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability …

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition … [and] bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.

In 1998, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman asked George Kennan, who devised the successful “containment” policy to prevent the Soviet Union from achieving its goal of world domination through open warfare, what he thought of the U.S. Senate ratifying NATO expansion even up to Russia’s border. Kennan replied:

[I]t is the beginning of a new Cold War.… There was no reason for this.… No one was threatening anybody else.… We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so.

I was … bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.… Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

In 2007, Putin noted, “NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders … and what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact … NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on May 17, 1990 … said … ‘The fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?”

Fiona Hill points to 2007 when Putin “put the world, and certainly Europe, on notice that Moscow would not accept the further expansion of NATO.… In 2008 NATO gave an open door to Georgia and Ukraine.… Four months after NATO’s Bucharest Summit, there was the [Russian] invasion of Georgia. There wasn’t an invasion of Ukraine then because the Ukrainian government pulled back from seeking NATO membership.”

William Burns, now President Biden’s Central Intelligence director and former U.S. ambassador to Russia, wrote to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players … I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

Putin told Burns in 2008: “No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine. That would be a hostile act toward Russia. We would do all in our power to prevent it.”

In 2015, the German Der Speigel magazine interviewed Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, regarding the status of Ukraine in response to the abrupt change in the presidential leadership and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Brzezinski suggested that “Ukraine should be free to choose its political identity.… But … Russia should be assured credibly that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.”

More recently in 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Pope Francis said that the ‘barking of NATO at the door of Russia’ might have led to the invasion of Ukraine.… The pope … deplored the brutality of the war.… Pope Francis … described Russia’s attitude to Ukraine as ‘an anger that I don’t know whether it was provoked but was perhaps facilitated’ by the presence in nearby countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.… ‘In Ukraine, it was other states that created the conflict.’”

The caution of these experienced statesmen and world leaders is lost on President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

This article is reprinted at LifeSite with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.

spot_img
1...171819...626Page 18 of 626

SELECTIONS

POPULAR TICKETS

POPULAR CATEGORY

ABOUT US

Welcome to our Marvin J. Ramirez website! We are an innovative newspaper located in the heart of San Francisco. With a relentless passion for telling powerful stories, we inform our community with truthful news, insightful analysis, and compelling reporting.

Contacto: lreportero@aol.com

FOLLOW US

© Copyright 2023. AMAYCOM.NET. All rights reserved.