The occasion might mark first time that the Palestinian flag has Click Here for full Story

by Daniella Nicole

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has sponsored a bill in Congress that would force cable and satellite companies to offer “a la carte” pricing to consumers. This would mean consumers could pick and choose what channels they want and not pay for those they don’t. On the surface, S. 912: Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013 looks like a fine idea. However, when it comes to politicians and more specifically, Sen. McCain, what is on the surface isn’t always representative of what is truly going on.

As the ‘Gang of 8’ “shamnesty” bill (S. 744: Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act) has illustrated, McCain tends to lie and misrepresent what he is supporting. He is a classic big government RINO, so if he supports something, the likelihood is high that it will simultaneously bloat government and strip away freedoms and/or rights somewhere. Additionally, the expansion of government costs the taxpayer, along with other things usually stuffed or hidden in the bill. This bill is no different.

Right off the bat, McCain lies about it by stating to a Senate sub-committee “In my view, the a la carte option is a non-regulatory and consumer-friendly way to provide consumers with the freedom to lower their bills and pay only for what they watch.”

The very nature of a bill being passed in Congress is to create laws and regulations. A bill passed by Congress that sets up rules the cable and satellite industries must adhere to is, in fact, regulation, ergo, Congress establishing the ‘a la carte option’ is regulatory, not ‘non-regulatory’ as McCain claimed. “Regulation” is a means of forcing outcomes that would not otherwise happen. As a 30-year member of Congress and at the time of publication of this post, a sponsor of 838 bills, McCain is well aware of the fact his job involves creating laws and regulations that the American people and businesses must adhere to. The man lied.

In addition, the USA Today article in which he is quoted notes the regulatory status of the bill “The idea of “a la carte” cable and satellite television has been around for years. But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has jump-started a new national conversation with a bill he introduced in Congress this month that would use regulatory incentives to encourage programmers and distributors to unbundle their channels and offer a la carte programming.”

So what exactly are these ‘regulatory incentives’? The article doesn’t share that information, but a look at the bill reveals them in Sec. 3. (b). They reference other legislation and mention that there is a way for “multichannel video programming distributors” (defined in Sec. 2) to not be “subject to the statutory license”.

The USA Today article also notes a crucial point “Industry leaders also argue that such issues might be better left to the free market to sort out, pointing to the ongoing revolution in video technology that gives consumers a variety of new viewing options — such as online video, Netflix, Hulu, iTunes and digital video recorders — and allows them to watch their favorite shows and movies on their schedules. A traditional TV set no longer is even necessary. Many young people are increasingly relying on their iPads, smartphones and laptop computers to watch video.”

For many years, consumers have complained about pricing and package options with cable and satellite television companies, however, little has changed. If enough people complained and enough customers were lost, the industry would have no choice but to change on its own. That is what business does-it goes with what will show a profit. As long as there are consumers who like and/or pay for the packages, there is no reason for the industry to change and forcing it to do so will cause it to lose those profits. This means the government will be setting up businesses to lose money.

This means expanding the arm of the government and giving it the power to control business decisions made by companies which allow them to profit. This is contrary to the American Dream. This is contrary to the principles of free enterprise and capitalism. This also affects those smaller channels who get exposure to the general public by being included in package deals. Forcing a la carte could put a lot of people out of work by those smaller and start up channels being eliminated as consumers have to chose only those a la carte items they can afford, not necessarily all they want.

Allowing the market to decide is the right way to eliminate channels that are not serving consumers. It allows cable and satellite providers on their own to determine what they offer consumers by the popularity of those channels with consumers. Channels that do not offer consumers what they want are naturally eliminated. This is not a forced elimination due to consumer budgetary constraints but a true representation of the free market at work.

Consumers have other options, as mentioned in the article and watching television is not a “need”. Consumers have the freedom to choose other means of watching television shows. Cable and satellite television providers still have the freedom to offer a plethora of station choices and various packages for consumers to choose from.

Alternatively, there are many things people can do for entertainment that cost less, are free, and encourage quality family time. The only thing that comes out of this bill is growing the power of the government.

In the end the consumer will suffer as the industry would have to charge high prices for al a carte options in order to recoup their losses. It could well end up costing the consumer more to go with a la carte than with package deals. Even with packages still offered side-by-side with a la carte (as the bills seems to indicate could happen), to recoup losses those package prices may also increase.

Letting the market decide is a theme in capitalism that makes sense and works. Consumers and businesses can work this out amongst themselves. The government does not need to intervene and muck everything up with more regulation and government oversight. The government does not need to expand, and by the way, when it expands it has to be paid for and that funding comes from increased taxes consumers must pay.

Cable and satellite providers offering a la carte on their own? Great idea. S. 912: Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013? Not so much.

Copyright © 2013 Daniella Nicole. All Rights Reserved.

We have to pass it to see what’s in it part 2?

1,500 PAGE IMMIGRATION BILL TO DROP ONE DAY BEFORE ONLY HEARING?

Dems threaten Colo. sheriffs’ salaries over gun control

he Colorado gun debate is heating up. Companies are threatening to move, rape victims are ridiculed for testifying in committee hearings that they desire guns for self-protection, and potential victims are instructed to rely on rape whistles and call boxes.

Now the state’s sheriffs have entered the fray, expressing support for the Second Amendment, and according to El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, the officers are getting some blowback from the Democratic Party.

In an interview Saturday morning with Jeff Crank on 740 AM KVOR radio, Maketa said 30 Colorado sheriffs went to the state capitol to …. Read full story here

SEIU Hospital Workers Strike Over Escalating Healthcare Costs…You know what they say… Be careful what you ask for you just might get it!

OLYMPIA – Pickets will replace performing the rounds at Olympia’s St. Peter Hospital tomorrow.

500 members of the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, will walk off the job tomorrow in what it says is a case of health care workers striking over the rising cost of health care.

“My husband has cystic fibrosis,” says Certified Nursing Assistant Abbey Bruce, who says his medication used to be covered by the Providence Plan. But now, “we’re up to out of pocket, $400 per month, for his medications he needs baseline to stay alive. So I’ve had to take a second job,” says Bruce.

She put together pickets for the strike, which the union says would be the first for….Read the full story here.

Trash 

On Facebook, Democrats announced a plan to dump trash at Speaker of the House John Boehner’s house in protest of Washington D.C. not having representation in Washington, if the government shuts down. If the government does not shut down, the event will be cancelled.

One has to wonder how this event has anything to do with anything other than criminally attacking someone on the right. There was no call for dumping trash or protesting when the Dems were in charge-why now? There are no calls to dump at Dem houses when Dems are the ones holding up the budget cuts.

President Obama remains eerily and predictably silent about this criminal mischief planned against the Speaker-a Republican.

Meanwhile, the left claims to be the ones who care about the environment, but trashed the mall at One Nation rally (100 tons of trash); trashed and damaged the Wisconsin Capitol building (original number $7.5 million but now may be “only” $350,000) and then plan this trash dump in which they are told:

UPDATE ON TOMORROW’S PEACEFUL AND NONVIOLENT ACTION (2:38pm, 4/8/11):
-We’ll meet at Capitol South Metro tomorrow at 9:30 and lead a walk toward the Speaker’s house.
-Despite the title of the rally, bringing trash is NOT REQUIRED. Bring yourself and, if you can, make a sign. Don’t bring lots of dirty, gross trash. Come in a costume if you’d like!
-IF you do bring trash, don’t bring any chemicals or anything that could be considered dangerous.
-Our understanding is that it is illegal to trespass beyond the sidewalk, please do not attempt get any closer to his house than the sidewalk.
-We are trying to arrange for a dumpster, but cannot guarantee we’ll have it until later. If you bring trash, and the police ask that you not leave it somewhere, you may be required to pick it back up and take it with you.
-Be respectful of the neighbors. The folks that live around the Speaker are having their lives disrupted by the shutdown as well, so please be respectful to them.
-Have fun! We want this peaceful and non-violent event to be fun and simply show the country that DC is caught up in this mess and it shouldn’t be.
-If they manage to reach a deal before tomorrow morning, the event will be cancelled, so check back to this page before you leave.

When Conservatives met at the mall for the Beck rally, it was left spotless.  When Conservatives protest it is on point, non-violent and left clean; free of damage. Why is there such a dramatic difference?

Many Conservatives are commenting on the Facebook page, trying to point out the lunacy of it, while some are reporting it (report event – violence or harmful behavior – theft or vandalism). Others, such as myself, are taking to Twitter to provide commentary to @whitehouse and @barackobama (#whatsupwiththat) about this and other liberal lunacy, hypocrisy and lies.

Image Credit: Yuyudevil. Public Domain. Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Garbage_bag.jpg

Copyright © 2011 Daniella Nicole. All Rights Reserved.

President Obama announced his ‘official’ intention to seek re-election for president. The recent transparency award winner [received behind closed doors, no less]  has yet to live up to the award and prove his eligibility, therefore making said announcement not completely ‘official’.

While the Left likes to be dismissive about it, the fact remains that in the last election while the Left insisted John McCain show his birth certificate,  they did not hold their guy, Barack Obama, to the same standard. For some reason, the son of only one American parent was allowed to officially run, despite not meeting the ‘natural born’ requirement of the Constitution. Even notoriously left-leaning Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has defined ‘natural born’ as being born to two American citizen parents in her oral argument in Tuan Anh Nguyer v. INS. Barack Hussein Obama was born to one American citizen parent and one Kenyan parent, who was a British citizen (Kenya was under British rule at the time).

Though he has not made an official presidential bid as of yet, even Donald Trump has shown proof of his eligibility to hold the office of president to the American public. Still, Obama and his camp keep Obama’s records sealed, while mocking and attacking anyone who questions what is going on.

Though the Left likes to claim that no president has been required to provide a birth certificate, so Obama should not have to either, they are, as on many things related to history, wrong. Aside from the Left demanding to see McCain’s birth certificate, Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, also had to provide his.

Since the controversy began, a number of states have begun working on legislation requiring all presidential candidates to prove eligibility if they want to be on the ballots of each respective state. Any candidate who refuses to play by the rules and produce such proof would not only lose the electoral votes of each state with such legislation, but should be viewed with suspicion.

The man who made grand promises of transparency during his last campaign and even recently won an undeserved award for it can end the controversy and get a lot of mileage out of it politically if he produces his records. Otherwise, he is ineligible and should not be allowed on any ballot.

Image Credit: Official White House photostream/U.S. Government. Public Domain. Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Barack_Obama_speaks_to_the_Human_Rights_Campaign_10-10-09.jpg

 Copyright © 2011 Daniella Nicole. All Rights Reserved.

One of the reasons why the Tea Party is so popular is because both the Democrat and Republican parties have lost their way. Both have shifted to the left and lost touch with not only their base, but their platform.

In the case of the GOP, there have been a number of RINOs elected into office. What is a RINO? RINO is the acronym for Republican in Name Only. It is the title given to a Republican who does not truly support real (conservative) Republican values. This may be illustrated in a full-on anti-Republican agenda or it can be a mix of Republican and non-Republican words and actions.

The Republican party platform is conservative in nature and tends to favor individual rights and states rights over federal government power. A Republican candidate who supports large/larger government, federal control over states’ rights, and increased spending and/or taxation could be classed as a RINO. A Republican candidate who could be classed as ‘moderate’ could also be classed as a RINO because they fail to support the true Republican platform, which, again, is conservative in nature.

As the next presidential election draws closer, there is a lot of talk about which candidates should run from the Republican party. While being able to beat Obama matters, being true to conservatism and the real party platform matter, too. Otherwise, it will be essentially more of the same as what we have been enduring.

RINOs are not always easy to spot. Some are very good at talking real Republican or conservative talk, while actually being a RINO who not only has a RINO track record, but has every intention of pushing a RINO agenda once in office. This is why it is important to look not only at what candidates say to various audiences, but to also look at what they have been doing over the long-haul.

The following is not an all-inclusive list, but represents a general list of ways to spot a RINO.

True conservative Republicans support:

Smaller government, with more rights for states and individuals
Common-sense healthcare reform (tort reform, insurance competition across state lines, etc)
Energy independence, with an ‘all of the above’ approach to energy
Parental choice in education (parents can choose their child’s school)
Free-market economy with sensible business regulations
Judges interpreting the law; basing rulings on law/in fidelity to Constitution and nothing else
Maintaining robust defense against threats; vigilance against terrorism
Full commitment to US armed forces; ensuring they have what they need
Sustained international effort in making and maintaining alliances and relationships

True conservative Republicans are against:

Government-run healthcare
Federal government control of industry
Judges making law from bench (not their role) or using anything other than US law and the US Constitution in rulings

A guest commentary published in the Denver Post discussed the disconnect between the Republican party and the youth of today, while also pointing out a few traits of RINOs. “Are you pro-life? Are you pro-sanctity of marriage? Are you pro-death penalty? Do you support the deportation of an estimated 12 million illegal aliens? If the answer to any of these questions is no or is nuanced, you are a RINO — a Republican in name only.”

One final thing to consider: the oath both Republicans and Democrats take as elected officials is to support and defend the Constitution. If they are not doing that in speech and action, they should not be elected, regardless of all else.

Want more RINO information? Several sources of RINO information are available online. Some are updated more frequently than others. Two are listed below.

RHINO Watch blog

Save the GOP website,  Facebook page and Twitter account

Sources:

GOP On the Issues. http://gop.com/index.php/issues/issues/
2008 Party Platform. http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf

Guest Commentary: Where is the next generation of Republicans?. Michelle Lyng. Denver Post. March 28, 2011. http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17718110

Image Credit: Odder. Public Domain. Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:No_RINO.svg

Copyright © 2011 Daniella Nicole. All Rights Reserved.