Tech at Night: FCC vs the Republicans
Posted by Neil Stevens (Profile)
Saturday, January 8th at 3:30AM EST
No Comments
Ah, 1am. I spent a few hours this evening working on some math, and now suddenly it’s the middle of the night. So as I say all too often in this space, I’m going to make it quick.
While Fred Upton and his committee arrangements are so important to our coming fights against the EPA, the FCC, and of course the coming Obamacare apparatus, it’s also true that other Republicans can and will play roles in this fight.
Marsha Blackburn is one of them. She’s introduced the Internet Freedom Act, written to take back from the FCC the powers it’s unilaterally decreed itself to have over the Internet.
Blackburn also says that more immediate action is possible and even useful, through the Congressional Review Act. Of course, any of these steps will require Senate support, but I don’t think that’s out of the question when even Henry Waxman was capable of discussing legislative action against the FCC.
By the way, George Will takes a look at Fred Upton himself and the role he’ll have to play in our fights against Carbon Dioxide regulation, Net Neutrality, and Obamacare.
Thank you and good night.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Founding Documents
The United States Constitutuion and a listing of other useful documents to use throughout your day
Constitutionalists vs. Interpretationalists
Interesting view! I'd like to hear what both sides views are on the issue... Constitutionalists vs. 'Interpretationists'
By Cal Thomas | January 05, 2011 | 10:38
The new House Republican leadership is smart to inaugurate their return to power by reading aloud the U.S. Constitution on the House floor. Recalling America's founding principles is never a bad idea. To some on the left, though, the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, but is to be interpreted by judges and politicians. To liberals, this means the document is useful only when it advances a "progressive" economic, political and social agenda. Otherwise, it must be considered a relic of a bygone era.
The Constitution, according to liberal thinking, was written at a time when people -- including some of its signers -- owned slaves and so we moderns must interpret and regularly update it, like computer software. These "interpretationists" are like people who appeal to biblical authority when it appears to support their earthly agenda ("turn the other cheek" means unilateral disarmament; numerous verses about helping the poor mandates government welfare), but ignore it when it offends secular pursuits (abortion, homosexuality, income redistribution, capital punishment).
The Emancipation Proclamation and constitutional amendments redressed grievances, such a slavery and voting rights for women. These came not because the Constitution was flawed, but because succeeding generations realized we had failed to live up to its noble precepts, which included the Preamble and its philosophical foundation, the Declaration of Independence. Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
In a recent appearance on MSNBC, Washington Post staff writer Ezra Klein reflected the liberal view of the Constitution: "The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person." Apply Klein's thinking to other works written "more than 100 years ago" and we can dispense with most classics, including William Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and Charles Dickens' "Bleak House."
It is a given that the courts interpret the Constitution for a modern age. The Founders could not have anticipated what the America of 2011 would look like. They set down certain principles that could guide us into the future. These principles -- like limited government -- transcend eras. As with Scripture, the Constitution contains eternal truths. If followed, one leads to a more ordered life in America and the other to a better afterlife.
House Republicans may not get far with their promise to require any new legislation to be justified by constitutional language, but the public will get a history lesson about the intentions of the Founders. This lesson will remind a new generation how wise the Founders were and what we have forgotten that they tried to teach us.
That portion of the public which has clamored for change from what they regard as the Obama administration's brand of socialism must not be content with congressional hearings broadcast on the Internet, or legislation posted on a website several days before members cast votes. Those who want smaller and less costly government must do more to take charge of their own lives, serving as examples for others. This means investing wisely for one's own retirement and maintaining a healthy lifestyle to lessen the need for hospitals and medicines.
Failure to engage Congress between elections will prove the cynics right. Cynics believe, based on past failed reform efforts, that lobbyists and lawyers have the power to quell any true reform movement. Are they right? If they are this could be the last chance for at least a generation to return America to original constitutional principles. If that happens, American decline will be more than a fear; it will quickly become reality.
(Direct all MAIL for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.
By Cal Thomas | January 05, 2011 | 10:38
The new House Republican leadership is smart to inaugurate their return to power by reading aloud the U.S. Constitution on the House floor. Recalling America's founding principles is never a bad idea. To some on the left, though, the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, but is to be interpreted by judges and politicians. To liberals, this means the document is useful only when it advances a "progressive" economic, political and social agenda. Otherwise, it must be considered a relic of a bygone era.
The Constitution, according to liberal thinking, was written at a time when people -- including some of its signers -- owned slaves and so we moderns must interpret and regularly update it, like computer software. These "interpretationists" are like people who appeal to biblical authority when it appears to support their earthly agenda ("turn the other cheek" means unilateral disarmament; numerous verses about helping the poor mandates government welfare), but ignore it when it offends secular pursuits (abortion, homosexuality, income redistribution, capital punishment).
The Emancipation Proclamation and constitutional amendments redressed grievances, such a slavery and voting rights for women. These came not because the Constitution was flawed, but because succeeding generations realized we had failed to live up to its noble precepts, which included the Preamble and its philosophical foundation, the Declaration of Independence. Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
In a recent appearance on MSNBC, Washington Post staff writer Ezra Klein reflected the liberal view of the Constitution: "The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person." Apply Klein's thinking to other works written "more than 100 years ago" and we can dispense with most classics, including William Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and Charles Dickens' "Bleak House."
It is a given that the courts interpret the Constitution for a modern age. The Founders could not have anticipated what the America of 2011 would look like. They set down certain principles that could guide us into the future. These principles -- like limited government -- transcend eras. As with Scripture, the Constitution contains eternal truths. If followed, one leads to a more ordered life in America and the other to a better afterlife.
House Republicans may not get far with their promise to require any new legislation to be justified by constitutional language, but the public will get a history lesson about the intentions of the Founders. This lesson will remind a new generation how wise the Founders were and what we have forgotten that they tried to teach us.
That portion of the public which has clamored for change from what they regard as the Obama administration's brand of socialism must not be content with congressional hearings broadcast on the Internet, or legislation posted on a website several days before members cast votes. Those who want smaller and less costly government must do more to take charge of their own lives, serving as examples for others. This means investing wisely for one's own retirement and maintaining a healthy lifestyle to lessen the need for hospitals and medicines.
Failure to engage Congress between elections will prove the cynics right. Cynics believe, based on past failed reform efforts, that lobbyists and lawyers have the power to quell any true reform movement. Are they right? If they are this could be the last chance for at least a generation to return America to original constitutional principles. If that happens, American decline will be more than a fear; it will quickly become reality.
(Direct all MAIL for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.
Teacher's Union Claims Scalps
Michigan’s largest teachers’ union, is attempting to pick off one-by-one 90-some members that have refused to pay their dues.
About 18 months ago, the school board voted to no longer deduct dues from employees’ paychecks, which meant union members had to physically write a check to the union. Many saw it as their opportunity to protest the obnoxious behavior of union leaders during a previous contract negotiation period. The union president, Paul Helder, was particularly pompous during negotiations, claiming the union was fighting a “war on terrorism.” He even established “War Time Committees” to organize the fight against the school board and administrators.
Marjorie Hayward objected to her president’s behavior and refused to pay up. So the union took her to small claims court.
An EAGtv story can be seen here.
The judge, citing the fact that Michigan is not a right-to-work state, ruled she has to fork over the money, regardless of whether or not the union is representing her interests.
Let that marinate for a bit – because of current Michigan law, the union has the right to take a school employee to court and extract money out of her. Isn’t that grand?
If there is ever an opportunity to make Michigan a right-to-work state, this is it.
The arrogance of the union is unparalleled. Tim Nendorf of the MEA told a TV station after Thursday’s court hearing that, “People have to meet our obligations. We gave two years to try and allow people to meet those obligations. At a certain point unfortunately it had to come to this and take this action."
He told another station, “we didn’t want to go after all 90 in one court room, in one setting, so we filed on five folks and we’ll be continuing to do so to be sure people can meet their obligations.”
So heads up band of 90: the union is going to attempt to pick you off one at a time. This is the perfect opportunity for the teachers to file a class-action lawsuit against the union, citing the fact that the union did not represent their interests.
This could be the first move in the process of empowering workers to be free to choose whether or not to support such organizations with their hard-earned money in the state of Michigan, the long-time nest of Big Labor.
About 18 months ago, the school board voted to no longer deduct dues from employees’ paychecks, which meant union members had to physically write a check to the union. Many saw it as their opportunity to protest the obnoxious behavior of union leaders during a previous contract negotiation period. The union president, Paul Helder, was particularly pompous during negotiations, claiming the union was fighting a “war on terrorism.” He even established “War Time Committees” to organize the fight against the school board and administrators.
Marjorie Hayward objected to her president’s behavior and refused to pay up. So the union took her to small claims court.
An EAGtv story can be seen here.
The judge, citing the fact that Michigan is not a right-to-work state, ruled she has to fork over the money, regardless of whether or not the union is representing her interests.
Let that marinate for a bit – because of current Michigan law, the union has the right to take a school employee to court and extract money out of her. Isn’t that grand?
If there is ever an opportunity to make Michigan a right-to-work state, this is it.
The arrogance of the union is unparalleled. Tim Nendorf of the MEA told a TV station after Thursday’s court hearing that, “People have to meet our obligations. We gave two years to try and allow people to meet those obligations. At a certain point unfortunately it had to come to this and take this action."
He told another station, “we didn’t want to go after all 90 in one court room, in one setting, so we filed on five folks and we’ll be continuing to do so to be sure people can meet their obligations.”
So heads up band of 90: the union is going to attempt to pick you off one at a time. This is the perfect opportunity for the teachers to file a class-action lawsuit against the union, citing the fact that the union did not represent their interests.
This could be the first move in the process of empowering workers to be free to choose whether or not to support such organizations with their hard-earned money in the state of Michigan, the long-time nest of Big Labor.
Everyone's Favorite Liberal Talking point in Jeopardy
Little Known Fact: Obama's Failed Stimulus Program Cost More Than the Iraq War.
Blue Shield of California Seeks Rate Hikes as Much as 59% for Individuals
Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals
Insurer says the increases result from fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws. The move comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39%.Another big California health insurer has stunned individual policyholders with huge rate increases — this time it's Blue Shield of California seeking cumulative hikes of as much as 59% for tens of thousands of customers March 1.
Blue Shield's action comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39% for about 700,000 California customers.
San Francisco-based Blue Shield said the increases were the result of fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws.
"We raise rates only when absolutely necessary to pay the accelerating cost of medical care for our members," the nonprofit insurer told customers last month.
In all, Blue Shield said, 193,000 policyholders would see increases averaging 30% to 35%, the result of three separate rate hikes since October.
Nearly 1 in 4 of the affected customers will see cumulative increases of more than 50% over five months.
While most policyholders received separate notices for the successive rate hikes, others were given the news all at once because they had contracts guaranteeing their rate for a year, Blue Shield spokesman Tom Epstein said.
Michael Fraser, a Blue Shield policyholder from San Diego, learned recently that his monthly bill would climb 59%, to $431 from $271.
"When I tell people, their jaws drop and their eyes bug out," said Fraser, 53, a freelance advertising writer. "The amount is stunning."
Like many people who hold individual policies, Fraser is self-employed. Others who carry such insurance include people who aren't covered by employer plans or who have been laid off.
The Blue Shield increases triggered complaints to new Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, and they could prove to be an early test of how the former Democratic state assemblyman deals with rate hikes and the insurance industry.
Anthem's attempt to raise rates by up to 39% led to national outrage and helped President Obama marshal support for his healthcare overhaul. The insurer was ultimately forced to back down, accepting maximum rate hikes of 20%.
Jones said the Blue Shield move underscored the need for the Legislature to give the insurance commissioner legal authority to regulate insurance rates the same way he does automobile coverage.
At present, the commissioner can block increases only if insurers spend less than 70% of premium income on claims. Jones' office said Blue Shield's March 1 increase was under review.
"Blue Shield's increases pose the same problem posed by Anthem Blue Cross last year and other health insurers as well," Jones said in an interview. "My hope would be that Blue Shield would reexamine these rate hikes, particularly in the face of the impact they are having on individual policyholders."
Blue Shield said the cost of health coverage was being driven up by large hospital expenses, doctors' bills and prescription drug prices. Blue Shield's Epstein said other factors also contributed to the three increases in five months.
On Oct. 1, he said, Blue Shield imposed increases averaging 18% and as high as 29%. Those hikes had been delayed for three months while state regulators examined Blue Shield's filing, costing the company tens of millions of dollars.
Epstein said Blue Shield raised rates again Jan. 1 to pay for changes under the national healthcare overhaul and a new state law that bars insurers from charging women more than men. (Some policyholders will pay less under the state gender law, while others will pay more.)
A third round of hikes scheduled for March 1 comes in response to rising healthcare costs, Epstein said. Those increases will average 6.5% and be as high as 18%.
Some policyholders have seen their bills rise gradually over the last five months, while others will see the charges lumped together March 1.
"It's unfortunate that they all came in a five-month period," Epstein said. "Rates are going to continue to rise unless the cost of medical care is brought under control. We need to reduce what we pay to hospitals, medical groups and pharmaceutical companies."
Despite the large increases, Epstein said Blue Shield would again lose "tens of millions of dollars" on its individual business in 2011.
Not included in the rate increases are 78,000 Blue Shield individual policyholders whose insurance is regulated by a second state agency, the Department of Managed Health Care. Those customers have seen two rate increases since October that together average 37%, Epstein said.
While Blue Shield's cumulative rate increases are high, Anthem Blue Cross' increases last year affected more people.
Anthem said Wednesday that it too expected to raise rates — an average of 9.8% for individual policyholders, effective April 1. That would come on top of increases in October averaging 14% that had been delayed for six months amid heightened scrutiny by state regulators.
Anthem is taking a cautious approach to its rate hikes given the controversy generated by last year's plan for 39% hikes.
Spokeswoman Kristin Binns said the company priced its 2011 rates competitively, saying: "We understand that these are difficult economic times, and we are committed to working to moderate the impact of rate increases on our members."
duke.helfand@latimes.com
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
Insurer says the increases result from fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws. The move comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39%.Another big California health insurer has stunned individual policyholders with huge rate increases — this time it's Blue Shield of California seeking cumulative hikes of as much as 59% for tens of thousands of customers March 1.
Blue Shield's action comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39% for about 700,000 California customers.
San Francisco-based Blue Shield said the increases were the result of fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws.
"We raise rates only when absolutely necessary to pay the accelerating cost of medical care for our members," the nonprofit insurer told customers last month.
In all, Blue Shield said, 193,000 policyholders would see increases averaging 30% to 35%, the result of three separate rate hikes since October.
Nearly 1 in 4 of the affected customers will see cumulative increases of more than 50% over five months.
While most policyholders received separate notices for the successive rate hikes, others were given the news all at once because they had contracts guaranteeing their rate for a year, Blue Shield spokesman Tom Epstein said.
Michael Fraser, a Blue Shield policyholder from San Diego, learned recently that his monthly bill would climb 59%, to $431 from $271.
"When I tell people, their jaws drop and their eyes bug out," said Fraser, 53, a freelance advertising writer. "The amount is stunning."
Like many people who hold individual policies, Fraser is self-employed. Others who carry such insurance include people who aren't covered by employer plans or who have been laid off.
The Blue Shield increases triggered complaints to new Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, and they could prove to be an early test of how the former Democratic state assemblyman deals with rate hikes and the insurance industry.
Anthem's attempt to raise rates by up to 39% led to national outrage and helped President Obama marshal support for his healthcare overhaul. The insurer was ultimately forced to back down, accepting maximum rate hikes of 20%.
Jones said the Blue Shield move underscored the need for the Legislature to give the insurance commissioner legal authority to regulate insurance rates the same way he does automobile coverage.
At present, the commissioner can block increases only if insurers spend less than 70% of premium income on claims. Jones' office said Blue Shield's March 1 increase was under review.
"Blue Shield's increases pose the same problem posed by Anthem Blue Cross last year and other health insurers as well," Jones said in an interview. "My hope would be that Blue Shield would reexamine these rate hikes, particularly in the face of the impact they are having on individual policyholders."
Blue Shield said the cost of health coverage was being driven up by large hospital expenses, doctors' bills and prescription drug prices. Blue Shield's Epstein said other factors also contributed to the three increases in five months.
On Oct. 1, he said, Blue Shield imposed increases averaging 18% and as high as 29%. Those hikes had been delayed for three months while state regulators examined Blue Shield's filing, costing the company tens of millions of dollars.
Epstein said Blue Shield raised rates again Jan. 1 to pay for changes under the national healthcare overhaul and a new state law that bars insurers from charging women more than men. (Some policyholders will pay less under the state gender law, while others will pay more.)
A third round of hikes scheduled for March 1 comes in response to rising healthcare costs, Epstein said. Those increases will average 6.5% and be as high as 18%.
Some policyholders have seen their bills rise gradually over the last five months, while others will see the charges lumped together March 1.
"It's unfortunate that they all came in a five-month period," Epstein said. "Rates are going to continue to rise unless the cost of medical care is brought under control. We need to reduce what we pay to hospitals, medical groups and pharmaceutical companies."
Despite the large increases, Epstein said Blue Shield would again lose "tens of millions of dollars" on its individual business in 2011.
Not included in the rate increases are 78,000 Blue Shield individual policyholders whose insurance is regulated by a second state agency, the Department of Managed Health Care. Those customers have seen two rate increases since October that together average 37%, Epstein said.
While Blue Shield's cumulative rate increases are high, Anthem Blue Cross' increases last year affected more people.
Anthem said Wednesday that it too expected to raise rates — an average of 9.8% for individual policyholders, effective April 1. That would come on top of increases in October averaging 14% that had been delayed for six months amid heightened scrutiny by state regulators.
Anthem is taking a cautious approach to its rate hikes given the controversy generated by last year's plan for 39% hikes.
Spokeswoman Kristin Binns said the company priced its 2011 rates competitively, saying: "We understand that these are difficult economic times, and we are committed to working to moderate the impact of rate increases on our members."
duke.helfand@latimes.com
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
San Francisco Runs Anti-Semetic Outdoor Campaign -- No Word On AFDI/SIOA Pro-Israel Campaign
San Francisco Runs Anti-Semitic Outdoor Campaign -- No Word on AFDI/SIOA Pro-Israel Campaign
San Francisco BART has been running an antisemitic outdoor campaign at a number of outdoor BART stations for well over a month now. I became aware of them last month when Seattle had agreed to run antisemitic ads on their buses, but had second thoughts when I submitted pro-Israel educational ads.
After Seattle changed its policy on account of my ads, I submitted our outdoor campaign to San Francisco back on December 29th.
Here is the report from the notorious Jew-hating site "The Electronic Intifada," the same Palestinian blogger that outed Barack Hussein Obama as an anti-semite back in March 2007 (and there is more here).
Check out the ad -- a play on the jihad is a religion of peace.
Boycott roundup: day of action against TIAA-Cref
Report, The Electronic Intifada, 10 December 2010
Paid advertisements going up around areas of the US calling for an end to US military aid to Israel. (Two Peoples One Future)
Palestine solidarity activists are organizing a day of action today, 10 December, to encourage "people of conscience" to join the more than 18,000 who have already signed a US-wide petition urging financial holdings corporation TIAA-CREF to disinvest from construction vehicle manufacturer Caterpillar Incorporated.
According to campaign coordinating group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), TIAA-CREF has invested more than $250 million in Caterpillar, which the group says is "complicit" in Israel's violations of US and international law ("December 10: TIAA-CREF day of action).
Yes, your basic nightmare.
This day of action is just part of JVP's ongoing campaign to target TIAA-CREF. In July, activists attended the shareholder meeting and presented an "overwhelming" amount of signatures they had gathered in support of TIAA-CREF's divestment from companies that profit from Israeli occupation policies.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian-led movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israeli human rights violations and apartheid policies continues to gather steam elsewhere around the world.
Here are my bus ads -- the AFDI Freeedom lovers and historical accuracy ads:
And this one:
San Francisco BART has been running an antisemitic outdoor campaign at a number of outdoor BART stations for well over a month now. I became aware of them last month when Seattle had agreed to run antisemitic ads on their buses, but had second thoughts when I submitted pro-Israel educational ads.
After Seattle changed its policy on account of my ads, I submitted our outdoor campaign to San Francisco back on December 29th.
Here is the report from the notorious Jew-hating site "The Electronic Intifada," the same Palestinian blogger that outed Barack Hussein Obama as an anti-semite back in March 2007 (and there is more here).
Check out the ad -- a play on the jihad is a religion of peace.
Boycott roundup: day of action against TIAA-Cref
Report, The Electronic Intifada, 10 December 2010
Paid advertisements going up around areas of the US calling for an end to US military aid to Israel. (Two Peoples One Future)
Palestine solidarity activists are organizing a day of action today, 10 December, to encourage "people of conscience" to join the more than 18,000 who have already signed a US-wide petition urging financial holdings corporation TIAA-CREF to disinvest from construction vehicle manufacturer Caterpillar Incorporated.
According to campaign coordinating group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), TIAA-CREF has invested more than $250 million in Caterpillar, which the group says is "complicit" in Israel's violations of US and international law ("December 10: TIAA-CREF day of action).
Yes, your basic nightmare.
This day of action is just part of JVP's ongoing campaign to target TIAA-CREF. In July, activists attended the shareholder meeting and presented an "overwhelming" amount of signatures they had gathered in support of TIAA-CREF's divestment from companies that profit from Israeli occupation policies.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian-led movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israeli human rights violations and apartheid policies continues to gather steam elsewhere around the world.
Here are my bus ads -- the AFDI Freeedom lovers and historical accuracy ads:
And this one:
Friday, January 7, 2011
Coming Soon? GBN - America's Television Network
Coming soon? GBN – America’s Television Network
. . . . .
GLENN BECK!!!
Glenn Beck’s influence expands as his media empire grows. Next: The Glenn Beck television network? GBN baby. GBN – The Network of the American People.
Glenn’s been frustrated for a long time with ALL the news networks’ failure to report the real news, the news that asks the essential questions. He’s never mentioned Fox News by name. He too smart to bite the hand that feeds him and gives him a platform to deliver his view on what’s happening to our country. Listen to what he IS NOT saying:
“The people who know will wet themselves just a little bit when they hear this because my viewpoint and this voice of the American people of the republic — the ones that are just searching for the truth- is not going away. I’m not going to go away. I personally am going to put millions of dollars into The Blaze this year. Personally. I’m not going out for any outside investment — I’m not going to be beholden to anyone.”
I’ve been saying that Glenn has a plan to build his Mercury Arts Media empire to eventually eclipse the traditional and ineffective-at-best, state-run propagandists-at-worst media outlets currently churning out what passes as “news”. (Cleavage, anyone?)
On his radio program, Glenn talked about taking on and overcoming the New York Times with his phenomenally successful online news site ” The Blaze”, which attracted 200 million page views in it first four months.
He is expanding his media universe by hiring a couple of gals away from the Huffington Post (which has built a reputation as the “go-to” news site for the Left.)
“There will be a credible large replacement for the NYT with possibly a slightly different view on life — welcome to the future of The Blaze.”
Listen to the clip in which Beck and The Blaze’s managing editor Scott Baker (former host of the Andrew Breitbart online B-Cast) discuss the future of The Blaze and beyond.
. . . . .
GLENN BECK!!!
Glenn Beck’s influence expands as his media empire grows. Next: The Glenn Beck television network? GBN baby. GBN – The Network of the American People.
Glenn’s been frustrated for a long time with ALL the news networks’ failure to report the real news, the news that asks the essential questions. He’s never mentioned Fox News by name. He too smart to bite the hand that feeds him and gives him a platform to deliver his view on what’s happening to our country. Listen to what he IS NOT saying:
“The people who know will wet themselves just a little bit when they hear this because my viewpoint and this voice of the American people of the republic — the ones that are just searching for the truth- is not going away. I’m not going to go away. I personally am going to put millions of dollars into The Blaze this year. Personally. I’m not going out for any outside investment — I’m not going to be beholden to anyone.”
I’ve been saying that Glenn has a plan to build his Mercury Arts Media empire to eventually eclipse the traditional and ineffective-at-best, state-run propagandists-at-worst media outlets currently churning out what passes as “news”. (Cleavage, anyone?)
On his radio program, Glenn talked about taking on and overcoming the New York Times with his phenomenally successful online news site ” The Blaze”, which attracted 200 million page views in it first four months.
He is expanding his media universe by hiring a couple of gals away from the Huffington Post (which has built a reputation as the “go-to” news site for the Left.)
“There will be a credible large replacement for the NYT with possibly a slightly different view on life — welcome to the future of The Blaze.”
Listen to the clip in which Beck and The Blaze’s managing editor Scott Baker (former host of the Andrew Breitbart online B-Cast) discuss the future of The Blaze and beyond.
Congress and the Constitution: What Would Lincoln Do?
Congress and the Constitution: What Would Lincoln Do?
By Ron Futrell | January 07, 2011 | 13:33
You’d think Republicans read the Communist Manifesto from the floor of Congress this week.
Perhaps the activist old media, or their friends in the Democrat Party would’ve been happier with a little Karl Marx, or maybe bring out Steven Colbert to read some Groucho Marx on the floor would’ve made them happier. The outrage over the reading of the U.S. Constitution is as despicable as it is instructive of who the left is in this country.
The examples of the media calling it a “fetish” that conservatives wanted to have the Constitution read from the floor of the House are everywhere on the internet. Norah O’Donnell called it “a gimmick” and of course, Ezra Klein, the 24 year old child star of the Washington Post, thinks that the text is confusing because it’s more than 100 years old. It’s actually 223 years old (not counting amendments) and next Sept. 17th it will turn 224. Maybe the left thinks I have a fetish because I have those dates committed to memory.
Here’s what another youngster once said about the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln’s Lyceum Address, given when he was just 28 years old, contains a brilliant paragraph about the reading of the Constitution.
Let it [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation.
You may have heard that Lincoln was a Republican and that both the left and the right in this nation have put him in a rather prestigious place of reverence. Abe says read the Constitution early and often and even went the next step by referring to it as the political religion of the nation.
Lincoln had reverence for the Constitution.
Good thing this group of activist old media folk were not around when he was rising to power. Norah, Ezra and the rest of their ilk would’ve tried to ridicule him out of Congress.
The Founders called it the “miracle in Philadelphia” that they were ever able to craft and pass this divine document during three sweaty months in that city. George Washington and James Madison used that phrase to describe the results of the Constitutional Convention. You can’t turn a page in the Founders writings without them giving credit to God for the words on those four pages of parchment. You can read their writings in something called the Federalist Papers. Maybe they should be read aloud next (at least read Federalist 10 and 51.)
The activist old media, that so often points to the First amendment as their Holy Grail that allows them to freely exist without government intervention, is the first to blast Republicans for wanting to follow the words of Lincoln and put the Constitution in a special place of reverence.
The battle lines are drawn, are you with the Founders or not? Some liberals and members of the activist old media could’ve easily joined in this celebration of our Founding documents. Instead, they chose to try to ridicule those who did.
Fine, let's go. I'm happy to be on the side of Lincohn.
By Ron Futrell | January 07, 2011 | 13:33
You’d think Republicans read the Communist Manifesto from the floor of Congress this week.
Perhaps the activist old media, or their friends in the Democrat Party would’ve been happier with a little Karl Marx, or maybe bring out Steven Colbert to read some Groucho Marx on the floor would’ve made them happier. The outrage over the reading of the U.S. Constitution is as despicable as it is instructive of who the left is in this country.
The examples of the media calling it a “fetish” that conservatives wanted to have the Constitution read from the floor of the House are everywhere on the internet. Norah O’Donnell called it “a gimmick” and of course, Ezra Klein, the 24 year old child star of the Washington Post, thinks that the text is confusing because it’s more than 100 years old. It’s actually 223 years old (not counting amendments) and next Sept. 17th it will turn 224. Maybe the left thinks I have a fetish because I have those dates committed to memory.
Here’s what another youngster once said about the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln’s Lyceum Address, given when he was just 28 years old, contains a brilliant paragraph about the reading of the Constitution.
Let it [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation.
You may have heard that Lincoln was a Republican and that both the left and the right in this nation have put him in a rather prestigious place of reverence. Abe says read the Constitution early and often and even went the next step by referring to it as the political religion of the nation.
Lincoln had reverence for the Constitution.
Good thing this group of activist old media folk were not around when he was rising to power. Norah, Ezra and the rest of their ilk would’ve tried to ridicule him out of Congress.
The Founders called it the “miracle in Philadelphia” that they were ever able to craft and pass this divine document during three sweaty months in that city. George Washington and James Madison used that phrase to describe the results of the Constitutional Convention. You can’t turn a page in the Founders writings without them giving credit to God for the words on those four pages of parchment. You can read their writings in something called the Federalist Papers. Maybe they should be read aloud next (at least read Federalist 10 and 51.)
The activist old media, that so often points to the First amendment as their Holy Grail that allows them to freely exist without government intervention, is the first to blast Republicans for wanting to follow the words of Lincoln and put the Constitution in a special place of reverence.
The battle lines are drawn, are you with the Founders or not? Some liberals and members of the activist old media could’ve easily joined in this celebration of our Founding documents. Instead, they chose to try to ridicule those who did.
Fine, let's go. I'm happy to be on the side of Lincohn.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The Conservative Cloward-Piven Strategy, Annotated
Did you hear, all that talk about being fiscally conservative really is just a Cloward-Piven strategy in reverse. Rather than overwhelming the system with debt, entitlements, welfare by another name, and dependence upon government, conservatives are seeking to underwhelm the system.
With a usual flair for the dramatic, Steve Benen sums it ups, None Dare Call It Sabotage (my annotations in italics):
Consider a thought experiment. Imagine you actively disliked the United States, and wanted to deliberately undermine its economy. What kind of positions would you take to do the most damage? [Let me guess ... still thinking ... I've got it ... Tea Party!] ....
Matt Yglesias had an item the other day that went largely unnoticed, but which I found pretty important.
... Which is just to say that specifically the White House needs to be prepared not just for rough political tactics from the opposition (what else is new?) but for a true worst case scenario of deliberate economic sabotage. [Don't look here, or here, or here, or here, or here, just take his word for it.]
Budget expert Stan Collender has predicted that Republicans perceive "economic hardship as the path to election glory." [Hello-o, Stan Collender is the same person responsible for the Worst. Prediction. Ever., that Barack Obama would by now be called "The Deficit Slayer."]
Paul Krugman noted in his column yesterday that Republicans "want the economy to stay weak as long as there's a Democrat in the White House." [Central Falls! Central Falls! Attica! Attica!]
As best as I can tell, none of this analysis -- all from prominent observers -- generated significant pushback. The notion of GOP officials deliberately damaging the economy didn't, for example, spark widespread outrage or calls for apologies from Matt or anyone else. [Oh, please. The lack of "push back" is not evidence that you are correct, there are only so many flies we can swat in a day. I bet you think this annotation is about you, don't you, don't you?]
And that, in and of itself, strikes me as remarkable. We're talking about a major political party, which will control much of Congress next year, possibly undermining the strength of the country -- on purpose, in public, without apology or shame -- for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012. [Psst, do you really want to go there? ... The War Is Lost, The Surge Has Failed, Bush Lied Us Into War, Bush stole the election, Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, blah, blah, blah.]
Maybe now would be a good time to pause and ask a straightforward question: are Americans O.K. with this? [The Revolt of The Kulaks Has Begun.]
The Boehner/McConnell GOP appears willing to gamble: if they can hold the country back, voters will just blame the president in the end. And that's quite possibly a safe assumption. [Your "holding back" is our "Stop the Bleeding."]
If that's the case, though, then it's time for a very public, albeit uncomfortable, conversation. If a major, powerful political party is making a conscious decision about sabotage, the political world should probably take the time to consider whether this is acceptable, whether it meets the bare minimum standards for patriotism, and whether it's a healthy development in our system of government. ["Dissent is patriotic!" is so 2006.]
The Conservative Cloward-Piven Strategy, Annotated
Did you hear, all that talk about being fiscally conservative really is just a Cloward-Piven strategy in reverse. Rather than overwhelming the system with debt, entitlements, welfare by another name, and dependence upon government, conservatives are seeking to underwhelm the system.
With a usual flair for the dramatic, Steve Benen sums it ups, None Dare Call It Sabotage (my annotations in italics):
Consider a thought experiment. Imagine you actively disliked the United States, and wanted to deliberately undermine its economy. What kind of positions would you take to do the most damage? [Let me guess ... still thinking ... I've got it ... Tea Party!] ....
Matt Yglesias had an item the other day that went largely unnoticed, but which I found pretty important.
... Which is just to say that specifically the White House needs to be prepared not just for rough political tactics from the opposition (what else is new?) but for a true worst case scenario of deliberate economic sabotage. [Don't look here, or here, or here, or here, or here, just take his word for it.]
Budget expert Stan Collender has predicted that Republicans perceive "economic hardship as the path to election glory." [Hello-o, Stan Collender is the same person responsible for the Worst. Prediction. Ever., that Barack Obama would by now be called "The Deficit Slayer."]
Paul Krugman noted in his column yesterday that Republicans "want the economy to stay weak as long as there's a Democrat in the White House." [Central Falls! Central Falls! Attica! Attica!]
As best as I can tell, none of this analysis -- all from prominent observers -- generated significant pushback. The notion of GOP officials deliberately damaging the economy didn't, for example, spark widespread outrage or calls for apologies from Matt or anyone else. [Oh, please. The lack of "push back" is not evidence that you are correct, there are only so many flies we can swat in a day. I bet you think this annotation is about you, don't you, don't you?]
And that, in and of itself, strikes me as remarkable. We're talking about a major political party, which will control much of Congress next year, possibly undermining the strength of the country -- on purpose, in public, without apology or shame -- for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012. [Psst, do you really want to go there? ... The War Is Lost, The Surge Has Failed, Bush Lied Us Into War, Bush stole the election, Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, blah, blah, blah.]
Maybe now would be a good time to pause and ask a straightforward question: are Americans O.K. with this? [The Revolt of The Kulaks Has Begun.]
The Boehner/McConnell GOP appears willing to gamble: if they can hold the country back, voters will just blame the president in the end. And that's quite possibly a safe assumption. [Your "holding back" is our "Stop the Bleeding."]
If that's the case, though, then it's time for a very public, albeit uncomfortable, conversation. If a major, powerful political party is making a conscious decision about sabotage, the political world should probably take the time to consider whether this is acceptable, whether it meets the bare minimum standards for patriotism, and whether it's a healthy development in our system of government. ["Dissent is patriotic!" is so 2006.]
Sobering Numbers On American Energy
Sobering Numbers on American Energy
Share
16
posted at 12:15 pm on January 7, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
printer-friendly
This week the American Petroleum Institute (API) hosted a conference on “The State of American Energy” in Washington, which I attended. In it, API president Jack Gerard set forth some rather startling figures which speak to the future of the energy industry in the United States and how government policy will impact the effect this critical sector of our economy will have on jobs and the deficit – two areas of immense concern to the majority of Americans. (The full text of the address is available here.)
First, Gerard recapped some of the highlights from the previous year.
In 2010, oil and natural gas companies created 57,000 new jobs in Pennsylvania and West Virginia alone as part of the Marcellus Shale natural gas development.
The number-one ranking in Gallup’s “Job Creation Index” belongs to North Dakota, thanks to its record-breaking oil production numbers.
Last year, oil and natural gas companies’ investments in U.S. capital projects for this decade hit the two trillion dollar mark.
Finally, this industry provides the U.S. Treasury, on average, with well over $95 million each day in taxes, rent, royalties and bonus payments.
As to the future, there are two major areas of concern which may be directly affected by the government: expansion of areas of access for energy exploration and taxation of the energy industry as a whole. The Obama administration is faced with an opportunity to move forward in expanding the economy, creating jobs and stimulating government revenue, or to give in to populist impulse and pursue regressive policies.
Regarding expanded energy access, a recent study by Wood-Mackenzie examined the potential for allowing expanded oil and gas exploration, as well as the effect higher taxation on the energy industry would have. The results will come as no surprise to students of history.
Wood Mackenzie’s analysis found that increasing access leads to a direct increase in domestic production, jobs, and government revenue. Whereas increasing taxes reduces production and jobs. It is also detrimental to government revenues five years into the future.
Exploring the details of this study are well worth the time, but they follow a solid historical pattern. Some of the numbers should still prove eye-opening.
If access is expanded:
Direct Employment Potential: 130,000 direct jobs are estimated to be created by 2020 and 150,000 by 2025
Indirect* Employment Potential: 330,000 indirect jobs are estimated to be created by 2020, growing to 380,000 by 2025
If access is restricted and taxation of the industry expanded:
Direct Employment Potential: An estimated 50,000 jobs lost in 2014, dropping to 15,000 in 2020 and 8,000 in 2025
Indirect Employment Potential: An estimated decrease in employment of 120,000 in 2014, 35,000 in 2020 and 20,000 in 2025
When government attempts to recoup losses by taxing productivity, they kill the goose which has produced vast quantities of golden eggs. For the energy industry in particular, if we restrict opportunities for productivity, those opportunities do not disappear… they migrate elsewhere, taking much needed jobs across various market sectors with them. But by allowing one of the most successful industry avenues in the nation to expand – while ensuring maximum safeguards against environmental impact – the result is a net plus for both the government and the private sector.
Recent restrictions on the issuance of new drilling permits by the current administration have already proven disastrous. As this report from Investor’s Business Daily demonstrates, government policy has a real time effect on productivity if handled unwisely.
Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the price of oil has rocketed 117% to $90.41 a barrel and gasoline has jumped 67% to $3.07 a gallon. In the 34 industrialized nations, oil imports have surged 34% in the last year to $790 billion. The U.S. alone has seen a $72 billion jump.
All this imperils a fragile recovery from the financial crisis. “Oil prices are entering a dangerous zone for the global economy,” says Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency.
Given the clear threat, it’s economically irrational to sit on our hands and fail to develop our own energy resources. At least 130 billion barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas lie offshore, and hundreds of billions of barrels more are locked in shale deposits in the Northeast and West. Yet our policy remains leaving this wealth alone.
It’s a lot of material to cover, but two messages become clear. First, taxing our way out of poor government policy by attempting to target the more productive sectors of our economy will result in a net loss of both government revenue and jobs. Second, we have the resources available which will allow the private sector to produce the needed boost to our economy which the federal government can not. But the government itself can thwart this recovery if it submits to what passes for good political headlines.
DISCLOSURE: The author was invited to attend this conference with transportation and accommodation costs supplied by API. No other financial considerations were offered or accepted. There was no agreement to publish anything regarding the conference and API was not offered any preview of published material nor the opportunity to comment on it prior to publication.
Now you can yell at Jazz for being a stupid, wrong-headed RINO even faster than just by leaving a comment. Follow him on Twitter! @JazzShaw
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Share
16
posted at 12:15 pm on January 7, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
printer-friendly
This week the American Petroleum Institute (API) hosted a conference on “The State of American Energy” in Washington, which I attended. In it, API president Jack Gerard set forth some rather startling figures which speak to the future of the energy industry in the United States and how government policy will impact the effect this critical sector of our economy will have on jobs and the deficit – two areas of immense concern to the majority of Americans. (The full text of the address is available here.)
First, Gerard recapped some of the highlights from the previous year.
In 2010, oil and natural gas companies created 57,000 new jobs in Pennsylvania and West Virginia alone as part of the Marcellus Shale natural gas development.
The number-one ranking in Gallup’s “Job Creation Index” belongs to North Dakota, thanks to its record-breaking oil production numbers.
Last year, oil and natural gas companies’ investments in U.S. capital projects for this decade hit the two trillion dollar mark.
Finally, this industry provides the U.S. Treasury, on average, with well over $95 million each day in taxes, rent, royalties and bonus payments.
As to the future, there are two major areas of concern which may be directly affected by the government: expansion of areas of access for energy exploration and taxation of the energy industry as a whole. The Obama administration is faced with an opportunity to move forward in expanding the economy, creating jobs and stimulating government revenue, or to give in to populist impulse and pursue regressive policies.
Regarding expanded energy access, a recent study by Wood-Mackenzie examined the potential for allowing expanded oil and gas exploration, as well as the effect higher taxation on the energy industry would have. The results will come as no surprise to students of history.
Wood Mackenzie’s analysis found that increasing access leads to a direct increase in domestic production, jobs, and government revenue. Whereas increasing taxes reduces production and jobs. It is also detrimental to government revenues five years into the future.
Exploring the details of this study are well worth the time, but they follow a solid historical pattern. Some of the numbers should still prove eye-opening.
If access is expanded:
Direct Employment Potential: 130,000 direct jobs are estimated to be created by 2020 and 150,000 by 2025
Indirect* Employment Potential: 330,000 indirect jobs are estimated to be created by 2020, growing to 380,000 by 2025
If access is restricted and taxation of the industry expanded:
Direct Employment Potential: An estimated 50,000 jobs lost in 2014, dropping to 15,000 in 2020 and 8,000 in 2025
Indirect Employment Potential: An estimated decrease in employment of 120,000 in 2014, 35,000 in 2020 and 20,000 in 2025
When government attempts to recoup losses by taxing productivity, they kill the goose which has produced vast quantities of golden eggs. For the energy industry in particular, if we restrict opportunities for productivity, those opportunities do not disappear… they migrate elsewhere, taking much needed jobs across various market sectors with them. But by allowing one of the most successful industry avenues in the nation to expand – while ensuring maximum safeguards against environmental impact – the result is a net plus for both the government and the private sector.
Recent restrictions on the issuance of new drilling permits by the current administration have already proven disastrous. As this report from Investor’s Business Daily demonstrates, government policy has a real time effect on productivity if handled unwisely.
Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the price of oil has rocketed 117% to $90.41 a barrel and gasoline has jumped 67% to $3.07 a gallon. In the 34 industrialized nations, oil imports have surged 34% in the last year to $790 billion. The U.S. alone has seen a $72 billion jump.
All this imperils a fragile recovery from the financial crisis. “Oil prices are entering a dangerous zone for the global economy,” says Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency.
Given the clear threat, it’s economically irrational to sit on our hands and fail to develop our own energy resources. At least 130 billion barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas lie offshore, and hundreds of billions of barrels more are locked in shale deposits in the Northeast and West. Yet our policy remains leaving this wealth alone.
It’s a lot of material to cover, but two messages become clear. First, taxing our way out of poor government policy by attempting to target the more productive sectors of our economy will result in a net loss of both government revenue and jobs. Second, we have the resources available which will allow the private sector to produce the needed boost to our economy which the federal government can not. But the government itself can thwart this recovery if it submits to what passes for good political headlines.
DISCLOSURE: The author was invited to attend this conference with transportation and accommodation costs supplied by API. No other financial considerations were offered or accepted. There was no agreement to publish anything regarding the conference and API was not offered any preview of published material nor the opportunity to comment on it prior to publication.
Now you can yell at Jazz for being a stupid, wrong-headed RINO even faster than just by leaving a comment. Follow him on Twitter! @JazzShaw
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Pelosi: Dems Lost House because of... Bush!
I think it is really in my best interest to avoid saying what I'm thinking!
Illinois Lawmakers Propose 75% Income Tax Hike
Gov. Pat Quinn and leaders from both houses of the Illinois General Assembly have agreed on raising the state income tax
Tribute to Ronald Reagan Slated for Superbowl
February 6th, the birthday of our 40th President, Ronald Reagan, who would have been 100 years old on Superbowl Sunday, 2011
WikiLeaks Gives Dangerous Ammunition to a Tyrant
"Assange has chosen the sides of Mugabe, apparently without regret"
It's Time to Fix the CBO
- unthinkable as it may seem - may under some circumstances exceed its' budget.
Those Pesky Lines Between News and Commentary
Limiting those choices, if we are to remain a free society, is not an option.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Great News: U.S. Dept of Education Helping To Teach Educators About Alinsky, Cloward-Piven and The Need For State-Run Media
If this doesnt open a parents eyes they shouldn't have kids!
Pelosi's Final Debt Tab $5.34 Trillion Or $3.66 Billion Per Day
Don't you just love it when a story comes together like this?
Packages Give Off Smoke, Odor In Md. Office Buildings
Pretty downplayed event at least in this article. We wouldn't want mass hysteria now would we?
O'Reilly Lands Pre-Game Superbowl Interview With President Obama
Should make for some great ratings!
The Match Up We've All Been Waiting For: CNN Panel Features Ted Nugent And Roseanne Barr
This one was bound to end well!
Tough 6 Years Ahead For Liberals
It could be six years before the liberals can accomplish anything... GET USED TO IT!
KFC Muslim Worker Screams Insults At Bacon Eaters
A video of yet another act from the "Religion of Peace"!
Media Gives Obama Pass On Debt Ceiling Hypocrisy
Is it not amazing the lengths they will go through to protect this mans integrity?
Bad News: Obama's Hawaiin Vacation Rental Was Illegal
I wonder if this guy will get a check from the taxpayers to cover his fine?
Gallup Finds Unemployment At 9.6% In December
Underemployment rose to 19% in December from 17.2% at the end of November
Birther Heckler In House Chamber Interrupts Constitution Reading
Raw video: Heckler interrupts Constitution Read
Spending Taxpayers' Money To Promote Obama's Agenda
Buying ads to promote Obamacare on Google, Yahoo! and Bing.
New Governors Usher In New Era of Labor Union Reform
Republicans may pursue new laws with the goal of financially starving labor unions.
Dems May Not Accomplish Anything For The Next 6 Years!
It could be six years before the liberals can accomplish anything.... GET USED TO IT!
Palin Effective Again: Death panels removed from healthcare regulation AGAIN!
More evidence of who the left fears most!
Deregulation(!), Regulation, Cable TV
More news about the winner and losers of the Democratic power grab of information
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)