David Brody Writes: After a two day meeting at a ranch outside of Houston a group of 150 Christian leaders, business leaders and conservative activists have coalesced behind Rick Santorum.
Friday night surrogates from every GOP campaign (except that of Jon Huntsman) attended the meeting and made the case for their candidate. Saturday leaders took part in a “passionate time” of discussions about what they’re looking for in a conservative leader. After three rounds of balloting Santorum emerged as the candidate leaders feel they can support.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council says conservatives are looking for a candidate who will repeal the nation’s health care law, fight for pro family values and address the national debt.
In his weekly address, President Obama highlighted companies and businesses that are bringing the jobs back home.
This week, I invited executives from businesses that are insourcing jobs to a forum at the White House. These are CEOs who take pride in hiring people here in America, not just because it’s increasingly the right thing to do for their bottom line, but also because it’s the right thing to do for their workers and for our communities and our country.
And the President spoke about the tax incentives he is offering to these businesses;
I will put forward new tax proposals that reward companies that choose to do the right thing by bringing jobs home and investing in America – and eliminate tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas.
Just another move by the President to put the American people back to work.
There is a big debate going on right now about a few pieces of legislation in Congress geared to fight online piracy. The Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN) are making their way through the legislative body, but another bill called SOPA – the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) – has created a firestorm of controversies because of its wide and far-reaching powers.
If enacted and signed into law, SOPA, according to opponents of the bill, will (among other things) have the authority to tell Internet Service Providers to block the Domain Name Systems (DNS) of most law-abiding websites – including websites that operate under the Creative Commons License – simply because the site may have used contents protected under the Commons License, but not explicitly authorized by the content’s owner.
The author of the bill Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and those in favor of SOPA maintain that only sites outside the United States that violates the owner’s intellectual property, will be affected.
The debate over this particular piece of legislation cause the White House to put out the following statement, detailing their where they stand on the issue. The statement was issued by Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra, and Howard Schmidt.
While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.
We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.
Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.
This is not just a matter for legislation. We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.
So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.
Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.
Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it.
Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget
Aneesh Chopra is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy
Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff
Newt Gingrich, one of the most vocal attackers of the Republican frontrunner Willard Romney, is being convinced by the Republican establishment to end the attacks. It appears that asking questions about Romney’s time at Bain Capital is a no-no for other Republicans, so the often outspoken Gingrich is beginning to tone down the rhetoric. He is falling in line.
But we are not scared to question Mitt about his poor “job creation” record at Bain Capital or any French connections the former Massachusetts governor had, and we will use Gingrich’s own ads to ask these questions.
The man who will be the eventual Republican presidential nomine is apparently defrauding the United States government. ABC News reports on offshore bank accounts that Mitt Romney uses to avoid paying taxes on his income.
Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith, long considered a potential issue in his presidential campaign, came under scrutiny this week whenVanity Fair published excerpts from an upcoming book that delves into Mitt’s history as a lay leader in the church. The Real Romney, authored by Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, suggests that Mitt once threatened a single mother with excommunication if she didn’t give her soon-to-be-born baby up for adoption — an account the Republican frontrunner denies. Here, a brief guide to this unsettling story:
In the early 1980s, Romney was serving as bishop of a Mormon congregation near Boston. Peggie Hayes, a 23-year-old divorced single mother, became pregnant with her second child. Knowing she needed help, Romney arranged for Hayes to get odd jobs from other church members. But as bishop, Romney also bore the responsibility of briefing Hayes on church doctrine. As quoted in the book, she claims he showed up at her apartment and encouraged her to give her baby to the church’s adoption agency. According to Hayes, Romney said: “This is what the church wants you to do, and if you don’t, then you could be excommunicated.”
Edward Wyckoff Williamswrites: The leaders of today’s Republican Party are expert storytellers. When it comes to manipulating racial stereotypes for political gain, they are akin to animation artists of the 1920s: coloring the lines in black and white.
Last Thursday Newt Gingrich told a crowd of senior citizens in New Hampshire, “The African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.” Rick Santorum was even more egregious, claiming he doesn’t “want to make black people’s lives better by giving them other people’s money” (although he later claimed that he never intentionally said “black”).
Gingrich’s latest offense comes only weeks after he received widespread criticism for saying that poor children should work as janitors and clean toilets. He specifically made a point of addressing “inner city” youths — which has become conservative code for black and brown people everywhere, from the South to the coasts, the suburbs to the metropolises, regardless of where they actually live.
The report states;
Of the 46 million people living in poverty in America in 2010, the U.S. census revealed that 31 million were white. Ten million were black. Of the 49 million people without health insurance coverage, 37 million were white; 8 million were African-American. The face of poverty in America is overwhelmingly white, but as a 2009 study on children in poverty [explained], the white American poor, especially those in rural areas, are “forgotten.”
With just days to go before the South Caroina prmary begins, new polling shows some good news for Gingrich and some bad news for Romney, as conservative Republicans still questions the moderate record of Mitt Romney.
The former Massachusetts governor’s lead is so small in the Palmetto State that he’s essentially tied with Newt Gingrich, according to a poll conducted for The Augusta Chronicle by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research. Romney’s 23 percent and Gingrich’s 21 percent fall within the 3.6 percent margin of error. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who came in second in the Iowa caucuses is in third place in South Carolina with 14 percent, while Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the runner-up in New Hampshire, is effectively tied with him at 13 percent.
While the Republicans dwell in the land if make-belief with their “corporations are people my friend” mentality and their wish to deny you health care by repealing the law also known as “ObamaCare,” reports are surfacing showing more ways the health care law is benefiting the economy – by creating more jobs.
President Barack Obama’s effort to bring the health-care system into the digital age is boosting a couple of software startups — ZocDoc and Practice Fusion — that are trying to do just that.
ZocDoc, which lets patients book medical appointments via the web, said today that former Senate Majority Leaders Tom Daschle and Bill Frist have joined the advisory board to help the New York City-based company expand.
Practice Fusion, meanwhile, announced today it raised $2 million in debt from a group of angel investors, following a $23 million round of financing last year. Physicians use Practice Fusion’s software to track their patients’ medical history, schedule appointments, prescribe medication and provide referral letters.
While companies big and small have spent years trying to crack the electronic medical records market, it was President Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus plan that sped up the process. As part of the plan, the government will invest up to $27.4 billion by 2021 to get health organizations on board.
So the reality of the situation is this; Republicans’ wish to repeal “ObamaCare” would not only affect you by once again allowing insurance companies to deny you care when you’re sick, even if you’ve paid your premium, a repeal will literally cost thousands of jobs in an already bad economy.
President Barack Obama said he will propose new tax incentives to encourage businesses to “bring jobs home,” a move that could sharpen differences with Republicans in an election year.
Mr. Obama also said Wednesday he would suggest eliminating “tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas.” Administration officials said details won’t be released until the president issues his proposed budget next month.
In past years, most of the administration’s plans to limit tax breaks for multinationals have stalled amid opposition from businesses and Republicans. Tax experts said the proposals could include new investment subsidies such as more-generous depreciation, lower tax rates for income derived from innovation produced in the U.S. or expanded breaks for domestic research or manufacturing.
Rick Perry got a massive 5% of the votes in Iowa, then lastnight in New Hampshire, 1% of voters still chose Perry, although he didn’t compete in the state. But instead of doing what other famous quitters like Sarah Palin and now Michele Bachmann have done and gracefully bow out, Perry still think there is hope for the corpse that is his campaign.
“South Carolina is the next stop,” Perry said in his statement. “I have a head start here, and it’s friendly territory for a Texas governor and veteran with solid outsider credentials, the nation’s best record of job creation, and solid fiscal, social and Tea Party conservatism.”
The latest polls from South Carolina show Perry in fifth place with 5 percent support. Romney places first in those polls.
Well, we never accused him of being a math wizard, but someone should advise Mr. Perry that 5% support does not equal a “head start,” nor does it signal “friendly terrority.”
In a twenty minutes conference call to New Hampshire Democrats on Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden and the Obama Administration amplified the 2012 presidential campaign.
Taking direct aim at the Republican frontrunner, Mr. Biden said that Romney’s “I like being able to fire people” comment – although it may have been taken out of context – shows how out of touch Republicans are with the struggles of the working class America.
He thinks it’s more important for the stockholders and the shareholders and the investors and the venture capital guys to do well [than] for those employees to be part of the bargain,” he said.
“We inherited a broken bargain. A deal our parents didn’t have to face. Middle-class folks, if you gave them an even chance, they got to share in the benefits they helped to produce for this country. That bargain was broken during the Bush years and we were determined to fix it.
“Listen to Mitt Romney. He has no idea the bargain even exists, let alone is broken. How else can you say the best way to fix the financial crisis is by letting it all go down to the bottom?”
Greed. It has been the underlining and unmentioned trait of the rich in this country for centuries. And for centuries, because of the negative stigma of greed, a stigma the rich didn’t want to be associated with, working class America felt as though they were part of the solution and shared in the profits they helped create.
Then something happened about thirty years ago. With the election of Ronald Reagan, the me first you never attitude was born and the decline of middle class America begun.
Today, after the Bush presidency, that attitude is in full view for all to see. Greed is no longer considered a negative word, in fact, it is a trait Americans are judged by. It is the dividing line that separates the two political parties, as Republicans believe giving everything to the rich is the only way the middle class would survive while Democrats on the other hand believe that all Americans should have a fair shot at the American dream.
The 2012 election is about a choice that couldn’t be any clearer. Do we re-elect a president who believes that every American must have equal opportunities to make their American dream a reality, or do we elect someone who agrees with the Ronald Reagan and George Bush philosophy that taking from the poor and giving to the rich is all that matters?
With one candidate’s policies we can once again return to a system where the American dream is possible. With the alternative, we can continue the nightmare that Reagan and Bush started.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
