Curiously, the disease first showed up near China’s leading bioresearch lab which is located in Wuhan, followed [...]]]> Unlike Russia, Red China actually represents a long term threat to America. It’s bad enough that the Chinese have been stealing American technology for years, but now we are learning of their malfeasance in the current coronavirus event.

Curiously, the disease first showed up near China’s leading bioresearch lab which is located in Wuhan, followed quickly by directions from President Xi to increase biosecurity at similar facilities.

Red China hasn’t really changed that much from the bad old Mao days.

So it’s nice to see Senator Tom Cotton being a stand-up leader, calling on America “to re-evaluate our relationship with China” because of its irresponsibility in reporting the illness and then trying to blame the coronavirus on the United States.

Plus, he’s calling for “consequences” — like bringing home the manufacturing of America’s pharmaceuticals which the Beijing communists have threatened to withhold from us.

The senator appeared recently with Jesse Watters on Fox News.

(Spare video)

JESSE WATTERS: Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton — so senator, you said something very interesting the other day on Twitter, you said that China will pay a price for coronavirus. What did you mean by that?

SENATOR TOM COTTON: Jesse, thanks for having me on, and thanks for those very sensible words about what all Americans should do — remain vigilant, and take prudent precautions in their daily lives while we’re working in the government trying to get this crisis under control.

In the long term though, we have to re-evaluate our relationship with China. If China had been transparent with its own people in the world from the very beginning in early December, we might not have seen this virus spread so widely and so quickly all around the world.

There have to be consequences for that. For instance, China now makes much of our basic pharmaceutical products. That has to change, and it has to change fast. There going to be other consequences as we look ahead towards our relationship in China in the long term as well.

WATTERS: Yeah, China actually threatened to withhold some pharmaceutical ingredients and they said it would plunge America into a “mighty sea of coronavirus.” When you hear that type of talk from people in China, how does that make you feel as a US senator?

COTTON: Well it makes me outraged at the Chinese Communist Party that they are threatening the lives of the American people by withholding basic pharmaceutical products like antibiotics. It also makes me a little angry at our leadership classes over the last 30 years that stood by while we outsourced so many of these critical industries to China.

But that’s water under the bridge: we can look ahead, and we can make a change. We can say that if you’re making these kind of critical products — whether it’s pharmaceuticals or medical devices in China — it’s time to pack up and get out. And if you don’t do it on your terms, then you will do it on our terms.

WATTERS: I would agree with that wholeheartedly. we also have something coming out from the foreign ministry of China, you know they’re saying that “It might be the US Army that put the virus in China.”

They’re not taking responsibility for it originating in the Wuhan province. You know that just looks like propaganda to me, but obviously everybody in the world knows where it started from, and we know the truth.

We’re now seeing people on MSNBC, one guy said it’s it’s gross to call it the Wuhan virus — I don’t even know what that means. His colleagues in the mainstream media all throughout January were calling it the Wuhan virus. Let’s roll some of that tape:

(Various talking heads chatter about the “Wuhan virus” and the “Wuhan coronavirus”)

WATTERS: So now do you think that the message has gotten out maybe from the Chinese government to the American media, say hey let’s not call it that, and the American media are just kind of following orders from the Chinese Communists?

COTTON: Yeah Jesse, anyone who complains that it’s racist or xenophobic to call this virus the “Chinese coronavirus” or the “Wuhan virus” is a politically correct fool, and they ought not to be listened to about anything especially when it comes to how to stop the spread of this virus.

In fact, as you say, the Chinese Communist Party right now is trying to blame this on America. In their Chinese language media at this very moment they are telling their own people this did not come from Wuhan: it came from outside of China, perhaps the United States.

That’s why it’s so important that we not let it let them get away with that kind of propaganda, and we put the fault exactly where it lies which is on the communist leaders in Beijing.

WATTERS: Yeah well we want to work with the Chinese to make sure everybody’s healthy but at the same time we have to tell the truth. Senator, thank you very much.

The National Center for Education Statistics informs about the current number of young people subject to [...]]]> There’s not enough attention paid to how schools have become socialist propaganda centers to warp children’s and young adults’ minds into leftist mush. Even grade school kids are taught that America is evil and diversity is the highest good.

The National Center for Education Statistics informs about the current number of young people subject to K-12 public education:

In fall 2016, about 50.4 million students will attend public elementary and secondary schools. Of these, 35.4 million will be in prekindergarten through grade 8 and 15.0 million will be in grades 9 through 12. An additional 5.2 million students are expected to attend private elementary and secondary schools (source). The fall 2016 public school enrollment is expected to be slightly higher than the 50.3 million enrolled in fall 2015.

Sadly, the civic education many Americans experienced as kids is disappearing.

In its place, globalism and its values are being taught.

Below, an international flag was created for use in a New York classroom a year ago.

Recently, the National Associate of Scholars published a report, Making Citizens: How American Universities Teach Civics, that warned about the “New Civics” which redefines the subject as leftist political activism.

That topic was explored recently on Fox News:

BRIAN KILMEADE: Our universities and colleges around the country are turning their classrooms into cash registers by selling out and trading academics in favor of activism. You have a recent survey of over 400 universities: they found that nearly all are offering courses — it was called “new civics.” Our next guest says those courses designed to turn institutions of higher learning away from scholarships and towards left wing advocacy. Professor Frank H Buckley is a professor at George Mason University; he’s at the Scalia Law School and he’s the author of ”The Way Back”. Frank, first off, do you think this is organized?

FRANK H. BUCKLEY: Well it’s more like astroturf. What’s happening is the federal government is supporting a great deal of money into colleges that have programs that train students to be student activists, and the ultimate goal is to make this a part of every course and indeed a condition for tenure for university professors so it’s really a takeover of scholarship in the direction of making little community organizers out of all of our students.

KILMEADE: And when do you think this infiltration took place?

BUCKLEY: It’s happened over the last 20-odd years, I mean it certainly increased over the last eight years, let’s say, but it’s really remarkable: it’s under the radar screen. It’s well hidden it’s there, but it took an organization called the National Association of Scholars to go out and actually see what was happening and the results are shocking.

KILMEADE: So the government can have some leverage here because it provides so much money to these universities. For example UC Boulder, 25 million per year; Colorado State, 15 million per year; University of North Carolina nine million per year. So with that could come some strings. What do you think, if you want to balance things out again, should those strings contain?

BUCKLEY: I think first of all, I see absolutely no reason why we should be training people to or paying for students to do stuff which is totally unrelated to scholarship. I mean, we’re giving money for scholarships for students who want to learn things. We’re not giving money to teach people how to occupy buildings and go out and riot on the streets. That’s not what it’s all about, and we shouldn’t be actually paying any money for that terms of of the of college grants and in general in terms of dedicating money to universities. I think what the Trump administration should be doing is looking at how faithful they are to the mission of basically doing ordinary good scholarship. (Continues)

In addition, the Washington Times discusses the topic:

Protests 101: College civics classes focus more on demonstrations than citizenship, By Bradford Richardson, Washington Times, January 11, 2017

College-level civics courses have been hijacked by a progressive ideology that emphasizes instruction in organizing political movements rather than understanding the American system of government and the Western tradition upon which it is built, according to a report published this week.

“Making Citizens: How American Universities Teach Civics,” a report published by the National Association of Scholars, examines the curricula at four universities and concludes that courses aimed at understanding America have largely been replaced by vocational classes on how to transform it.

“In practice this means that instead of teaching college students the foundations of law, liberty, and self-government, colleges teach students how to organize protests, occupy buildings, and stage demonstrations,” the study says. “These are indeed forms of ‘civic engagement,’ but they are far from being a genuine substitute for learning how to be a full participant in our republic.”

The 525-page report includes case studies of four universities — Colorado State University, the University of Northern Colorado, the University of Wyoming and the University of Colorado-Boulder — where civics education ranges from less than stellar to nearly nonexistent.

The University of Colorado-Boulder, for instance, offers no specific mandatory curriculum. Instead, students fulfill graduation requirements by taking courses in 10 different areas of study — each of which includes hundreds of alternatives.

Boulder’s United States Context requirement can be completed by taking traditionally oriented civics courses such as American Political Thought or History of the United States to 1865. Or it can be fulfilled by taking Civic Engagement: Democracy as a Tool for Social Change.

Less than one-third of undergraduates at Boulder will take a class in traditional civics, the study estimates, and less than 10 percent will take a course in introductory American politics.

Although the report found 11 courses at Boulder that constituted traditional civics education, it identified 60 in a variety of disciplines that have explicit service-learning or civic engagement requirements.

“We surmise that still fewer students at CU-Boulder take two or more of the courses that comprise the traditional curriculum in civic literacy,” the report says. “The university’s policy of loose distribution requirements ensure that only a small fraction of CU-Boulder undergraduates receive a traditional civics education.”

Of the four universities examined, the University of Wyoming is the only one with something resembling a core curriculum — because of a mandate passed in 1925 by the state Legislature.

About half of the University of Wyoming undergraduates will take an introductory course on American government, and the other half will get out of the requirement by taking a multiple-choice exam.

“The requirement frames UW’s core civics education as an unpleasant obligation, to be avoided if possible — but at least the university still requires students to acquire a minimum of traditional civic knowledge,” the report says.

‘Rules for Radicals’
John Carson, a regent at the University of Colorado, said a proper civics education is indispensable for informed participation in the American system of government.

“At its roots, civics goes back to the ancient Greeks and our whole civilization through the Middle Ages right to the founding,” Mr. Carson said. “If we’re not teaching American civics in a more modern sense and what the foundation of it is, then I think we’re compromising the very purpose of the university.”

The National Association of Scholars report details how the meaning of civics education has been transformed over the past several decades by disciples of the late Saul Alinsky, the community organizer known for his 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals.”

Instead of conferring an understanding of the U.S. Constitution, American history and Western civilization upon students, progressive activists have coaxed colleges and universities into defining civics education to mean community organizing, service learning and civic engagement toward progressive ends, the report says.

The view of civics education is endorsed by, among others, President Obama’s Department of Education, which in 2012 called on “the higher education community — its constituents and stakeholders — to embrace civic learning and democratic engagement as an undisputed educational priority for all of higher education, public and private, two-year and four-year.”

“The devil is in the details,” Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, said in a statement. “Now ‘civic learning’ doesn’t mean what you would expect — straightforward things such as understanding the Bill of Rights, the three branches of government and the Electoral College. Instead, this New Civics is all about ‘diversity,’ environmentalism, the LGBT movement, ‘global’ citizenship, and other liberal causes.”

The report also shows that what happens in academia doesn’t stay in academia. Far from remaining isolated on America’s colleges and university campuses, the new civics has changed the very idea of what it means to be a citizen. That idea has expanded into a multibillion-dollar industry made up of federal and state bureaucracies, nonprofit organizations and professional advocacy groups.

“Civic engagement diverts at least $40 billion a year and 1.5 million hours of student labor toward progressive organizations,” David Randall, director of communications for the National Association of Scholars and author of the report, said in a statement. “In the meantime, colleges are failing to teach students how their government actually works.”

Ultimately, Mr. Carson said, America is imperiled by a citizenry that does not understand how its government functions or how to check its abuses of power.

“One of my favorite quotes is from President Reagan, who said, ‘Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,’” Mr. Carson said. “His point is we have a responsibility to teach the next generation how freedom came about, why it’s important and what needs to be done to preserve it.”

This result indicates the growing success of liberal government media to blur the meaning of words (particularly regarding immigration) to further its globalist ideology in opposition to American borders and culture. The press [...]]]> A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 58 percent of Americans thought “homegrown” terror presented the greatest threat to the country’s safety:

This result indicates the growing success of liberal government media to blur the meaning of words (particularly regarding immigration) to further its globalist ideology in opposition to American borders and culture. The press routinely uses the word “homegrown” to blame America for evil and conveniently omit perp facts regarding foreign birth, alien religion or connections (like immigrant parents, in the case of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook).

One example that comes to mind is the wanna-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad (pictured), who was widely called a “homegrown” terrorist, even though he came here as young adult on a student visa for college. He got an MBA, became a US citizen but later went to Pakistan for jihad training so he could more effectively slaughter lots of Americans. Despite his foreign background, Shahzad was an example in a 2010 Sixty Minutes report titled, “Uncovering the Roots of Homegrown Terrorism.”

Such is the unmitigated crap we are routinely fed by media. It’s designed to make people give up on following government in confusion and disgust.

Back to the poll under discussion, the Quinnipiac survey question was curiously specific in its details:

81. Which do you think poses a greater terrorist threat to the U.S., terrorists hiding among Syrian refugees, radicalized foreign visitors or so-called “homegrown jihadists”?

Foreign “visitors” — is that the latest euphemism to avoid the “I” word?

Instead of a jumbled mess of a poll question, why not simply ask, “Does Muslim immigration constitute a danger to Americans’ safety?”

Here’s a news report on the sketchy poll:

Poll: Americans say homegrown jihadists greater threat than foreign-born, Fox News, December 03, 2015

The majority of Americans believe homegrown jihadists are a greater threat to the United States than foreign terrorists, according to a new poll released Thursday.

Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed for a Quinnipiac University National poll say jihadists raised in the country are America’s most likely terrorism danger. Sixteen percent say terrorists hiding among Syrian refugees are a great threat, while 17 percent say radicalized foreign visitors are.

The same survey found 52 percent of American voters were opposed to letting Syrian refugees into the U.S. Among political lines: 68 percent of Democrats would accept refugees, while 84 percent of Republicans would oppose it. Independent voters were divided as 46 percent support accepting refugees while 49 percent opposed the idea.

The survey also found 6 out of every 10 people said they worried the government wasn’t going far enough to protect them against terrorism.

The poll comes as momentum to slow the flow of Syrian and Iraqi refugees to the United States grows.

Opinions on security screening for refugees depended on how much voters know, Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll said.

“It takes time and meticulous vetting to be accepted as a Syrian refugee,” he said in a written statement. “Voters who know that are far more accepting than those who may not understand the process.”

In Monday’s speech, West drew comparisons between Islam and communism, both of which have had strange taboos [...]]]> On Monday, Frank Gaffney and Breitbart put on a program, live in Washington and web-streamed, about national security. One of the speakers was Diana West, author of American Betrayal, which describes Moscow’s infiltration of US institutions over decades.

In Monday’s speech, West drew comparisons between Islam and communism, both of which have had strange taboos surrounding the public description of their true natures.

We currently hear the Big Lie every day, that Islam is a “Religion of Peace” and the barbaric acts of terror in the name of Islam really don’t represent the “true” Islam. Political luminaries from President George Bush to Secretary of State John Kerry have assured the American people that violent jihad is a misunderstanding of Mohammad’s teachings, even though the Koran has over 100 verses that urge violence toward non-believers.

Diana West notes that communism has a similar history of not being held accountable for its crimes against humanity.

Diana West at National Security Action Summit: “Sharia Outlaws the Liberties We in the West Hold Sacred” Breitbart.com, September 30, 2014

Editor Note: Historian Diana West delivered these remarks at National Security Action Summit II on Monday, September 29. The event was hosted by EMPact America, in partnership with Breitbart News Network and the Center for Security Policy.

For anyone still puzzled as how it could be that our leaders and pundits keep hammering home the big lie that Islam has nothing to do with jihad, that the religion of conquest is a “religion of peace,” it’s important to know that such widespread brainwashing is nothing new.

Just as today’s opinion-makers seek to divorce Islam from its impact — brutal conquest, forced conversion, religiously sanctioned sex slavery, beheadings — past opinion-makers worked equally hard to divorce Communism from its impact — brutal conquest, forced collectivization, concentration camps (Gulags), mass murder.

It worked. Unlike Nazism, Communism has never been judged guilty or even held responsible for the carnage and suffering it has caused. On the contrary, it remains a source of “liberal” statist ideas such as Obamacare. My recent book American Betrayal delves deeply into this dangerous double standard. In short, this double standard not only enables collectivist policies to strangle our remnant republic, but also explains why American students can find a drink called Leninade, emblazoned with a hammer and sickle, for sale up the road at University of Maryland. It’s also why silkscreens of Warhol’s Chairman Mao, history’s top mass murderer, are sought-after items for the homes of the wealthy.

There are no such trendy portraits of Hitler, and who would want them? Who would want to swig a bottle of Hitlerpop, decorated with a swastika? So, why Leninade? Not only does the stench of death not follow the Communist murder-cult, the brand lives.

Barring a tsunami of common sense, I predict that Islam, the brand, will remain separate in the public mind from the violence and repression it causes and has caused for more than a millennium. That’s certainly the direction leaders from both political parties have been relentlessly herding us in for over a decade, insisting against all reason — against all sacred Islamic texts — that “Islam is peace.”

Thus, while contending with this cycle of expansionist jihad — a recurrence that should be familiar from Islamic history were it, too, not subject to whitewash — we must simultaneously withstand a campaign of lies designed to subvert our understanding of how Islam, in fact, has everything to do with beheadings and other violence both in the Islamic world and now in the West — and, why more than a decade of “nation-building” “counterinsurgencies” in Afghanistan and Iraq were domed from the start.

And yes, such whitewashing has happened before. Seventy years ago, Americans and British and other allies fought against a cruel Nazi totalitarian dictatorship in alliance with an equally cruel Communist totalitarian dictatorship. As far as body counts go, our great Soviet ally had already piled up more bodies than Hitler would. To sell this to We, the people, Americans were introduced to “Uncle Joe” Stalin. We were told that Communism had changed; that Moscow wanted only secure borders. We were told, you might say, “Communism is peace.” Anti-communist books went of style; investigations into Communist penetration went into mothballs. At the end of WWII, yes, Hitler’s 12-year Reich was destroyed, but Stalin’s evil empire had engorged fully half of Europe. Communism-is-peace-brainwashed people were stunned. But Americans were told they had won the “good war” for liberty over tyranny, and we have celebrated ever since.

Whitewashing follows whitewashing, so, also obscured was the transformation Communism wrought here at home, where agents of influence, fellow travelers, and dupes worked to advance Moscow’s will just as Soviet tanks (and agents, too) imposed it abroad. The conventional wisdom, however, remains suspended in the amber of the “Red Scare,” the 1950s period during which anti-Communist “witch-hunters” searched for “Reds under the bed” — all allegedly in vain. Never mind that many hundreds of confirmed American traitors, loyal to the Kremlin, had infiltrated the federal government and other institutions in previous decades. The important thing, says the conventional wisdom to this day, is not to connect the dots and examine whether these proxies for Stalin influenced the “American Century.”

But the facts indicate they did. Just to mention examples rarely taught in school, agents of Stalin’s influence inside the Roosevelt administration helped subvert and topple such anti-Communist leaders in Europe as Draza Mihailovic in the Balkans, and the free Polish government in exile, clearing the way for Communist regimes. They helped destroy the anti-Communist leader Chiang Kai-shek in China, thus aiding the rise of Mao – who, a la “Uncle Joe,” was presented to the American public as an “agrarian reformer.” Mao would kill at least 60 million people and set in motion events that would draw Americans into two disastrous wars in Korea and Vietnam, killings tens of thousands of young American men.

I could go on, about how at the end of World War II, Soviet plans for Germany and slave labor reparations were put over, how the UN was fostered by a Soviet agent named Alger Hiss, how the IMF was fostered by another Soviet agent name Harry Dexter White. Much of this still-hidden history at least makes it clear why our traditions are today a shambles, where cultural relativism comes from, why it’s unlikely Congress will ever repeal Obamacare, why our college campuses are outposts of Marx.

Society, however, seems to prefer silence. It prefers to burnish the gilded reputation of Franklin Roosevelt, for example, rather than reckon with the fact he presided over the biggest national security disaster in U.S. history — the massive infiltration of the U.S. government by agents of a foreign power.

And today? Islam’s prophet Mohammed is exempt from criticism — a key point of Islamic law — just as Joseph Stalin used to be — a rule of the Communist police state. Islam’s history of repression, too, is off limits to strategic planners just as Communism’s once was as well. “Mustn’t offend the Russians,” went the WWII-era mantra against “red-baiting.” “Mustn’t offend Muslims” is the mantra against “Islamophobia” today. In this way, these belief systems, both hostile to our constitutional liberties, remain protected by silence.

This silence has already cost thousands of American lives in our time.

It started right after 9/11, as soon as President Bush declared Islam was a religion of peace, officially delinking Islam from specifically Islamic jihad. Official policy to this day absolves Islam of jihad, and, most recently, absolves Islam of the jihadists known as the Islamic State.

This see-no-Islam policy has also been deeply flawed basis of 13 years of nation-building failure in Iraq and Afghanistan under the sorry banner of couninteriinsugency, or COIN, doctrine. Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor sums the problem up this way: “The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people. The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.”

I maintain It would have been widely seen as utter nonsense had Islam and its law, Islam and jihad, Islam and dhimmitude, been under open consideration rather than tightly under wraps. Instead, the last two presidents sent Americans to die for nations whose constitutions, written with American support, enshrine sharia — Islamic law.

And what does that mean? Quite simply, sharia outlaws the liberties we in the West hold sacred: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equal rights before the law, and more. Such prohibitions themselves are sacred to Islam. Indeed, Islamic “liberty,” or “hurriyya,” couldn’t be more different from our own. It is defined by a slavish devotion to sharia. This tells us  — or should have — that infidel armies, infidel governments, were never going to win “hearts and minds,” or “trust,” of Islamic peoples — the linchpin of the COIN theory — no matter how much our people bribed, bled or died.

This deduction is confirmed by the most recent polling data compiled by Pew. These data tell us that 91 percent of Iraqis believe sharia should be “the law of the land.” That percentage is exceeded by only one country: Afghanistan, where fully 99 percent agree sharia should be “the law of the land.”

What does a US lawmaker, a COIN strategist, do with data like this? If that lawmaker, that strategist wants to be a mover and shaker in Washington, DC, he forgets about them. Whatever he does, he doesn’t connect any dots. History shows our leaders rarely do. And somehow, they still end up on pedestals.

One recent example was Laura Ingraham’s presentation on the O’Reilly Factor about the media’s cover-up of illegal alien [...]]]> Fox News’ adversarial approach in issue presentation leaves a great deal to be desired: “Fair and balanced” sets up opposing voices to show both sides of an issue. However, that strategy often produces more clamor than facts.

One recent example was Laura Ingraham’s presentation on the O’Reilly Factor about the media’s cover-up of illegal alien crimes, that normal reporting of crimes often omits the detail that the accused (or convicted) perp is an unlawful foreigner. It’s an important topic, but it got lost when the immigration attorney Daniel Hernandez wouldn’t shut up and allow CIS’ expert Steve Camarota to speak. The segment started off well, but disintegrated at the end — kind of proving the point that open-border activists will do anything to block information about the many illegal alien criminals assaulting this nation’s public safety.

The media would rather present happy-talk propaganda about alleged valedictorian aliens when there are far more dangerous foreign criminals than angelic scholars. Otherwise there wouldn’t be so many carve-outs in the Senate amnesty bill for violent criminals.

The Ingraham piece would have been enormously improved by having an informative chat with Steve Camarota only, who has done numerous reports for the Center for Immigration Studies and is very knowledgeable. Canada’s SunTV does one-on-one interviews with experts all the time and they are far more satisfying than the shouting matches one sees on Fox.

One topic that was stomped by the immigration lawyer was the San Francisco triple murder of the Bologna family, a father and two sons (pictured) by a previously arrested illegal alien who mistook them for enemy gangsters — a subject thoroughly covered in VDARE.com by myself and others. But Fox viewers didn’t get the whole disturbing story of how San Francisco’s sanctuary policy protected future multiple murderer Edwin Ramos from deportation even after arrests for violent crimes. Camarota tried to explain the crime’s background, but it’s hard to detail a complex case while a noisy lawyer is trying to drown out your points.

It would be much better to have an informational discussion with an expert rather than a shouting match where facts are lost in the noise. Of course, it Ingraham could have exerted more control over the situation, but never told the obnoxious lawyer to stop interrupting. The segment was decent and focused on an ignored topic, but could have been more instructive by a calm presentation of facts about illegal alien crime by knowledgeable persons.

Spanish media has been one [...]]]> Spanish-language media has a strong anti-assimilation agenda based on its own self-interest. If the Mexicans and other hispanic immigrants get pulled into American culture (like speaking English) then Spanish radio and TV doesn’t have a captive audience. So Univision and Telemundo want Mexican newbies to stay tuned in and balkanized.

Spanish media has been one of the biggest promoters of so-called “bilingual” education which discourages immigrant kids from becoming proficient in English, as well as of open borders to keep new viewers and listeners coming. There has been a barrage of propaganda touting the advantages to the brain of being bilingual — but with no comparison to playing chess and studying math, etc.

Americans shouldn’t think of Spanish-language media as merely another expression of the country’s expanding diversity, when it is actually more like a fifth column with unfriendly intentions toward this nation.

When thousands of illegal aliens show up for May Day marches demanding amnesty, part of the organizing comes from Spanish radio and TV which urge unlawful foreigners to complain en masse. In Los Angeles, local Mexican radio guy Piolin is credited with turning out huge crowds of amnesty pests.

Below, Los Angeles May Day 2006

In 2010, President Obama dropped by Piolin’s studio for a little campaign behavior, promising to “punish our enemies” and “stop deportations.” Illegal aliens are an important part of Obama’s base, and he knows how to reach them — through Spanish media.

In a January article about Senator Marco Rubio, media critic Ken Auletta made an aside concerning the power of Univision:

WAR OF CHOICE: Marco Rubio and the G.O.P. play a dangerous game on immigration., The New Yorker, by Ken Auletta, January 9, 2012

The reach of Univision is often underappreciated. It is watched regularly by two-thirds of all Hispanic television viewers in the U.S. In Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Phoenix, its stations’ newscasts rate higher than those of their English-speaking competitors. Some nights, the network’s national ratings exceed those of ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC. And the audience is growing, in part because of demographics. Today, fifteen per cent of Americans are Hispanic; in 2050, the percentage will have doubled. According to Univision’s news president, Isaac Lee, the network is openly committed to “pro-Hispanic” immigration reform, and it has a particular slant on the news: a dog biting any man is not a story, but a dog biting a Hispanic man is. Sergio Bendixen, perhaps the leading Hispanic public-opinion researcher in the U.S. and Latin America, says that Univision is the most respected institution among Hispanics in the country, ahead of the armed forces and the Catholic Church. “It is considered to be the institution that protects Latin-Americans in the U.S. and fights the institutions that abuse them,” he says.

Perhaps Univision’s special treatment of hispanic immigrants can be blamed for their high opinion of their achievements in this country which is unsupported by actual performance.

If anything, a recent Washington Times piece describing the power of Spanish-language media understates its influence:

Spanish-language media ‘obsessed’ on immigration issue, Washington Times, by Stephen Dinan, August 30, 20

TAMPA, Fla. — For most voters, the Republicans’ nominating convention has been filled with speeches about jobs, the economy, federal spending and President Obama’s record. But for Hispanic voters getting their news from the Spanish-language press, the view is very different — and decidedly unsympathetic to the Republican Party.

Heading into the convention, English-language coverage of last week’s platform fights concentrated on abortion and gay marriage. But Spanish-language reports zeroed in on an immigration battle, which saw Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach win passage of a strict enforcement plank in the document.

While the English press this week has wondered about which Republicans would mention Medicare, and who would play the attack-dog role for the GOP, Spanish-language media have been focused on what hasn’t been addressed: immigration.

“The questions are, ‘Yeah, let’s talk about the economy, let’s talk about Medicare. But then why haven’t they talked about immigration?'” asked Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, who made the rounds of Spanish-language press in Tampa. “All the Spanish-language media is obsessed, focused, on that issue.”

That is not good news for Mitt Romney, whose position — the strictest enforcement stance of any major political party nominee in history — does not go over well with Hispanic voters.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has taken steps, including his recent non-deportation policy, that have helped erase criticism from immigration rights advocates.

It’s not just immigration where the coverage differs, Spanish-language media-watchers said.

Univision and Telemundo, the two dominant broadcast networks, as well as other outlets, put heavy emphasis on education. They extensively cover health care and Mr. Obama’s law, which is poised to extend coverage to as many as 9 million Hispanics.

Hispanics are a growing political force and considered one of the key swing voting blocs.

They also have their own powerful niche press and — given language barriers for those who don’t speak English well — many of them amount to a captive audience for Spanish-language media.

Both presidential campaigns are trying to tap into that audience with outreach ads, and the Republicans have taken steps at their convention this week in Tampa to make inroads as well.

Emilio Gonzalez, former head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under the Bush administration, who is now a Republican strategist and a consultant to Univision, said the convention is sending a subtle but powerful message to Hispanic voters by featuring so many powerful Hispanic Republicans.

“One thing is what they are seeing, and the other is what the Republican Party is trying to project. What the Democratic Party is trying to portray is a party in search of a message for Hispanics,” Mr. Gonzalez said. “What the Republican Party is trying to project — look at the lineup. All the rock stars are Hispanic.”

He pointed to appearances from Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz — all Republicans who he said proudly embraced the party’s message of making it on their own.

Indeed, those personal stories resonated with Hispanic delegates to the convention.

“Certainly, I believe that when we listened to the story of Susana Martinez, it touched the heart of many people because this is a hardworking woman who has been able to become the first Hispanic woman as the governor of New Mexico,” said Adryana Boyne, who was part of the Texas delegation.

She also pointed to Mr. Cruz, who told of his father coming from Cuba with $100 sewn in his underwear and a determination not to accept welfare, but to instead make it on his own.

“Just incredible testimonies to let the people know that we don’t need the help of the government, what we need is opportunities,” she said.

Democrats counter that those Republicans have all embraced tight immigration rules that don’t sit well with Hispanic voters. They also say Mr. Romney’s stance is so well-known in the Hispanic community that the question is no longer will Hispanics vote for him, but rather whether he’s permanently damaged the GOP brand.

But Mr. Aguilar said the GOP is not monolithic on immigration, and that battle played out even on the convention stage.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki R. Haley talked about her state’s battle to enact a strict immigration law, which the Obama administration opposed. But on the same stage, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an appeal for immigration laws that “show that we are a compassionate nation of immigrants.”

Ms. Rice’s remarks were met with steady applause, and Mr. Aguilar said those sorts of moments are beginning to break through.

“It seems to me that the Spanish-language media, I think some are starting to become more aware of the battle,” Mr. Aguilar said. “Some of them are starting to perhaps explain better what is going on.”

He also said Mr. Romney does have a message that could reach Hispanics, if he emphasizes his pledge to take action on reforming legal-immigration procedures.