We discuss politics, sports and a few extras!

Archive for the ‘US politics’ Category

The week in review with Bill Katz, the editor of Urgent Agenda

leave a comment »

Guest: Bill Katz, the editor of Urgent Agenda………President Trump speech’s at the UN attacked North Korea, Venezuela, socialism and reminded everyone that the UN pays 22% of the dues………..he also attacked the NFL and may have touched a nerve with fans fed up with players who disrespect the flag……….Senator McCain and Obama Care again……..a TIME magazine explains the disarray that the Democrats are in………..another week of Hillary Clinton talking about 2016…………the Brooklyn Dodgers played their last game at Ebbets Field on this day in 1957…………and other stories………….

Click to listen:

Source: The week in review with Bill Katz, the editor of Urgent Agenda 09/24 by Silvio Canto Jr | News Podcasts


Written by scantojr

September 24, 2017 at 8:30 pm

Maybe we should call them the Coastalcrats

leave a comment »

Image result for 2016 county results map


Once upon a time, we had “Dixiecrats,” or U.S. Senate Democrats from the old Confederacy.  They were some of the great characters of the U.S. Senate, like Senator Thurmond, who ran for president in 1948, or Senator Fulbright of Arkansas, who was very close to Bill Clinton, and others who represented their region rather well.

Today, there are no Dixiecrats.  Instead, there are southern GOP senators and members of the U.S. House.

What we do have is a shrinking and very coastal Democratic Party, as TIME magazine exposed and Matt Vespa analyzed:

The Democratic Party is in shambles. 

Say what you will about the Republicans – they have problems too – but at least they’re a national party. 


For all his faults, Trump was able to virtually get the entire GOP base to vote for him in 2016. The GOP controls Congress, the presidency, two-thirds of the governorships, and 69/99 state legislatures. 

They’re at the apex of their power. 

As the GOP licked their wounds and learned from their 2008 and 2012 defeats, the Democrats, smug, content, and insufferable, felt they had advantage for the next generation. They would run the table on national elections due to demographic shifts. 

Then, Hillary Clinton torpedoed that whole narrative. Time magazine delved into the state of the party, its hit to the mouth after Trump’s win, and noted that things look grim for this regional, shrinking party. 

As many other, including here, have noted – the Democrats have no leader, no message, dismal fundraising, and seem to be on the brink of civil war over issues on what actually makes one a Democrat.

The party has a lot of problems, indeed.

The climax was election night 2016.  It was that night that Democrats walked away from the party, as they did in 1972, when President Nixon blew up the Democrat South, and in 1980, when then-governor Reagan connected with blue-collar workers.

A week after Mr. Trump’s victory, I was at Telemundo Dallas discussing the results.  I was asked why so many “white workers” had walked away.  I answered by focusing on the Democrats’ obsession with illegal aliens.

Then I used this example of a mythical couple living in the Midwest.

Imagine a working-class couple in southern Wisconsin.  They have lived there for generations.  It’s possible that their father and grandfather worked at that factory.  It’s likely that they also served in World War II, Korea, or Vietnam.  The man probably hunts often, and they proudly display the US flag.  They are religious and believe in the goodness of their country.

The wife asks her husband about the news that the plant may be closing and moving overseas.  The husband confirms the story.  The wife asks: who is looking out for us?

After dinner, they turn on the TV to watch the news.  They hear Mr. Trump talking about saving their jobs and the Democrats talking about sanctuary cities or protecting illegal immigrants.

Whom did that couple vote for?  They voted for Mr. Trump, and that’s why he won.

The Democratic Party no longer connects with that couple in southern Wisconsin or others who feel disconnected from a party run by public-sector unions and secular elites who call you a “homophobe” if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.  They also don’t get why the party is more focused on climate change than their manufacturing jobs.

Before we write the Democrats’ obituary, let’s remember the cycles of politics.  At the same time, parties come back when they learn from their defeats.  They bring back the voters they rejected.

How do the Democrats bring back conservative white workers?  I don’t see anything they are doing that will bring them back anytime soon.

Yes, they will be the Coastalcrats for a while.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Written by scantojr

September 24, 2017 at 7:00 am

Senator McCain, Mrs. Clinton and other stories of the day

leave a comment »

We will look Hillary Clinton who does not want to retire from politics…….she needs to go and let the Democrats develop new talent……….new article points out that Democrats are the regional party not the GOP………..Senator McCain disappoints many of us with another Obama Care ‘NO’ vote………Maxine Waters makes a fool out of herself…………..and other stories……….

Click to listen:

Source: Senator McCain, Mrs. Clinton and other stories of the day 09/23 by Silvio Canto Jr | News Podcasts

Written by scantojr

September 23, 2017 at 4:00 pm

Too much Hillary

leave a comment »

Image result for funny hillary cartoons


Hillary Clinton is having a hard time leaving the stage and joining the rest of past presidential candidates who made a concession speech on election night.  

After all, VP Gore found something to do to get over his 2000 election defeat! President Carter got busy supervising elections around the world and building homes for the needy. President Bush-41 came back to Houston and dedicated his time to a wonderful library at Texas A&M. Governor Romney moved on and did not dwell on his defeat.     

In other words, they all moved on — except Mrs. Clinton who apparently can’t.

Mrs. Clinton is back and my guess is that most Democrats don’t like it, as Ed Rogers wrote a couple of days ago:

She has rejected well-founded concerns about her blocking the rise of new voices within the Democratic Party and about not supporting a new generation of Democratic leadership. 


But in fact, in typical self-serving Clinton style, she is taunting the world with the idea that she might contest the 2016 election results. 

In an NPR interview this week (of course it was an NPR interview), Clinton said she would not rule out challenging the legitimacy of the 2016 election if “we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now.” 

She knows it won’t happen, but she is still desperate for applause and willing to pretend that Donald Trump isn’t really our legitimate president. 

It’s all rather sad if you think about it.

Yes, it is rather sad indeed.

After she lost to then-senator Obama in 2008, I remember saying to a friend: What is Mrs. Clinton going to do? How does she get over this?

After losing to President Trump, I asked a slightly different question: How is this lady going to spend the rest of life knowing that her biggest ambition never materialized?

I think that we are seeing how she is coping with it all. Mrs. Clinton has chosen to be in our face explaining how she lost and how it was not fair. She has become the biggest sore loser since who knows who.   

The good news is that we Republicans or “anti-Clintonistas” can joke about it and flip the channel.

The bad news is that Democrats have to put up with her. They have to play along because she keeps showing up on their stage.    

Hillary is even criticizing Mrs. Trump! I can’t remember the last time anything like that happened in U.S. history.   

Yes, it’s very sad indeed.  

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.


Written by scantojr

September 23, 2017 at 7:17 am

Posted in US politics

Tagged with

They were convinced Hillary was going to win and protect them

leave a comment »

Related image


Another day and another round of stories about unmasking. The latest story is about Samantha Power, UN representative under President Obama:    

Former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power will become the latest Obama-era official to meet with congressional investigators probing a vastly different side of the Russian election meddling story, the possibility the previous White House spied on Trump campaign and transition personnel, when she gives private testimony Friday before a congressional panel.

Earlier this year the House intelligence committee issued subpoenas to the CIA, FBI and NSA, seeking details related to alleged requests to “unmask” the identities of Trump associates swept up in U.S. surveillance operations against foreign intelligence targets.

Let’s not jump to conclusions but it smells funny, as my little sister used to say.

Were these inquiries about U.S. citizens legitimate in the context of national security?  or,

Was The White House using its powers to destroy the opposition by learning about them and then selectively leaking to their friends in the media?

The Congress should be able to investigate this and determine the intentions of people like Samantha Power.    

If she acted correctly, then this story will end soon.

If she didn’t, then some officials of the Obama administration need to go to jail. You can not use the power of gathering intelligence to destroy your political opponents. 

There is a story that Miss Power was “unmasking daily“.  What for?  Why?  Who was given this information and for what purpose? Let’s remember that Power was not an intelligence analyst.

If  Power was playing politics then it is further proof that the Obama team was surely convinced that Secretary Clinton would win and push all of this stuff under carpet.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.


Written by scantojr

September 22, 2017 at 6:43 am

Questions about the removal of The Lee Statue and The Dallas City Council

leave a comment »

Guest: Joe Pappalardo of The Dallas Observer…….We will look at how The Dallas City Council paid for the removal of the Lee statue……..did they act consistently with city rules about bidding………last day of summer…..and other stories…………

Click to listen:

Source: Questions about the removal of The Lee Statue and The Dallas City Council 09/21 by Silvio Canto Jr | News Podcasts

Written by scantojr

September 21, 2017 at 2:00 pm

Down goes Lee, along with city bidding rules

leave a comment »

Image result for robert e lee statue dallas


Over time, I’ve learned two things about governing.   

First, dictatorships, such as Cuba and what is happening in Venezuela, are bad because they deny people their basic freedoms, from religion to opinions to private property.    

Second, one-party states, as in the old Mexico or our Democrat-run cities, are inherently corrupt because there is no one from the other side to keep an eye on the majority.

Let’s talk about Dallas, a city now run by the Democrats surrounded by GOP suburbs.

Around the Dallas area, we’ve gone from talking about removing General Lee’s statue to why it cost $450,000 to bring it down.     

We were told that the city council voted for removing it and finding the money.   

Well, not so fast! I guess that Dallas city council members are finding out that voting to remove is easy compared to explaining the costs.

This is from the Dallas Observer:    

Just after the Dallas City Council voted Sept. 6 to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee from a public park, a crane and work crew appeared to take it down. 

Municipal government is not known for its speed, and it is constrained by rules to make spending slow and therefore more transparent.
So how did the city come to spend an estimated half-million so quickly? 

The City Council isn’t entirely sure, and those on the council offer differing views on how the contract, valued at around $450,000, was allowed to be signed without being put out for competitive bidding from contractors.

Wow!  But it gets better:    

Most city expenses over $25,000 must be put out through a bidding process.

It includes public advertising of the job for two weeks, posts on city websites, and online questions and answers from interested vendors. 
Any expense more than $50,000 requires City Council approval. 

By state law, a contract made without compliance with competitive procurement laws is void. 

According to city rules, the council could have declared removing the Lee statue an emergency but no one said that during the meetings. It was never reported that way to the public.

Why bother with details and rules about city business?   

Let’s hope that someone in the city council explains that to a lot of citizens who don’t understand how this statue was removed without opening for bids or following the rules.

Maybe we will remember this episode as Lee’s revenge, or how a city messed up the removal of a statue.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Read more: 
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Written by scantojr

September 21, 2017 at 6:26 am

Posted in US politics

Tagged with