Posted on 21 March 2012.
Posted on 14 March 2012.
While there seem to be a large number of people active on Facebook and other social media swearing they won’t vote for one or another of the candidates if their own choice is not the winner of the GOP presidential primaries, Rick Santorum’s new string of victories will surely make him the top target of the naysayers in the next week.
The Santorum victory in Alabama and Mississippi simply means that, whether it is Santorum or it is another candidate, Mitt Romney’s trouble with the conservatives and the “values voters” isn’t fading or going away.
The pundits and pols continue to echo this myth that to win a GOP presidential primary you “run to the right’ in the primary and then as soon as you have it locked up you swing “back to the middle” (ie. to the left).
The proponents of this view never suggest this idea to liberal Democrats and that’s funny… they ARE liberal Democrats.
With a few exceptions, the people who buy into this “run to the right, then go left” idea are either liberals or people who do not have an enormous capacity for intellectual discussion, to put it as gently as I can.
So if you swing over to MSNBC TV you get the usual suspects there giving their “advice” to the Republicans, and what are they advising us?
As usual, they say that women don’t like conservatives. And most especially, they aver, women don’t like Christian conservatives.
They insist that the government has to pay for their contraception or else it diminishes or eliminates their constitutional right to sex before and after and for those who unlike Rachel Maddow are engaged in heterosexual marriage, marriage-sex with your own partner.
Therefore, women have to be against Santorum because he is a Catholic trying to take away their ability to have sex, and their rights to have a healthy life.
This really is the level of discourse on the left, going past the theatre of the absurd.. And it reminds me of what people used to say about Jerry Falwell, the first major “social conservative” or “values voter” leader from over 30 years ago.
Falwell and his “Moral Majority” they said, were (also) trying to tell people how to live their lives, and using the power of the government to make people do what they believe is right.
Like the Taliban terrorists, which the Rachel Maddows of MSNBC and the hate-sites of the left always love to say, the Christian rightwingers or “wingnuts” as MSNBC’s Christopher Matthews likes to call us, are on a fresh new campaign to steal away all of our rights, trash the Constitution and impose our religion on everybody and run the government and everybody’s lives.
The liberal left and their witting and unwitting allies within our GOP and conservative ranks continue to say that only a more reasonable “moderate” like Mitt Romney has a chance to beat Barack Obama.
I wonder: who are the people with a handicapped ability to reason, who think this repeated argument that the left has made forever and ever, is one we should listen to?
Of course many of the people supposedly within our ranks, actually hate all Republicans and conservatives who they view as “neocons” and apologists for the liberal Republicans.
These are the people who have within their ranks the Ronald Reagan haters, and those people who love to repeat that mantra “there’s no difference” between GOP and Democrats they are all the same.
While these anti-GOP advocates get a serious hearing from people who are frustrated with how things have gone for our cause in Washington, there are a few of us who know how absurd this “Dem-GOP the same” argument is – which don’t forget goes all the way back to the 1968 “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties.
I’ve yet to hear a good answer from these anti-conservative, anti-GOP partisans, as to which political party has 19 U.S. Senators with a 0% rating from the American Conservative Union, and which party has 9 U.S. Senators with a 100% rating last year – and why wouldn’t we want to switch that around so there’s twice as many 100% conservatives as there are 0% conservatives?
And which party has a Marco Rubbio, a Jim DeMint and a Jim Inhoffe in the Senate?
Which party has an Al Franken, Harry Reid and a Chuck Schumer in the Senate?
I do know why some keep saying “I cannot see any difference” between the parties. They have an anti-GOP, anti-conservative axe to grind. Or they are a little slow on basic logic and short of essential facts.
And why do so many people – supposedly within our GOP and/or conservative ranks, echo the “party line” of the Huffington Post, Media Matters, the New York Times, Rachel Maddow, Daily KOS and their ilk, claiming that candidates like Rick Santorum are trying to “make” people do anything?
These are the same people, groups and websites who “cannot tell the difference” are most often, the very same people expressing the same visceral hatred of Rick Santorum and setting up strawman arguments against him.
They have the same purpose, the same design, and they are fired up to stop evil – which is to them, those of us who are supporting Rick Santorum or any more conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.
And of course, some of them are the same old liberal-progressive forces within the GOP which we have nicknamed “RINO’s” (Republicans in Name only) like Senator Olympia Snowe.
It is a strange alliance between the RINO’s, the anti-GOP group within the Tea Party and within the GOP, and the liberal-left.
Increasingly, the top target of this group which has been the historical opponent of conservatives within the GOP, is Rick Santorum.
Meanwhile, as Santorum continues to rack up victories against all odds, Newt Gingrich continues his role as Mitt Romney’s best friend, siphoning off enough votes so that even with his 2nd and 3rd place finishes he prevents a “blowout” win for Santorum over Romney again and again, as he did tonight.
I have no doubt that Mitt – and certainly the good people supporting him – means well.
The books and videos of Newt Gingrich – which I have purchased and highly recommend – will continue to sell well because Newt stays in the public eye as a candidate.
But in my view they would continue to sell well because they are masterpieces of wit, logic and fact and very well put together. Newt doesn’t need to continue as a candidate and as an inadvertent spoiler for Mitt Romney for his books and videos to continue to sell.
But more and more of us are wondering: do his supporters not feel worried that his continued presence in this close contest will enable Mitt Romney to emerge as the winner with less than 40% of the primary votes but a possible majority of delegates?
Many states are like Pennsylvania, where you have a “beauty contest” where you vote for your choice of Presidential nominees, but it is a separate deal who you vote for as the delegates.
That means that Santorum may win a contest but some Ron Paul delegate candidates run a stealth campaign and are elected as convention delegates, who will ignore the election results and vote for Ron Paul.
Others will be people put forward by the GOP establishment who will run and win, and vote for Romney.
That means you cannot expect to defeat Mitt Romney with a bare minimum of delegates. You need a large number of “not-Romney” delegates.
I believe the only hope for conservatives right now is enough of the Newt Gingrich supporters do what I would be doing if I saw Rick Santorum losing again and again – as a donor and supporter of Rick I’d be writing and begging him to withdraw as Rick Perry graciously did, and endorse a candidate with a better chance of defeating Mitt.
I do believe this question is in the hands of the supporters of Newt Gingrich more than anything. I pray they will use their influence because I think that is the ONLY way that Newt would withdraw as a candidate and endorse Rick Santorum.
At one time and in two different primaries (going into South Carolina and again going into Florida) I said on my facebook wall that I endorsed and would support Newt Gingrich if I lived there at that time, despite my earlier support for Rick Santorum.
I thought at that time that Newt had the best chance going into both primaries to derail Romney.
A clear majority of self-described conservatives in both states did do that, including a 2-to-1 margin with self-described “values voters” who ignored the earlier endorsement by 2/3 of the Christian-right group leaders meeting in Texas to endorse Rick Santorum.
I hope Gingrich supporters will do the same thing now – switch, do it publicly, write it on your facebook page, post a message here, write to Newt Gingrich, and get behind Rick Santorum to stop Romney.
Not because he is the most stalwart conservative. Not because he is a Christian. Not because his track record is so much better than Newt. Not because you like his ideas better (personally I like Newt’s ideas about colonizing space so go ahead and expel me from the Tea Party).
These views may or may not be yours. They are irrelevant.
The reason to get behind Santorum is that this is the very best way we have right now to get a better deal than Mitt Romney as our nominee.
I’ll vote for Romney as the nominee if he wins. I’m delighted Ron Paul has become totally irrelevant to this contest earning less than 5% of the vote, the same that libertarian-anarchists running as pro-drug and anti-war candidates do here in Pennsylvania (yes I like libertarians like John Stossel and many at the CATO Institute despite disagreeing with them on some things).
I’m delighted and thrilled with many of the speeches I’ve heard from both Santorum and from Gingrich and even listening to Mitt Romney is a real treat after several years of President Obama speeches.
But tonight’s victories in Alabama and Mississippi totally demolish the aura of inevitability and of invincibility for Mitt Romney, end any need for anyone to take Ron Paul seriously any longer, eliminate any chance that Newt Gingrich can be a viable candidate, and show that Rick Santorum has the horsepower to seriously challenge Mitt Romney and emerge as the GOP nominee.
I hope enough Gingrich supporters step up to the plate at this critical time and thank Newt Gingrich for his many years of service, for his wonderful work as a candidate for President (well, at least most of the time), and urge him to withdraw, while openly switching to Rick Santorum for President.
And most of all, I pray that conservatives will not let differences over their choice of Presidential nominee block them from cooperating and working together on the host of important issues our country faces in the future.
HanoverHenry is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there, https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry
Links to my RED STATE articles at my Facebook NOTES section.
Posted on 23 February 2012.
Posted on 08 February 2012.
By Javier Manjarres
Senator Marco Rubio recently delivered a compelling and emotional speech on illegal immigration at the annual Hispanic Leadership Network meeting, but Rubio may have left many in the room, and perhaps across the country wondering if this speech marked the beginning of a ‘softening’ by Rubio on this important issue.
At the very beginning of his speech, Rubio was heckeled by pro-Dream Act activists, who were there in protest of the Senators hard-line views on immigration, making the case for his continued anti-amnesty position.
During the course of his remarks, Rubio stated that there is “broad bi-partisan support for a notion that we should somehow figure a way to accommadate them (Dream Act Kids).”
While Rubio has come out in opposition to the Dream Act, Rubio has always questioned what is to happen to the children who were brought here to this country illegally by their parents.
Rubio campaigned on a pro-legal immigration platform and thus far he has been staunchly against any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, but he has hit a couple of bumps along that road that give immigration hawks cause for concern.
During his 2010 Senatorial campaign, Rubio was slammed by pro-illegal immigration contingency when he made this controversial statement critiquing the Arizona Immigration law:
States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.-Senator Marco Rubio
Rubio’s Senate campaign took heavy criticism for this statement and immediately went into damage control mode to try to mitigate the fallout. Rubio immediately back-peddled and the damage was limited.
But earlier in his political career when he was Speaker of the Florida House, Rubio was labeled as being “pro-amnesty” for illegals when he blocked the passage of six immigration reform bills that were to be heard in committee. Rubio stated that these bills did not make it out of committee, and he noted that a similar bill introduced in 2009 also never made it out of committee.
Congressman David Rivera (R-FL), one of Rubio’s closest friend from his days in the Florida Legislature has introduced the Adjusted Residency for Military Service Act — the ARMS Act. It’s a variation on the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to some children of undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally.-Miami Herald
There is now talk that Rubio may co-sponsor the measure in the Senate, a move that will undoubtedly set off a backlash from Tea Party and other grassroots groups against the Senator.
Marco Rubio supports the military component of the Dream Act, but the problem for Rubio is that this measure is another form of amnesty and it would wholly discredit him as being against any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Rubio believes that citizenship is only granted to those illegals who get discharged from the Armed Forces with an Honorable Discharge, but both Rivera and Rubio are completely disconnected with the unintended consequences that will fall upon the country if this measure is adopted.
Let’s raise a couple obvious, and not so obvious questions about the this Military-only Dream Act.
First of all, how is this going to be paid for? If you have 100,000 illegal immigrants that attempt to enlist in the armed forces, where will they serve, especially in light of the drastic military cuts that President Obama has proposed?
Of those 100,000 illegals that enlist, how many will wash out of their respected Basic Training programs? As of 2006, the wash-out rate for enlistees in the military is as follows:
What do we do with those 13.6% of Army wash-outs, or 14% of the Navy’s wash-outs? Do we offer them a consolation prize for not being able to serve the opportunity to gain U.S. Citizenship?
Aside from the high wash-out rate and the shrinking military, what about those illegal immigrant soldiers that receive a ‘General’ discharge, as opposed to an Honorable Discharge?
General discharges are given to service members whose performance is satisfactory but is marked by a considerable departure in duty performance and conduct expected of military members. Reasons for such a characterization of service vary, from medical discharges to misconduct, and are utilized by the unit commander as a means to correct unacceptable behavior prior to initiating discharge action (unless the reason is drug abuse, in which case discharge is mandatory). A commander must disclose the reasons for the discharge action in writing to the service member, and must explain reasons for recommending the service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions). The service member is normally required to sign a statement acknowledging receipt and understanding of the notification of pending discharge memorandum. They are also advised of the right to seek counsel and present supporting statements.
In addition, service members are required to sign documents acknowledging that “substantial prejudice in civilian life” may be encountered under a general discharge.Despite this, some personnel think because the discharge is described as general under honorable conditions, it is as good as or the same as an honorable discharge. Concerning VA disability and most other benefits that is true; however, a general discharge may preclude participation in the GI Bill, service on veteran’s commissions, and other programs where a fully honorable discharge is required. However, one state,Illinois, prohibits discrimination against a veteran from housing or employment on the basis of unfavorable discharge from military service per the Human Rights Act of 1970.-Wikipedia
Another question to consider is the following- how long does an illegal immigrant have to serve before he or she is ‘Honorably Discharged’ and receives their citizenship- is it 2 years, 4 years, 6 years, or more? And what if the soldier decides to make the military a career, what then? Do ‘what if’?’ provisions need to be added to the agreement regarding extended military service?
Another question- once these illegal immigrants become citizens by virtue of their military service, will they be allowed to immediately request the rest of their families?
Senator Rubio, Congressman Rivera, and others who support this military amnesty measure seem to be completely blinded by the rantings and pressures coming from the pro-amnesty lobby, and their support of this measure could very well help open an ominous “Pandora’s Box” of future amnesty measures.
(Cross-posted: The Shark Tank)
Posted on 02 February 2012.
Posted on 01 February 2012.
Posted on 28 January 2012.
My Senator, Marco Rubio, delivered this week’s Weekly Republican Address. The video and transcript are below:
Full transcript of Senator Rubio’s address:
Hello, I’m Marco Rubio, a Senator from Florida. Right now all eyes are focused on my home state ahead of next week’s Republican presidential primary. It’s an exciting contest and I know that passions are high. So I wanted to take a moment to explain to the rest of the country why Republicans in Florida are so excited about this primary: Because we believe our country is in big trouble.
As you know, earlier this week, President Obama delivered his fourth annual address to Congress. It was an opportunity for the President to talk about his accomplishments over the last three years and to lay out his plans for the year ahead.
And he missed on both counts.
You didn’t hear much talk about the success of his Administration—and that’s because there isn’t much.
Yes, this President inherited a significant national debt, but over the last three years he’s made it worse. Our national debt has grown by nearly 50 percent since he took over, and now, for the first time since World War II, our national debt is larger than our country’s economy.
Yes, this President inherited an economy where unemployment was too high, but over the last three years he’s made it worse.
Today our unemployment rate is higher than the day he took office. In fact, since he took over, it’s been stuck over 8 percent every single month.
This President didn’t talk about his record for one simple reason; he doesn’t want you to know about it. But you do know about it, because you feel the failure of his leadership every single day of your life.
The bottom line is this President inherited a country with serious problems. He asked the Congress to give him the stimulus and Obamacare to fix it. The Democrats in Congress gave it to him. And not only did it not work, it made everything worse.
President Obama has a year left in the White House. So what are his plans now to make things better? What does he plan to do now, that he didn’t do before? Well we got our answer Tuesday night. He plans to divide us against each other. To pit Americans against other Americans in the hopes of generating enough votes to get re-elected.
He tells Americans worried about their jobs that the way to help them is to raise their bosses’ taxes.
He tells those who are hurting that the only way they can be better off, is for others to be worse off.
He tells all of us that the only way for some of us to climb up the economic ladder is for others to be pulled down.
This divisive rhetoric, this effort to gain political support by convincing some that they will be better off if we punish others, this stuff has never worked anywhere it’s been tried.
People end up fleeing countries who adopt economic policies based on these flawed principles. And more often than not, they come here.
They come here because this is not who we are.
Americans have always believed that all of us can succeed.
That those who have made it fairly, can stay there. And those who are trying to make it will have a real chance to join them.
This is what has made us different. This is what has made us prosperous. This is what makes us exceptional.
And now, for the first time in my adult life, we have a President who’s asking us to abandon our economic heritage.
To become like the countries people come here to get away from.
To become like everybody else.
Yes, people are hurting. Yes, there is a growing gap between the rich and the poor.
But the way to solve it is not to embrace the ‘trickle up poverty’ economics of other nations.
The way to solve it is to embrace the American Free Enterprise system.
No economic system is perfect. But the American Free Enterprise system has empowered millions of people in the past. I know, because I saw it with my own eyes.
My father was a bartender. And I thank God every night that there was someone willing to risk their money to build a hotel on Miami Beach and later in Las Vegas where he could work.
I thank God that there was enough prosperity in America so people could go on vacation to Miami or Las Vegas. Where people felt prosperous enough to have weddings or Bar Mitzvahs and, by the way, could leave tips in my Dad’s little tip jar. Because with that money he raised us. And he gave me the opportunity to do things he never had a chance to do.
Now, we had help along the way. I had student loans and grants from the government to help me get my education. And I went to our public school system.
That’s an important role for government to play. And so I also thank God that we had an economy prosperous enough to afford to pay for these things as well.
So, I’ll just close by saying, I hope this year will be the beginning of our work towards a new and prosperous American century.
Because I know that this idea of a nation where anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything, it’s not just something I read about in history books. I’ve seen it in my own life. And there’s no reason why we cannot continue it here, if only we do the right things.
May God bless all of you, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.
[Cross-posted at Sunshine State Sarah]
Posted on 26 January 2012.
About a month ago, many conservatives pounced upon Nikki Haley when she endorsed Mitt Romney and branded her as a traitor and RINO as though she is failing to govern South Carolina in a conservative manner.
I’ve asked it at the time and I’ll ask it again; where had Newt Gingrich been when these very conservatives including Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio challenged establishment Republicans in primaries in 2010? Why, he was busy endorsing others like Dede Scozzafava over tea-partier Doug Hoffman, Robert Bennet over Mike Lee, and so on. Not only has Newt chosen to support left-leaning candidates over Tea-partiers, he had repeatedly supported liberal legislation first as a Congressman and later as a private citizen.
The Drudge Report has become the number one news source for millions of conservatives who are refreshed to see news which the mainstream media fails to report. Drudge has linked to and helped make viral many liberal-exposures including Breitbart’s explosive Acorn videos.
Last week, Drudge had a headline about a network’s upcoming interview with a presidential candidate’s ex-wife; a news that would under normal circumstances be featured on every website. Although divorces are usually a messy business and many ex-spouses seek to slander their former spouse, it is only reasonable that voters will still want to hear what the candidate’s ex-wife has to say (taking it perhaps with a grain of salt) especially since the court documents regarding his first divorce have shown that Newt and not his wife had requested the divorce, contrary to his claims.
Drudge had come under heavy attack from Newt supporters for reporting this news, and Saturday night after Newt had won South Carolina, twitter was loaded with messages proclaiming Matt Drudge had lost. What has he lost? He owns a news site, and reported this piece news as he does with all other news.
Also, what’s wrong if he personally doesn’t support Newt (although I haven’t heard him say so)? It has come to the point that anyone who says anything not so complimentary of Newt, even when it’s the truth, is branded as in the camp for Romney. I, for instance, support neither Newt nor Romney. I support Rick Santorum. I’ve found it quite disturbing, though, to have been told by Newt that supporting Santorum is equivalent to supporting Romney. No, it isn’t and being told so won’t change that. I don’t support many of Romney’s policies of which Santorum has always held contrary views. I’m of the opinion that I will support the person who appears to me as the only principled conservative still in the race and I also feel that supporting Newt is similar to supporting Romney since they’ve held similar views on a majority of the issues. You may disagree with that, but don’t say I’m not allowed to support someone other than yourself.
It’s true that a huge chunk of conservatives are currently supporting Newt. However, that doesn’t mean one isn’t a conservative if he supports another candidate, including Romney. Furthermore, disagreeing with Newt doesn’t automatically mean the individual supports Romney; he may be supporting an alternative candidate such as Santorum or has not yet made up his/her mind.
Conservatives have already dumped Nikki Haley. They’ve blasted Matt Drudge for the past week. Now Rubio has become the target of attacks. What has Rubio done? Rubio hadn’t questioned Newt’s conservatism or dared discuss Newt’s past. He simply responded to an analogy that Newt had made which included Rubio. Also, after having been questioned about a specific ad, he responded that it was more befitted for a liberal with its false fear-mongering message to Hispanics (much in the manner Obama has engaged in the 2010 midterms). The Newt team apparently felt Rubio was in the right for it responded quite quickly and promised to pull the ad.
Newt is beloved by many for his sharp responses and hard-hitting answers. At times, though his remarks seem to follow liberal tactics or deliver a punch which is contradictory with conservative values, and he’s admitted as much. Just as he’d apologized for his fear-mongering comments on the Paul Ryan Plan as “right-wing social engineering” which hurt conservatism at a time when the left attempted to portray conservatives as throwing grandma off the cliff, so too, his portrayal of Romney as anti-immigration without differentiating between legal and illegal immigration has struck the wrong balance.
If we’re going to throw under the bus every conservative who utters anything anti-Newt I think we’ll need super-long tractor-trailers to fit everyone under. We should be able to understand that conservative opinion will be split in a primary and that not everyone will agree with your choice of candidate. That’s what primaries are all about. Let’s stop the trashing and bashing of conservatives solely because their opinion conflicts yours.
Posted on 26 January 2012.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” – Winston Churchill
Churchill never had the opportunity to meet Marco Rubio, but I believe he would have felt a kinship with my Senator. Today, Reuters joined the unholy alliance of jokers and schemers who have been engaged in a vicious quest to smear the name of Marco Rubio in the eyes of the American public, and specifically in the Hispanic community.
First, there was the controversy with what appeared to be an attempt by Univision to extort Rubio into appearing on their liberal Al Punto show by running a decades-old story about his brother-in-law (see my posts here and here, and Marc Caputo’s Miami Herald post here). Then we had another admittedly liberal writer at the Washington Post attacking Rubio’s family history – by implying Rubio had made claims that he never had, and by completely ignoring what Rubio had actually said, not to mention ignoring actual facts about Cuban history (see my posts here and here).
Now, today, the latest wretched pile of bovine excrement was delivered in an article by David Adams titled, “Florida’s Rubio a star, but an unlikely VP pick.”
This article goes beyond mere misrepresentation and innuendo. I am willing to be so bold as to flat out call them lies. (Reuters: please try to sue me on this. I will have so much fun defending that statement. Bring it.) I had started on the long list of viciously falselies in this article, but Matt K. Lewis at the Daily Caller beat me to it, and he did an excellent job. Lewis does such a brutal fact-check on David Adams, that I’m almost inclined to call it a fact-colonoscopy.
Off the bat, I noticed that Adams accused Rubio of voting against ObamaCare and against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor – both of which happened well before Rubio was sworn into the Senate in January 2011. Adams also throws multiple allegations of financial improprieties at Rubio, many of which Lewis easily debunks as well.
[Note: as I have been typing this, I see that Adams has made some small corrections to his article, but as of 12:30 pm today, he still makes the accusation that Rubio voted on ObamaCare and Sotomayor's confirmation. Come on, dude, when a quick Wikipedia search can prove you're a lying twit, you really have no defense.]
A key point from Lewis’ article about the philosophy underlying these nasty personal attacks on Rubio:
Aside from the inaccuracies, it is interesting to note that Rubio’s debt is seen as a liability. Mitt Romney is frequently criticized by the media for being so wealthy that he’s out of touch with the common man. Meanwhile,Rubio — like most Americans — has faced financial difficulty — and yet that is also somehow a liability?Is there a magic amount of wealth that is just right?
Finally, a source pointed me towards some information this afternoon that may just be the ribbon that ties this whole ugly package together:
David Adams, the writer who concocted that pack of lies to publish on Reuter’s website (yes, I am going to keep calling them lies), is the Editor of the U.S. and Miami editions of PODER Magazine, which publishes throughout the U.S., Mexico, and Latin America.
Well, guess who was the founding partner and original Editor-in-Chief of PODER Magazine?
Isaac Lee, the current President of News for Univision.
Posted on 26 January 2012.