Births have surpassed immigration as the main driver of the dynamic growth of the Mexican-American population, according to a new analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.
Between 2000 and 2010, the Mexican-American population grew by 7.2 million as a result of births and by 4.2 million as a result of new immigrant arrivals. This is a change from the previous two decades when the number of new immigrants either matched or exceeded the number of births.
The surge in births is attributable to two factors. Mexican Americans, many of whom are immigrants, are younger and have higher fertility than other groups. The median age of Mexican-Americans in the U.S. is 25, compared with 30 for non-Mexican-origin Hispanics, 32 for blacks, 35 for Asians and 41 for whites. And the typical Mexican-American woman ages 40 to 44 (at the end of her child-bearing years) has given birth to more children (2.5) than similar aged non-Mexican-Hispanic (1.9), black (2.0), white (1.8) or Asian (1.8) women.
Meanwhile, the number of Mexicans annually leaving Mexico for the U.S. declined from more than one million in 2006 to 404,000 in 2010----a 60% reduction. This contributed to fewer new immigrant arrivals to the U.S. from Mexico in the 2000s (4.2 million) than in the 1990s (4.7 million). However, the Mexican-American population continued to grow rapidly, with births accounting for 63% of the group's population increase.
Mexican-Americans are the nation's largest Hispanic group. At 31.8 million in 2010, they comprise 63% of the U.S. Hispanic population and 10% of the total U.S. population. Among Mexican-Americans, some 39%----or 12.4 million----are immigrants. More than half of these immigrants (6.5 million) are in the country without authorization.
The report, "The Mexican-American Boom: Births Overtake Immigration," is available at the Pew Hispanic Center's website, www.pewhispanic.org.
The Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center, is a nonpartisan, non-advocacy research organization based in Washington, D.C. and is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Comcast just took care of my charitable giving for the year...
Last week Comcast got final approval to purchase a controlling share of NBC Universal. They're giving up their management stake in Hulu, agreeing to a lot of stipulations including seven years of governmental monitoring, to acquire the 51% share of the company. They've been working on the deal since back in 2009 and Comcast has jumped through a lot of hoops to get FCC and Justice Department approval. I've posted copies of both agreements at the end of this article.
Courtesy of requirements imposed by the FCC I'm going to be subsidizing cable service and computers, netbooks and other computer equipment to 2.5 million low income homes and free cable to over 600 institutions in low-income areas.
First thing we did was call and cancel HBO. That'll save us $16 a month. We should have done that a long time ago but watched it enough to justify having it since we've pretty much given up going to the movie-theater.
I don't know if the increase was a preemptive increase to try and cover the costs of the purchase of shares or all the requirements the FCC saddled them with. They had to know the deal was pretty much a given long before the 18th when the won approval. It would be smart on their part to do the increase prior to the actual purchase just to give them a bit of plausible deniability.
I don't blame Comcast, although I suppose they did agree to the terms so they are culpable to some degree. I definitely blame the government. What right does the government have to require a company to give? What in the world does that have to do with managing NBC?
I was at a show last weekend and a Dish Network company was next to our booth. I noticed a sign they'd posted that said if I lived in certain areas I could get $39 a month service with no equipment costs, no down payment and no credit check. It was part of the stimulus package according to the guys in the tent. They're trying to get everyone hooked up... a prospect that kind of scares me in a big brother kind of way. I suddenly feel the need to cover the camera eye on my laptop...
The government is sticking its nose into every crevice of our society. They tout all these laudable reasons... increasing jobs, making us more competitive, etc. I don't believe the purpose of our government is to get into social engineering, into the cable business, into the business of forcing companies to do good.
The government has taken the role of an evil Robin Hood. They force those of us who've busted our butts to stay afloat to pay for those who often don't try. I know there are many in our society who do not have the ability to take care of themselves. I know that there are those who hit hard times and with a bit of a boost could climb out of the hole their in. I believe it is my responsibility, not that of the government, to give and help. I don't appreciate having the government choose who I donate my hard earned dollars to.
I also believe that it's time our churches quit building multi-million dollar houses of worship. They need to put their money into helping the needy, the truly needy. I know many churches have outstanding programs to help their community. I'm not knocking what they're doing, just saying that if the churches really got into action they could eliminate a whole lot of sorrow outside the doors of their opulent buildings.
Going back to my original train of thought on Comcast and the government's roll in forcing them to give, thus forcing me to give... many of the companies I pay each month have philanthropic arms. They donate regularly to charities and causes. I rather like the way our local EMC handles their giving - they give me the option of donating something each month to their charitable fund. I don't have to do it and I have no say over who gets it, but at least I can say no.
I want less government. Every time they touch something it costs me. I end up paying higher taxes, higher utility bills, higher prices at the gas pump, higher grocery bills. A lot of that is directly caused by their interference.
The Comcast / NBC Universal deal will be finalized on Jan. 28th. Wonder if they'll be going up on my bill again?
----
FCC GRANTS APPROVAL OF COMCAST-NBCU TRANSACTION
Media Bureau contact: Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165.
The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, along with five state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to block the formation of the joint venture, alleging that the transaction would allow Comcast to limit competition from its cable, satellite, telephone and online competitors. At the same time, the department and the states filed a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the competitive concerns in the lawsuit. The participating states are: California, Florida, Missouri, Texas and Washington.
"The Antitrust Division worked in close cooperation and unprecedented coordination with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reach a result that fully protects competition, allowing businesses to bring new and innovative products to the marketplace, providing consumers with more programming choices," said Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. "The conditions imposed will maintain an open and fair marketplace while at the same time allow the innovative aspects of the transaction to go forward."
Today, the FCC also issued an order approving the proposed transaction subject to conditions, some of which are similar to those in the department's settlement. The department and FCC consulted extensively to coordinate their reviews and create remedies that were both consistent and comprehensive. Consistent with the department's complaint, the FCC order requires the joint venture to license NBCU content to Comcast's cable, satellite and telephone competitors, making it unnecessary for the department to impose the same requirement.
The department's complaint alleges that Comcast's traditional and online rivals need access to NBCU programming, including the NBC broadcast network, to compete effectively against Comcast. The joint venture would have less incentive to distribute NBCU programming to Comcast's video distribution rivals than a stand-alone NBCU, and could cause Comcast's rivals and their customers to face higher prices for that content. The department said that the joint venture, as originally proposed, may have substantially lessened competition for video programming distribution in major portions of the United States. The department also said that the market would experience lower levels of investment, less experimentation with new models of delivering content and less diversity in the types and range of product offerings.
Under the proposed settlement and the FCC order, the joint venture must make available to online video distributors (OVDs) the same package of broadcast and cable channels that it sells to traditional video programming distributors. In addition, the joint venture must offer an OVD broadcast, cable and film content that is similar to, or better than, the content the distributor receives from any of the joint venture's programming peers. These peers are NBC's broadcast competitors (ABC, CBS and FOX), the largest cable programmers (News Corp., Time Warner Inc., Viacom Inc. and The Walt Disney Co.), and the largest video production studios (News Corp., Sony Corporation of America, Time Warner Inc., Viacom Inc. and The Walt Disney Co.).
In the event of a licensing dispute between the joint venture and an online video distributor, the department may seek court enforcement of the settlement or permit, in its sole discretion, the aggrieved online video distributor to pursue a commercial arbitration procedure established under the settlement. The FCC order also requires the joint venture to license content to OVDs on reasonable terms and includes an arbitration mechanism for resolving disputes. If timely arbitration is available for resolution of disputes under the FCC order, the department ordinarily will defer to the FCC's arbitration process to resolve such disputes. The FCC order also allows Comcast's traditional competitors, such as satellite and telephone companies, to invoke arbitration at the FCC to resolve program access and retransmission consent disputes.
The settlement also includes other relief aimed at ensuring that Comcast cannot evade the provisions designed to protect competition. For example:
GE is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Fairfield, Conn. GE is a global infrastructure, finance and media company. GE owns 88 percent of NBCU, a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters in New York City. NBCU is principally involved in the production, packaging and marketing of news, sports and entertainment programming. NBCU wholly owns the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks, as well as 10 local NBC owned and operated television stations (O&Os), 16 Telemundo O&Os and one independent Spanish language television station. In addition, NBCU wholly owns national cable programming networks – Bravo, Chiller, CNBC, CNBC World, MSNBC, mun2, Oxygen, Sleuth, SyFy and USA Network – and partially owns A&E Television Networks (including the Biography, History and Lifetime cable networks), The Weather Channel and ShopNBC. NBCU also owns Universal Pictures, Focus Films and Universal Studios. In 2009, NBCU had total revenues of $15.4 billion.
As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed seven-year settlement, along with the department's competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to Nancy Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 7000, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed settlement upon finding that it is in the public interest.
Courtesy of requirements imposed by the FCC I'm going to be subsidizing cable service and computers, netbooks and other computer equipment to 2.5 million low income homes and free cable to over 600 institutions in low-income areas.
Broadband Adoption and Deployment. Comcast will make available to approximately 2.5 million low income households: (i) high-speed Internet access service for less than $10 per month; (ii) personal computers, netbooks, or other computer equipment at a purchase price below $150; and (iii) an array of digital-literacy education opportunities. Comcast will also expand its existing broadband networks to reach approximately 400,000 additional homes, provide broadband Internet access service in six additional rural communities, and provide free video and high-speed Internet service to 600 new anchor institutions, such as schools and libraries, in underserved, low-income areas.My Comcast cable bill went up $2 this month and my Comcast Internet also went up $2. Yep, I know $4 is not much in the scheme of things, but we haven't had a cost of living increase in three years. Advertising on my websites tanked in comparison to the good old days and sales at shows are down. The cost of gas and groceries has substantially increased ruing that same time period. We haven't stopped our donations to charities, in fact, we've scrimped a bit more so we could increase our giving.
First thing we did was call and cancel HBO. That'll save us $16 a month. We should have done that a long time ago but watched it enough to justify having it since we've pretty much given up going to the movie-theater.
I don't know if the increase was a preemptive increase to try and cover the costs of the purchase of shares or all the requirements the FCC saddled them with. They had to know the deal was pretty much a given long before the 18th when the won approval. It would be smart on their part to do the increase prior to the actual purchase just to give them a bit of plausible deniability.
I don't blame Comcast, although I suppose they did agree to the terms so they are culpable to some degree. I definitely blame the government. What right does the government have to require a company to give? What in the world does that have to do with managing NBC?
I was at a show last weekend and a Dish Network company was next to our booth. I noticed a sign they'd posted that said if I lived in certain areas I could get $39 a month service with no equipment costs, no down payment and no credit check. It was part of the stimulus package according to the guys in the tent. They're trying to get everyone hooked up... a prospect that kind of scares me in a big brother kind of way. I suddenly feel the need to cover the camera eye on my laptop...
The government is sticking its nose into every crevice of our society. They tout all these laudable reasons... increasing jobs, making us more competitive, etc. I don't believe the purpose of our government is to get into social engineering, into the cable business, into the business of forcing companies to do good.
The government has taken the role of an evil Robin Hood. They force those of us who've busted our butts to stay afloat to pay for those who often don't try. I know there are many in our society who do not have the ability to take care of themselves. I know that there are those who hit hard times and with a bit of a boost could climb out of the hole their in. I believe it is my responsibility, not that of the government, to give and help. I don't appreciate having the government choose who I donate my hard earned dollars to.
I also believe that it's time our churches quit building multi-million dollar houses of worship. They need to put their money into helping the needy, the truly needy. I know many churches have outstanding programs to help their community. I'm not knocking what they're doing, just saying that if the churches really got into action they could eliminate a whole lot of sorrow outside the doors of their opulent buildings.
Going back to my original train of thought on Comcast and the government's roll in forcing them to give, thus forcing me to give... many of the companies I pay each month have philanthropic arms. They donate regularly to charities and causes. I rather like the way our local EMC handles their giving - they give me the option of donating something each month to their charitable fund. I don't have to do it and I have no say over who gets it, but at least I can say no.
I want less government. Every time they touch something it costs me. I end up paying higher taxes, higher utility bills, higher prices at the gas pump, higher grocery bills. A lot of that is directly caused by their interference.
The Comcast / NBC Universal deal will be finalized on Jan. 28th. Wonder if they'll be going up on my bill again?
----
FCC GRANTS APPROVAL OF COMCAST-NBCU TRANSACTION
Washington, D.C. -- Today, the Federal Communications Commission grants—with conditions and enforceable commitments—approval of the assignment and transfer of control of broadcast, satellite, and other radio licenses from General Electric Company (GE) to Comcast Corporation. The approval will allow GE and Comcast to create a joint venture involving NBC Universal, Inc. (NBCU) and Comcast. An Order further explaining the Commission’s reasoning and the conditions and commitments will be issued shortly.
The Commission's decision is based on a thorough review of the record, which includes extensive data and voluntary commitments from the applicants, as well as thousands of comments from interested parties and public input received at a public forum held in Chicago. Based on this review, the Commission has determined that granting the application, with certain conditions and contingent upon enforceable commitments, is in the public interest. As part of the merger, Comcast-NBCU will be required to take affirmative steps to foster competition in the video marketplace. In addition, Comcast-NBCU will increase local news coverage to viewers; expand children's programming; enhance the diversity of programming available to Spanish-speaking viewers; offer broadband services to low-income Americans at reduced monthly prices; and provide high-speed broadband to schools, libraries and underserved communities, among other public benefits.
More specifically, the conditions imposed by the Commission address potential harms posed by the combination of Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator and Internet service provider, and NBCU, which owns and develops some of the most valuable television and film content. These targeted conditions and commitments, which generally will remain in effect for seven years, include:
· Ensuring Reasonable Access to Comcast-NBCU Programming for Multichannel Distribution. Building on successful requirements adopted in prior, similar transactions, the Commission is establishing for rival multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) an improved commercial arbitration process for resolving disputes about prices, terms, and conditions for licensing Comcast-NBCU’s video programming. The Commission is also requiring Comcast-NBCU to make available through this process its cable channels in addition to broadcast and regional sports network programming.
· Protecting the Development of Online Competition. Recognizing the risks this transaction could present to the development of innovative online video distribution services, the Commission has adopted conditions designed to guarantee bona fide online distributors the ability to obtain Comcast-NBCU programming in appropriate circumstances. These conditions respond directly to the concerns voiced by participants in the proceeding—including consumer advocates, online video distributors (OVDs), and MVPDs —while respecting the legitimate business interests of the Applicants to protect the value of their content. Among other things, the Commission requires that Comcast and/or Comcast-NBCU:
o Provides to all MVPDs, at fair market value and non-discriminatory prices, terms, and conditions, any affiliated content that Comcast makes available online to its own subscribers or to other MVPD subscribers.
o Offers its video programming to legitimate OVDs on the same terms and conditions that would be available to an MVPD.
o Makes comparable programming available on economically comparable prices, terms, and conditions to an OVD that has entered into an arrangement to distribute programming from one or more of Comcast-NBCU’s peers.
o Offers standalone broadband Internet access services at reasonable prices and of sufficient bandwidth so that customers can access online video services without the need to purchase a cable television subscription from Comcast.
o Does not enter into agreements to unreasonably restrict online distribution of its own video programming or programming of other providers.
o Does not disadvantage rival online video distribution through its broadband Internet access services and/or set-top boxes.
o Does not exercise corporate control over or unreasonably withhold programming from Hulu.
· Access to Comcast’s Distribution Systems. In light of the significant additional video programming Comcast will control after the merger with NBCU—programming that may compete with third-party programming Comcast currently carries or otherwise would carry on its MVPD service—the Commission requires that Comcast not discriminate in video programming distribution on the basis of affiliation or non-affiliation with Comcast-NBCU. Moreover, if Comcast “neighborhoods” its news (including business news) channels, it must include all unaffiliated news (or business news) channels in that neighborhood. The Commission also adopts as a condition of the transaction Comcast’s voluntary commitment to provide 10 new independent channels within eight years on its digital tier.
· Protecting Diversity, Localism, Broadcast and Other Public Interest Concerns. The Commission is also imposing conditions and accepting voluntary commitments concerning a numbers of other public interest issues, including diversity, localism, and broadcasting, among others. For example, to protect the integrity of over-the-air broadcasting, network-affiliate relations, and fair and equitable retransmission consent negotiations with the joint venture, the Commission adopts a series of conditions that were independently negotiated between the Applicants and various network affiliates.
The Applicants have also made a number of additional voluntary commitments, many of which the Commission has adopted as conditions to the transaction’s approval. Most of these commitments are geared towards enhancing the public interest as a result of the joint venture. These commitments include:· Broadband Adoption and Deployment. Comcast will make available to approximately 2.5 million low income households: (i) high-speed Internet access service for less than $10 per month; (ii) personal computers, netbooks, or other computer equipment at a purchase price below $150; and (iii) an array of digital-literacy education opportunities. Comcast will also expand its existing broadband networks to reach approximately 400,000 additional homes, provide broadband Internet access service in six additional rural communities, and provide free video and high-speed Internet service to 600 new anchor institutions, such as schools and libraries, in underserved, low-income areas.
· Localism. To further broadcast localism, Comcast-NBCU will maintain at least the current level of news and information programming on NBC’s and Telemundo’s owned-and-operated (“O&O”) broadcast stations, and in some cases expand news and other local content. NBC and Telemundo O&O stations also will provide thousands of additional hours of local news and information programming to their viewers, and some of its NBC stations will enter into cooperative arrangements with locally focused nonprofit news organizations. Additional free, on-demand local programming will be made available as well.
· Children’s Programming. Comcast-NBCU will increase the availability of children’s programming on its NBC and Telemundo broadcast stations, and add at least 1,500 more choices to Comcast’s on-demand offerings for children. It will provide additional on-screen ratings information for original entertainment programming on the Comcast-NBCU broadcast and cable television channels and improved parental controls. Comcast-NBCU also will restrict interactive advertising aimed at children 12 years old and younger and provide public service announcements addressing children’s issues.
· Programming Diversity. Building on Comcast’s voluntary commitments in this area, we require Comcast-NBCU to increase programming diversity by expanding its over-the-air programming to the Spanish language-speaking community, and by making NBCU’s Spanish-language broadcast programming available via Comcast’s on demand and online platforms. As noted above, Comcast also will add at least 10 new independent channels to its cable offerings.
· Public, Educational, and Governmental (“PEG”) Programming. Comcast will safeguard the continued accessibility and signal quality of PEG channels on its cable television systems and introduce new on demand and online platforms for PEG content.
Action by the Commission January 18, 2011 by: Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 11-4). Chairman Genachowski and Commissioner Clyburn, with Commissioners McDowell and Baker concurring, and Commissioner Copps dissenting. Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Clyburn and Copps each issuing a separate statement, with Commissioners McDowell and Baker issuing a joint statement.
MB Docket No. 10-56
----
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ALLOWS COMCAST-NBCU JOINT VENTURE TO
PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS
PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS
Companies Agree to License Programming to Online Distributors and Comply with Anti-Retaliation Provisions and Open Internet Requirements
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today a settlement with Comcast Corp. and General Electric Co.'s subsidiary NBC Universal Inc. (NBCU) that allows their joint venture to proceed conditioned on the parties' agreement to license programming to online competitors to Comcast's cable TV services, subject themselves to anti-retaliation provisions and adhere to Open Internet requirements. The department said that the proposed settlement will preserve new content distribution models that offer more products and greater innovation, and the potential to provide consumers access to their favorite programming on a variety of devices in a wide selection of packages.The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, along with five state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to block the formation of the joint venture, alleging that the transaction would allow Comcast to limit competition from its cable, satellite, telephone and online competitors. At the same time, the department and the states filed a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the competitive concerns in the lawsuit. The participating states are: California, Florida, Missouri, Texas and Washington.
"The Antitrust Division worked in close cooperation and unprecedented coordination with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reach a result that fully protects competition, allowing businesses to bring new and innovative products to the marketplace, providing consumers with more programming choices," said Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. "The conditions imposed will maintain an open and fair marketplace while at the same time allow the innovative aspects of the transaction to go forward."
Today, the FCC also issued an order approving the proposed transaction subject to conditions, some of which are similar to those in the department's settlement. The department and FCC consulted extensively to coordinate their reviews and create remedies that were both consistent and comprehensive. Consistent with the department's complaint, the FCC order requires the joint venture to license NBCU content to Comcast's cable, satellite and telephone competitors, making it unnecessary for the department to impose the same requirement.
The department's complaint alleges that Comcast's traditional and online rivals need access to NBCU programming, including the NBC broadcast network, to compete effectively against Comcast. The joint venture would have less incentive to distribute NBCU programming to Comcast's video distribution rivals than a stand-alone NBCU, and could cause Comcast's rivals and their customers to face higher prices for that content. The department said that the joint venture, as originally proposed, may have substantially lessened competition for video programming distribution in major portions of the United States. The department also said that the market would experience lower levels of investment, less experimentation with new models of delivering content and less diversity in the types and range of product offerings.
Under the proposed settlement and the FCC order, the joint venture must make available to online video distributors (OVDs) the same package of broadcast and cable channels that it sells to traditional video programming distributors. In addition, the joint venture must offer an OVD broadcast, cable and film content that is similar to, or better than, the content the distributor receives from any of the joint venture's programming peers. These peers are NBC's broadcast competitors (ABC, CBS and FOX), the largest cable programmers (News Corp., Time Warner Inc., Viacom Inc. and The Walt Disney Co.), and the largest video production studios (News Corp., Sony Corporation of America, Time Warner Inc., Viacom Inc. and The Walt Disney Co.).
In the event of a licensing dispute between the joint venture and an online video distributor, the department may seek court enforcement of the settlement or permit, in its sole discretion, the aggrieved online video distributor to pursue a commercial arbitration procedure established under the settlement. The FCC order also requires the joint venture to license content to OVDs on reasonable terms and includes an arbitration mechanism for resolving disputes. If timely arbitration is available for resolution of disputes under the FCC order, the department ordinarily will defer to the FCC's arbitration process to resolve such disputes. The FCC order also allows Comcast's traditional competitors, such as satellite and telephone companies, to invoke arbitration at the FCC to resolve program access and retransmission consent disputes.
The settlement also includes other relief aimed at ensuring that Comcast cannot evade the provisions designed to protect competition. For example:
- Comcast may not retaliate against any broadcast network (or affiliate), cable programmer, production studio or content licensee for licensing content to a competing cable, satellite or telephone company or OVD, or for raising concerns to the department or the FCC;
- Comcast must relinquish its management rights in Hulu, an OVD. Without such a remedy, Comcast could, through its seats on Hulu's board of directors, interfere with the management of Hulu, and, in particular, the development of products that compete with Comcast's video service. Comcast also must continue to make NBCU content available to Hulu that is comparable to the programming Hulu obtains from Disney and News Corp;
- In accordance with recently established Open Internet requirements, Comcast is prohibited from unreasonably discriminating in the transmission of an OVD's lawful network traffic to a Comcast broadband customer. Comcast must also maintain the high-speed Internet service it offers to its customers by continuing to offer download speeds of at least 12 megabits per second in markets where it has upgraded its broadband network. Additionally, Comcast is required to give other firms' content equal treatment under any of its broadband offerings that involve caps, tiers, metering for consumption or other usage-based pricing; and
- Comcast may not, with certain narrow exceptions, require programmers or video distributors to agree to licensing terms that seek to limit online distributors' access to content.
GE is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Fairfield, Conn. GE is a global infrastructure, finance and media company. GE owns 88 percent of NBCU, a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters in New York City. NBCU is principally involved in the production, packaging and marketing of news, sports and entertainment programming. NBCU wholly owns the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks, as well as 10 local NBC owned and operated television stations (O&Os), 16 Telemundo O&Os and one independent Spanish language television station. In addition, NBCU wholly owns national cable programming networks – Bravo, Chiller, CNBC, CNBC World, MSNBC, mun2, Oxygen, Sleuth, SyFy and USA Network – and partially owns A&E Television Networks (including the Biography, History and Lifetime cable networks), The Weather Channel and ShopNBC. NBCU also owns Universal Pictures, Focus Films and Universal Studios. In 2009, NBCU had total revenues of $15.4 billion.
As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed seven-year settlement, along with the department's competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to Nancy Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 7000, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed settlement upon finding that it is in the public interest.
Friday, January 21, 2011
New Majority Keeps Pledge to Focus on Jobs & Ending the Job-Crushing D.C. Spending Binge
This week, the new House majority continued working to keep its Pledge to America to focus on removing barriers to job creation and ending Washington’s job-crushing spending binge. Here’s a look:
Removing Barriers to Job Growth & Ending the Job-Crushing Spending Binge
The House voted this week to repeal the job-destroying health care law and then took action to begin replacing it with common-sense reforms that will lower costs and protect jobs. More than half the states are now challenging ObamaCare in court. And job creators, economists, and state legislators representing millions of taxpayers have all spoken out in recent days in support of scrapping the law and starting over.
Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) introduced the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act to rein in job-stifling red tape that’s causing uncertainty for job creators. The bill would require an up-or-down vote by Congress on major federal rules and regulations – written by unelected bureaucrats – that have an economic impact of at least $100 million.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has been selected to deliver the Republican address to the nation following President Obama's State of the Union speech on January 25. Chairman Ryan will lead a critical effort in the House this year to stop the job-crushing spending binge in DC and cut spending back to pre-“stimulus,” pre-bailout levels.
Every dollar counts, and the House has already begun replacing Congress’ culture of spending with a culture of saving – first by cutting its budget, and then by saving taxpayers millions of dollars by eliminating needless paper copies of legislation. These were just the first of many spending cuts to come.
The speaker also employed the “#hcrcostsjobs” hashtag on Twitter to draw emphasis to the health care law’s devastating impact on families and small businesses.
For more on what’s to come in the weeks ahead, take a look at the Pledge to America. As Speaker Boehner has vowed: “the Pledge is the plan.” Read more here.
As we’ve noted, our goal is to keep improving these emails in the weeks ahead so please contact us here if you have ideas on how we can make them more useful. Thank you again and have a great weekend.
- Speaker Boehner’s Press Office
Removing Barriers to Job Growth & Ending the Job-Crushing Spending Binge
The House voted this week to repeal the job-destroying health care law and then took action to begin replacing it with common-sense reforms that will lower costs and protect jobs. More than half the states are now challenging ObamaCare in court. And job creators, economists, and state legislators representing millions of taxpayers have all spoken out in recent days in support of scrapping the law and starting over.
Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) introduced the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act to rein in job-stifling red tape that’s causing uncertainty for job creators. The bill would require an up-or-down vote by Congress on major federal rules and regulations – written by unelected bureaucrats – that have an economic impact of at least $100 million.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has been selected to deliver the Republican address to the nation following President Obama's State of the Union speech on January 25. Chairman Ryan will lead a critical effort in the House this year to stop the job-crushing spending binge in DC and cut spending back to pre-“stimulus,” pre-bailout levels.
Every dollar counts, and the House has already begun replacing Congress’ culture of spending with a culture of saving – first by cutting its budget, and then by saving taxpayers millions of dollars by eliminating needless paper copies of legislation. These were just the first of many spending cuts to come.
The speaker also employed the “#hcrcostsjobs” hashtag on Twitter to draw emphasis to the health care law’s devastating impact on families and small businesses.
For more on what’s to come in the weeks ahead, take a look at the Pledge to America. As Speaker Boehner has vowed: “the Pledge is the plan.” Read more here.
As we’ve noted, our goal is to keep improving these emails in the weeks ahead so please contact us here if you have ideas on how we can make them more useful. Thank you again and have a great weekend.
- Speaker Boehner’s Press Office
Friday, December 17, 2010
FRC Action PAC Pledges to Support Conservative Primary Challengers to Any U.S. Senator Voting to Overturn 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' During Lame-Duck Session
FRC Action PAC, the political action committee connected with FRC Action, the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council, announced today that it will endorse and fund conservative primary challengers to any U.S. Senator who votes to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" during the lame-duck session.
FRC Action PAC President Connie Mackey made the following comments:
"We are pledging today to endorse, and help fund, conservative primary challengers to any U.S. Senator who votes during the lame-duck session to overturn 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' FRC Action PAC will work to remove any U.S. Senator who would place liberal special interests ahead of the priorities of the American people.
"The U.S. Senate has twice rejected the overturn of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Despite this, Majority Leader Harry Reid continues with his obsession while failing to address the essential responsibilities of the federal government. As three of the four service chiefs have made clear, the men and women of the Armed Forces who are engaged in fighting two wars should not be distracted by Congress using them to advance a liberal social agenda. Using the Senate's time in the lame-duck session to pay back his liberal political base is simply absurd and demonstrates once again Senator Reid's misplaced priorities. Members of the Senate should refuse to become accomplices in helping Harry Reid advance his agenda over the American people's agenda," concluded Mackey.
FRC Action PAC President Connie Mackey made the following comments:
"We are pledging today to endorse, and help fund, conservative primary challengers to any U.S. Senator who votes during the lame-duck session to overturn 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' FRC Action PAC will work to remove any U.S. Senator who would place liberal special interests ahead of the priorities of the American people.
"The U.S. Senate has twice rejected the overturn of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Despite this, Majority Leader Harry Reid continues with his obsession while failing to address the essential responsibilities of the federal government. As three of the four service chiefs have made clear, the men and women of the Armed Forces who are engaged in fighting two wars should not be distracted by Congress using them to advance a liberal social agenda. Using the Senate's time in the lame-duck session to pay back his liberal political base is simply absurd and demonstrates once again Senator Reid's misplaced priorities. Members of the Senate should refuse to become accomplices in helping Harry Reid advance his agenda over the American people's agenda," concluded Mackey.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Camp, Herger Question Administration’s Decision to Force Seniors Out of Their Medicare Prescription Drug Plans
Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp (R-MI) and Health Subcommittee Ranking Member Wally Herger (R-CA) today sent Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius a letter inquiring about the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) decision to eliminate certain Medicare Part D prescription drug plans that could force 3 million seniors out of their current plan. Camp and Herger expressed particular concerns that CMS would automatically enroll more than 1.5 million seniors in a plan with premiums 15 percent higher than seniors are currently paying.
The Republicans said: “We are alarmed that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has arbitrarily decided to limit beneficiaries’ choice of Part D prescription drug plans…We hereby request that CMS immediately provide all documents and correspondence related to CMS’ decision to eliminate prescription drug plans over the last two years, including any analysis that was conducted to determine the impact such decisions would have on premiums of displaced beneficiaries so that Congress can consider how best to protect seniors from such decisions in the future."
The full letter can be read here.
The Republicans said: “We are alarmed that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has arbitrarily decided to limit beneficiaries’ choice of Part D prescription drug plans…We hereby request that CMS immediately provide all documents and correspondence related to CMS’ decision to eliminate prescription drug plans over the last two years, including any analysis that was conducted to determine the impact such decisions would have on premiums of displaced beneficiaries so that Congress can consider how best to protect seniors from such decisions in the future."
The full letter can be read here.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Urgent: Call your Senators now to support our military!
The U.S. Senate seeks to push abortion and a homosexual agenda onto our military! Call 202-224-3121 today & urge them to vote NO to proceeding on the defense authorization bill
With the economy still in the doldrums, and a massive job-killing tax increase scheduled for January looming over our heads, you would think that legislation to help average Americans find jobs in the private sector would be the top priority for the Democratic leadership in Congress. If you thought that, you would be wrong.
This Tuesday the Senate will vote on a bill that would overturn the 1993 law which codified the military's longstanding prohibition of homosexual conduct in the ranks. The language that would force open homosexuality upon the military is found in the defense authorization bill -- along with another anti-family provision that would turn U.S. military medical facilities here and around the globe into abortion centers.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has arranged it so that pro-family senators do not have an opportunity to offer any of their own amendments to counter his political abuse of our military. This means the only way to stop this monstrosity is to vote against proceeding to the bill.
This bill is not necessary to fund our military -- an appropriations bill does that.
Senators should reject Reid's distorted priorities by voting against advancing this bill at every step. Call your senators today at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to stop using the military to impose this administration's radical homosexual agenda.
Thank you for taking action today and God bless you.
Sincerely,
Tony Perkins
President
FRC Action: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 877/372-2808
frcaction.org
With the economy still in the doldrums, and a massive job-killing tax increase scheduled for January looming over our heads, you would think that legislation to help average Americans find jobs in the private sector would be the top priority for the Democratic leadership in Congress. If you thought that, you would be wrong.
This Tuesday the Senate will vote on a bill that would overturn the 1993 law which codified the military's longstanding prohibition of homosexual conduct in the ranks. The language that would force open homosexuality upon the military is found in the defense authorization bill -- along with another anti-family provision that would turn U.S. military medical facilities here and around the globe into abortion centers.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has arranged it so that pro-family senators do not have an opportunity to offer any of their own amendments to counter his political abuse of our military. This means the only way to stop this monstrosity is to vote against proceeding to the bill.
This bill is not necessary to fund our military -- an appropriations bill does that.
Senators should reject Reid's distorted priorities by voting against advancing this bill at every step. Call your senators today at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to stop using the military to impose this administration's radical homosexual agenda.
Thank you for taking action today and God bless you.
Sincerely,
Tony Perkins
President
FRC Action: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 877/372-2808
frcaction.org
Help stop the DREAM ACT (Nightmare is more apt description)
Big government Democrats are working hard to shove yet another unpopular, unwanted piece of legislation down the throats of taxpayers... this time in the form of the DREAM ACT. The Defense Authorization Bill will be voted on at 2:15 PM Eastern time on Tuesday, September 21.
The DREAM ACT will dramatically push up spending and increase the cost of higher education for every state. The increase is even more extreme for states with large illegal immigrant populations.
The bill forces states to give taxpayer fueled financial aid to illegal immigrants, forces states to allow illegal immigrants to take advantage of in-state tuition, and worst of all, there is virtually no accountability for the funding involved in the bill. This is yet another outrageous bill pushed forth by Democrats and it must be stopped. Please CLICK HERE NOW for a list of numbers to call over night.
Above from Liberty.com / Americans for New Leadership
The DREAM ACT will dramatically push up spending and increase the cost of higher education for every state. The increase is even more extreme for states with large illegal immigrant populations.
The bill forces states to give taxpayer fueled financial aid to illegal immigrants, forces states to allow illegal immigrants to take advantage of in-state tuition, and worst of all, there is virtually no accountability for the funding involved in the bill. This is yet another outrageous bill pushed forth by Democrats and it must be stopped. Please CLICK HERE NOW for a list of numbers to call over night.
Above from Liberty.com / Americans for New Leadership
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
FED UP with Political Games
This thing with the career political types in the Republican Party trying to work against conservatives just to keep their power structure is making me lean real strongly toward calling myself an Independent.
I am fed up.
They are obviously not getting the message that we're tired, frustrated, irritated, angry with the games, the status quo, the "machine". I certainly don't want to hand over our country to Obama-types, but I'll be darned if I'm going to vote for the lesser of two evils when there's a good conservative choice in the race.
This garbage the National Republican Senatorial Committee has put out saying they're not going to help Christine O'Donnell is just like saying, 'up yours' to the many good, strong, conservatives who're crying out for change, clamoring for principled people. And, they just told the Democrats, "here, you can have this seat". Silver platter, too.
When I heard the news on Fox that the NRSC was saying they wouldn't help O'Donnell because they didn't believe she couldn't win I was LIVID. They didn't think she could win against Castle either. I can't vote for O'Donnell but I sure can vote for or against my own elected officials.
My message to the D.C. suits: If you are a conservative, if you have principles, then walk the walk. If you can't walk the walk then you'll find that I'll be out there looking for a TRUE conservative to run against you in the next election... And you know what? I'm willing to lose a battle here or there if that's what it takes to ultimately win the war for better government.
Just a note on the following release --- I'm not so sure I'm "on board" with the Tea Party Express, either. I'm trying hard to do my own research, read, listen, follow and learn. I have not supported every candidate they support. However, I'm sure happier with them than I am with the power-structure in our governing parties right now. There are some VERY true statements in the release below.
---
Tea Party Express Responds to NRSC
The Tea Party Express issued the following statement in response to preliminary reports that the National Republican Senatorial Committee would not support their own nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware:
"The National Republican Senatorial Committee has reportedly said they will not support their own nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware. This is a rash statement that hopefully they will reconsider once good judgment sets in.
"The NRSC tried to meddle in the vote recount for liberal Republican Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Now they say they aren't committed to supporting their own nominee in Delaware? When will this insanity stop?
"We encourage the NRSC to take a night off, get some sleep, and reconsider their rash statements. It is because of inexcusable conduct in Delaware and Alaska that so many conservatives have turned to the Tea Party Express, offering their support and their donations. These people have lost faith in the NRSC as just another big-government, Washington, D.C.-based organization that has contributed to the problems this country currently faces.
"If the NRSC is committed to defeating Democrats in November, then it is time for them to honor their mission statement and do just that. If they fail to do so, then they can expect millions of conservatives to continue to steer their donations and volunteer hours elsewhere.
"Wake up NRSC, the reason the tea party movement has grown into such a powerful force is because of the failures of establishment organizations such as yours to honor the principles of the Republican Party platform. You tried to force through the most liberal Republican in Congress on the voters of Delaware and they rejected you. Wake up, you are defying your own base, and will end up an irrelevant and impotent organization that serves to only amuse the corrupt political establishment in Washington, D.C.
"The Tea Party Express will back Christine O'Donnell in the general election along with every other candidate we've endorsed. We trust adults at the NRSC will come to their senses and realize that the people have spoken, and it's time for the NRSC to represent the Republicans it is supposed to represent."
I am fed up.
They are obviously not getting the message that we're tired, frustrated, irritated, angry with the games, the status quo, the "machine". I certainly don't want to hand over our country to Obama-types, but I'll be darned if I'm going to vote for the lesser of two evils when there's a good conservative choice in the race.
This garbage the National Republican Senatorial Committee has put out saying they're not going to help Christine O'Donnell is just like saying, 'up yours' to the many good, strong, conservatives who're crying out for change, clamoring for principled people. And, they just told the Democrats, "here, you can have this seat". Silver platter, too.
When I heard the news on Fox that the NRSC was saying they wouldn't help O'Donnell because they didn't believe she couldn't win I was LIVID. They didn't think she could win against Castle either. I can't vote for O'Donnell but I sure can vote for or against my own elected officials.
My message to the D.C. suits: If you are a conservative, if you have principles, then walk the walk. If you can't walk the walk then you'll find that I'll be out there looking for a TRUE conservative to run against you in the next election... And you know what? I'm willing to lose a battle here or there if that's what it takes to ultimately win the war for better government.
Just a note on the following release --- I'm not so sure I'm "on board" with the Tea Party Express, either. I'm trying hard to do my own research, read, listen, follow and learn. I have not supported every candidate they support. However, I'm sure happier with them than I am with the power-structure in our governing parties right now. There are some VERY true statements in the release below.
---
Tea Party Express Responds to NRSC
The Tea Party Express issued the following statement in response to preliminary reports that the National Republican Senatorial Committee would not support their own nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware:
"The National Republican Senatorial Committee has reportedly said they will not support their own nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware. This is a rash statement that hopefully they will reconsider once good judgment sets in.
"The NRSC tried to meddle in the vote recount for liberal Republican Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Now they say they aren't committed to supporting their own nominee in Delaware? When will this insanity stop?
"We encourage the NRSC to take a night off, get some sleep, and reconsider their rash statements. It is because of inexcusable conduct in Delaware and Alaska that so many conservatives have turned to the Tea Party Express, offering their support and their donations. These people have lost faith in the NRSC as just another big-government, Washington, D.C.-based organization that has contributed to the problems this country currently faces.
"If the NRSC is committed to defeating Democrats in November, then it is time for them to honor their mission statement and do just that. If they fail to do so, then they can expect millions of conservatives to continue to steer their donations and volunteer hours elsewhere.
"Wake up NRSC, the reason the tea party movement has grown into such a powerful force is because of the failures of establishment organizations such as yours to honor the principles of the Republican Party platform. You tried to force through the most liberal Republican in Congress on the voters of Delaware and they rejected you. Wake up, you are defying your own base, and will end up an irrelevant and impotent organization that serves to only amuse the corrupt political establishment in Washington, D.C.
"The Tea Party Express will back Christine O'Donnell in the general election along with every other candidate we've endorsed. We trust adults at the NRSC will come to their senses and realize that the people have spoken, and it's time for the NRSC to represent the Republicans it is supposed to represent."
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Why can't the good guys get some help?
"Already there are rumors of an August surprise (to use the phrase of business columnist Jimmy Pethokoukis) where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forgive underwater mortgages held by millions of Americans." - Larry Kudlow, Town Hall (http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryKudlow/2010/08/07/a_democratic_panic_attack/page/full)
I get really irritated when I read or hear about another bailout of any sort, but bailing out mortgages kinda makes me a bit hotter.
I have two family members who are struggling mightily to pay their mortgages each month. One got flooded out, had problems galore with the government flood insurance and needed some mortgage relief. She tried every way she could to get some help from any one of the programs Obama and his crew tout. The bottom line on any assistance was that she had to have missed a few mortgage payments to get ANY relief. It didn't matter what she could prove as to being upside-down, single mom, job salary cuts due to economy, house flooded, etc. etc. No help unless she was willing to skip some payments.
My other family member is semi-out of work. He does some seasonal stuff, which is so up and down it's hard to put a monthly income number on a form. He takes every side job, every handy-man job, anything that comes his way to make sure he pays the mortgage on his home. He has a special needs child which keeps his wife from working regularly, but she works out of the home as she can to help out.
He's checked into program after program, stepped up to talk to representatives when new options were put forth over the past few years. He has to miss some payments to qualify for anything, be completely out of work and / or have a steady income they can track.
I know that many, many of the people who benefit from the government's redistribution of our tax dollars (and loans from China) are in true desperate need. They lost their jobs and aren't able to work at any type job that will cover their mortgage. There are umpteen legitimate reasons that result in many being in the default boat. I don't have a problem with helping people who are truly in need. However, for every one who has an honest reason for being behind I'd bet there are at least two who are sitting back and waiting for Uncle Sam (oh, our poor beleaguered Uncle Sam) to fix things for them.
There are scammers who know how to work the system. There are those who go from one hand out to another. There are those who think we owe them.
Yesterday I was in conversation with a recent college administrative worker. He was talking about the number of government college loans handed out in his previous school that went to students who never showed. They got the max loan available, took the money and had a great time with no intention of ever paying it off. He was at a fairly small school and saw it happening over and over. He knew because he paid attention, asked questions and was shocked at the answer. It seems it's common practice. Scary.
How many of these people that are have their mortgages forgiven will be in the same situation again in a few years? How many are just sitting back and waiting for Obama to bail 'em out? Why is it that legitimate, hard working, people who don't want to scam or ruin their credit can't get any help? Why can't the government be fair? Why can't they come up with programs to help those who are trying to do the right thing?
Aww, we all know the answers to those questions. It's all politics, it's all about votes and it's all about power.
Ya know, if most of the programs put in by often-times good-intentioned people actually worked like they intended there wouldn't be a problem. We'd help those who needed a leg up become self-sufficient. We'd have programs that helped them get jobs, get over a temporary hump and get back into being a productive citizen. These hand-out programs went way, way wrong when they became political tools and/or when government drones started looking more at job security than the purpose of their position.
I was intending to have a politics-free Saturday, but I goofed and skimmed my emails. So much news, none of it seems to be good these days. I haven't even had my first cup of caffeine and I'm already steamed.... arrrgggghhhh.
I get really irritated when I read or hear about another bailout of any sort, but bailing out mortgages kinda makes me a bit hotter.
I have two family members who are struggling mightily to pay their mortgages each month. One got flooded out, had problems galore with the government flood insurance and needed some mortgage relief. She tried every way she could to get some help from any one of the programs Obama and his crew tout. The bottom line on any assistance was that she had to have missed a few mortgage payments to get ANY relief. It didn't matter what she could prove as to being upside-down, single mom, job salary cuts due to economy, house flooded, etc. etc. No help unless she was willing to skip some payments.
My other family member is semi-out of work. He does some seasonal stuff, which is so up and down it's hard to put a monthly income number on a form. He takes every side job, every handy-man job, anything that comes his way to make sure he pays the mortgage on his home. He has a special needs child which keeps his wife from working regularly, but she works out of the home as she can to help out.
He's checked into program after program, stepped up to talk to representatives when new options were put forth over the past few years. He has to miss some payments to qualify for anything, be completely out of work and / or have a steady income they can track.
I know that many, many of the people who benefit from the government's redistribution of our tax dollars (and loans from China) are in true desperate need. They lost their jobs and aren't able to work at any type job that will cover their mortgage. There are umpteen legitimate reasons that result in many being in the default boat. I don't have a problem with helping people who are truly in need. However, for every one who has an honest reason for being behind I'd bet there are at least two who are sitting back and waiting for Uncle Sam (oh, our poor beleaguered Uncle Sam) to fix things for them.
There are scammers who know how to work the system. There are those who go from one hand out to another. There are those who think we owe them.
Yesterday I was in conversation with a recent college administrative worker. He was talking about the number of government college loans handed out in his previous school that went to students who never showed. They got the max loan available, took the money and had a great time with no intention of ever paying it off. He was at a fairly small school and saw it happening over and over. He knew because he paid attention, asked questions and was shocked at the answer. It seems it's common practice. Scary.
How many of these people that are have their mortgages forgiven will be in the same situation again in a few years? How many are just sitting back and waiting for Obama to bail 'em out? Why is it that legitimate, hard working, people who don't want to scam or ruin their credit can't get any help? Why can't the government be fair? Why can't they come up with programs to help those who are trying to do the right thing?
Aww, we all know the answers to those questions. It's all politics, it's all about votes and it's all about power.
Ya know, if most of the programs put in by often-times good-intentioned people actually worked like they intended there wouldn't be a problem. We'd help those who needed a leg up become self-sufficient. We'd have programs that helped them get jobs, get over a temporary hump and get back into being a productive citizen. These hand-out programs went way, way wrong when they became political tools and/or when government drones started looking more at job security than the purpose of their position.
I was intending to have a politics-free Saturday, but I goofed and skimmed my emails. So much news, none of it seems to be good these days. I haven't even had my first cup of caffeine and I'm already steamed.... arrrgggghhhh.
A depressing article to start your day...
Everything Kudlow mentions as something the Dems may try or do scares the heck out of me. Even if Congress swings to the right in November I hear the Dems are going to try and push through all kinds of crap before they take their seats. These two years, the first years of Obama, are going to go down in history as doing the most damage to the foundation of our country and the future of our county. Even when and if there's a conservative takeover in Congress come January they're not going to be able to reverse much of what's been done until we clean out the White House in 2012, too.
A Democratic Panic Attack?
With the disappointingly soft jobs report for July, and a faltering recovery overall, is Team Obama getting ready for some sort of new, liberal-left, Keynesian, big-bang stimulus package? Will they be desperate to “do something”?
Already there are rumors of an August surprise (to use the phrase of business columnist Jimmy Pethokoukis) where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forgive underwater mortgages held by millions of Americans. And with state and local government jobs having fallen 169,000 year-to-date, perhaps the Democratic Congress and the White House will seek an even bigger spending plan for teachers and Medicaid workers -- on top of the $26 billion plan that just passed the Senate.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryKudlow/2010/08/07/a_democratic_panic_attack/page/full
A Democratic Panic Attack?
With the disappointingly soft jobs report for July, and a faltering recovery overall, is Team Obama getting ready for some sort of new, liberal-left, Keynesian, big-bang stimulus package? Will they be desperate to “do something”?
Already there are rumors of an August surprise (to use the phrase of business columnist Jimmy Pethokoukis) where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forgive underwater mortgages held by millions of Americans. And with state and local government jobs having fallen 169,000 year-to-date, perhaps the Democratic Congress and the White House will seek an even bigger spending plan for teachers and Medicaid workers -- on top of the $26 billion plan that just passed the Senate.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryKudlow/2010/08/07/a_democratic_panic_attack/page/full
Monday, August 2, 2010
Pete Stark on Gov't, Healthcare - 'Open mouth, say what you really believe...'
The woman questioning Pete Stark (D-California) does a magnificent job. She knows her Constitution! The above is on Breitbart.tv, says this is part one. Can't wait to find or see part two.
Guys (and gals) like Stark have been in power way, way too long. Time to clean the house, clean out Washington and a lot of our local state gov't's too.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Your Last chance to Speak before Congress Silences You
Call your U.S. Senators today at 202-224-3121 and ask them to oppose S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act
This past weekend Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama told a gathering of the most hard-edged liberal activists that they need to pull out all stops to win this November so that they can push more of their damaging agenda on the American people. Fearful of what Election Day could mean for their extreme ideology, a number of liberals in Congress are pushing S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act, which amounts to Democrat incumbent protection legislation disguised as campaign finance reform.
Instead of addressing the problems often found in the financing of campaigns, S. 3628 seeks to add to the already onerous burdens placed on organizations that act within the law by going after their donors and exposing them in public forums. The exceptions, or "carve-outs," in the bill demonstrate the hypocrisy of its supporters. They provide special treatment for select special interest groups in a bill designed to crack down on the power of special interests!
Too often, such tactics are used to intimidate donors. We saw this in the sixties during the civil rights struggles, and more recently we have seen intimidation employed time and time again against Christians in states like Massachusetts, California and Maine for merely voicing their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
And now the Democrats want to intimidate you into silence as well!
How much of a farce is the DISCLOSE Act? The carve-outs in the bill give unions and traditional Democrat interest groups special protections, which is no surprise when you realize the legislation was written by legislators who have personal stakes in this election. In fact, the legislation allows for no expedited review, which means that if DISCLOSE passes, it cannot be reviewed by the courts until after the 2010 elections. Why? Because the Democrats know what they are passing is unconstitutional, and realize that once a federal court gives it a good look, it is likely to be overturned.
Please CALL your SENATORS today at 202-224-3121 and tell them to oppose S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act.
Thank you and God bless you.
Sincerely,
Tony Perkins
President
FRC Action: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 877/372-2808
W: frcaction.org
This past weekend Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama told a gathering of the most hard-edged liberal activists that they need to pull out all stops to win this November so that they can push more of their damaging agenda on the American people. Fearful of what Election Day could mean for their extreme ideology, a number of liberals in Congress are pushing S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act, which amounts to Democrat incumbent protection legislation disguised as campaign finance reform.
Instead of addressing the problems often found in the financing of campaigns, S. 3628 seeks to add to the already onerous burdens placed on organizations that act within the law by going after their donors and exposing them in public forums. The exceptions, or "carve-outs," in the bill demonstrate the hypocrisy of its supporters. They provide special treatment for select special interest groups in a bill designed to crack down on the power of special interests!
Too often, such tactics are used to intimidate donors. We saw this in the sixties during the civil rights struggles, and more recently we have seen intimidation employed time and time again against Christians in states like Massachusetts, California and Maine for merely voicing their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
And now the Democrats want to intimidate you into silence as well!
How much of a farce is the DISCLOSE Act? The carve-outs in the bill give unions and traditional Democrat interest groups special protections, which is no surprise when you realize the legislation was written by legislators who have personal stakes in this election. In fact, the legislation allows for no expedited review, which means that if DISCLOSE passes, it cannot be reviewed by the courts until after the 2010 elections. Why? Because the Democrats know what they are passing is unconstitutional, and realize that once a federal court gives it a good look, it is likely to be overturned.
Please CALL your SENATORS today at 202-224-3121 and tell them to oppose S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act.
Thank you and God bless you.
Sincerely,
Tony Perkins
President
FRC Action: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 877/372-2808
W: frcaction.org
Thursday, July 22, 2010
We don't need this kind of crud...
Vitter Challenger Has His Own Ethical Baggage
Chet Traylor (R) made no secret he is challenging Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) in a primary for U.S. Senate because of the senator's "personal foibles" -- including a 2007 prostitution scandal and his continued employment of an aide accused of attacking his girlfriend with a knife in 2008.
But the Monroe News-Star reports Traylor "has his own ethical questions that could threaten the upstanding image his campaign has opted to present."
Most interesting is his complicated romantic history, including allegations of affairs with two married women. Traylor is also currently involved in a romantic relationship with the estranged wife of his stepson.
Chet Traylor (R) made no secret he is challenging Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) in a primary for U.S. Senate because of the senator's "personal foibles" -- including a 2007 prostitution scandal and his continued employment of an aide accused of attacking his girlfriend with a knife in 2008.
But the Monroe News-Star reports Traylor "has his own ethical questions that could threaten the upstanding image his campaign has opted to present."
Most interesting is his complicated romantic history, including allegations of affairs with two married women. Traylor is also currently involved in a romantic relationship with the estranged wife of his stepson.
Paying for political endorsements...
Billionaire Florida U.S. Senate candidate Jeff Greene (D) paid a DNC member Jon Ausman $4000 for "political consultation and strategy" right after sending out a blast email asking who he should endorse in the race, the AP reports.
Several days later Ausman endorsed Greene.
DNC Member Paid Before Endorsement
Several days later Ausman endorsed Greene.
DNC Member Paid Before Endorsement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
