What do you think of this post?
- Offensive (0)
- Funny (0)
- Cool (0)
- Obnoxious (0)
- Scary (0)
- Inspiring (2)
- Crazy (0)
The debate on Fox News had a 16.0 household rating between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen.
Translation: 16% of United States homes with TV sets tuned in.
Fox News usually has 1% or 2% of the household audience.
For the sake of comparison, the highest-rated Republican primary debates in 2011 and 2012 were watched by approximately 5% of households.
The Democratic primary debates in 2008 were bigger, but none of those ever topped 10%.
Interest in Donald Trump’s candidacy almost certainly drove viewership on Thursday night.
There are two important asterisks here: The household ratings may change somewhat once Nielsen completes its counting. And raw viewership totals are not available yet. Nielsen will release that data sometime Friday afternoon.
But the preliminary ratings, known as “metered market overnights,” indicate that upward of 10 million viewers tuned to Fox for the prime time debate.
The first Republican primary debate in 2011, also on Fox, was watched by 3.2 million people.
There was also a surge — though much smaller surge — in viewership for the undercard debate at 5 p.m.
The ratings are good news not only for Fox but for other media organizations that are sponsoring Republican debates. The “Trump show,” as some have called it, seems likely to continue into the fall.
The next debates are set for September 16 (on CNN) and October 28 (on CNBC).
Fox had high expectations for Thursday’s kick-off to debate season. Rival executives and campaign aides also predicted unusually high ratings for the event, thanks to curiosity about Trump and the controversy over the “top ten” candidate criteria.
But the overnight numbers seemed to surpass everyone’s expectations.
There was speculation on Friday morning that it may go down in the record books as the highest-rated Fox News telecast ever.
Video is below the fold.
40 to 50 House Republicans will support immigration reform, Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) predicted Thursday.
Gutiérrez said many of the Republicans supportive of immigration reform don’t want to be identified, but he insisted they would support comprehensive immigration reform.
“If they ask me today, go find those 40 to 50 Republicans, I’ll tell them I found them. I know where they’re at,” Gutiérrez said in an interview with Ed O’Keefe at The Washington Post.
“I’m not going to tell you the names of some of them because some of them I’ve spoken to, and they’ve said I’d love to do the activity with you. I want to be able to vote for it. I really don’t need to draw attention to myself.”
Here’s a list of the 15 Republicans who voted to invoke cloture on the amendment.
Click on name to open window to their twitter account. Let them hear it!
Invoke a recall USA!
*could not find account
Please follow @PushBackNow
This has taken place twice in the past two years. Bill SB 252 Prohibits the Department of Revenue from retaining copies of source documents used to obtain driver’s licenses and modifies other driver’s license provisions
Read how the feds are buying enough bullets for a 24 year war against US citizens while disarming us which prevents us from defending ourselves.
When questioned by committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer on April 11, Missouri State Highway Patrol Col. Ron Replogle admitted “his agency had turned over the data.”
The information was passed to the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General in Nov. 2011 and again in Jan. 2012. Replogle claims the information was encrypted and the discs holding the information were destroyed.
“[The feds] said no names were retrieved,” Replogle said. “They do not have those names. They did not disseminate that information,” he claimed. He also stressed “all that information has been destroyed.”
The investigation into leaked personal information began after suspicions arose over new drivers license rules requiring citizens to bring in numerous personal documents–including concealed carry permit information–to be “scanned and retained.”
Replogle said the names were turned over to “cross-check… names on the concealed carry list with [the federal] agency’s list of those with disabilities attributed to mental illness to find possible evidence of fraud in the system.”
“It is clearly a violation of one’s personal privacy, not to mention Missouri law, and I cannot adequately express to you my incredible concern over this request” Luetkemeyer
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) has been denying that “concealed weapons permits were turned over to a ‘magical database’ for federal agents to ‘mess with.'”
JEFFERSON CITY • The Missouri Highway Patrol admitted on Thursday that it released the names of more than 163,000 Missourians who have concealed weapons permits to a federal agent twice in the past two years.
Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration maintains that the releases were legal and done to aid an investigation, but that has done little to calm Republicans’ concerns over what they see as a breach of privacy rights and potential evidence of intrusive gun tactics from the federal government.
“I’m very concerned that this may be a back-door attempt to create the Eric Holder gun registry,” said House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, referring to the U.S. attorney general. “Missourians are very much opposed to this type of government overreach and intrusion.”
The admission comes as statehouse Republicans are decrying the state’s new method of scanning images of personal documents needed for drivers license registrations. It also emerged as a new flashpoint in a national debate over gun rights in the wake of the child murders in Newtown, Conn.
Missouri Highway Patrol Col. Ron Replogle told the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday that a Social Security Administration agent based in St. Louis wanted the concealed-carry permit information for an investigation into disability fraud related to mental illness claims.
The list of permit holders was going to be compared with a list of Social Security recipients to see whether anyone who had met the mental health qualifications for a concealed carry permit had also sought benefits for a mental illness. Replogle said the encrypted information was mailed to the agent twice on password-protected discs, but both times, the agent was unable to access the data.
“In our opinion, it was a criminal investigation,” Replogle said.
The Social Security Administration did not respond to requests for comment from the Post-Dispatch.
Senators weren’t eased by the fact that the lists were never opened.
“The harm isn’t actually that they were read or not read, the harm is that, with reckless abandon, what is a private database in the state of Missouri with private information … was given out on discs with apparently not even a written request,” said Senate Appropriations Chair Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia. “That’s the issue.”
Under state law, disclosing information about concealed carry holders is a misdemeanor, and Schaefer said he believed the release of the lists violated that law.
But Department of Public Safety deputy director Andrea Spillars said the sharing of information among law enforcement agencies was legal and common.
She told the Appropriations Committee the agency could do it again legally, but the department recently implemented a policy to require such requests to undergo additional scrutiny.
Nixon, in Kirkwood to survey tornado damage Thursday, also told the Post-Dispatch that the state agencies acted within their legal authority.
“I’ll only say that, as is our usual process and procedure, we’ve followed the laws and we’ll continue to,” said Nixon, a Democrat.
But Republicans quickly seized on the privacy issue, which had been steadily building amid speculation over the administration’s handling of private information related to drivers licenses by the Department of Revenue.
“This is a big breach of public trust,” said Sen. Dan Brown, a Republican from Rolla on the Appropriations Committee.
The Highway Patrol got the concealed carry lists from the Department of Revenue’s licensing arm, which maintains the data. But the release of the concealed carry lists apparently had nothing to do with the DOR’s new licensing system that lawmakers have been investigating for several weeks. The first concealed carry list was sent in November 2011, before the new system went into effect, and Replogle said the Revenue Department probably had had the ability to compile one for several years.
Jones said concerns over the concealed carry lists and Missouri’s new drivers licenses were “intertwined.” Without the ongoing investigation into the licenses and the Department of Revenue’s handling of private information, it’s unlikely that lawmakers would have stumbled upon the details of the release of the concealed carry lists, he said.
Lawmakers began airing concerns over the Department of Revenue’s new license system last month, and questions primarily focused on whether it was being used to send data to the federal government or implement the federal Real ID Act in violation of state law. The new process includes electronic scanning of personal identification documents, including birth certificates, marriage licenses and concealed carry certifications.
In several hearings at the Capitol, officials from the Revenue Department told lawmakers that the new process was intended to make licenses more secure. They have repeatedly said the new scanning policy is not an attempt to implement Real ID and the process is not being used to share documents with the federal government.
Schaefer said finding out about the concealed carry lists was “like extracting teeth.” After hours of inquiry, with questions often repeated in varying ways, Schaefer latched onto the issue of whether concealed carry lists had ever been created and shared outside of the new system. After some vague answers, officials eventually admitted Wednesday night that the Department of Revenue had given concealed carry lists to the state Highway Patrol.
Later in the evening, they returned to say that Highway Patrol handed the information over to a federal agent. Replogle’s testimony, filing in the details of the federal requests, came Thursday morning, but early reports had already started to garner national attention.
Some Republicans called on Nixon to fire those responsible for the release. They also have accused the governor’s administration of covering up the details.
Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-St. Elizabeth, sent letters to officials in the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Thursday seeking more information about the federal government’s role in the information release.
“It is clearly a violation of one’s personal privacy, not to mention Missouri law, and I cannot adequately express to you my incredible concern over this request,” Luetkemeyer wrote in the letters, requesting specific details about the nature of the request, as well as private meetings with top federal officials.
State Auditor Tom Schweich is auditing the Department of Revenue. The House Government Oversight Committee has launched its own investigation, and Jones said he would give the committee the power to subpoena for information — a tactic Schaefer used in his investigation of whether Revenue is working toward Real ID requirements.
Jones also has called on Attorney General Chris Koster to appoint an independent investigative committee to look into the Department of Revenue’s handling of private information. Koster’s office did not respond to the Post-Dispatch’s request for comment.
Meanwhile, the state House and Senate have each given early approval to legislation that would block the Revenue Department from scanning documents used to obtain drivers licenses.
Sources Breitbart and St. Louis Today
WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan quartet of senators, including two National Rifle Association members and two with “F” ratings from the potent firearms lobby, are quietly trying to find a compromise on expanding the requirement for gun-sale background checks.
A deal, given a good chance by several participants and lobbyists, could add formidable political momentum to one of the key elements of President Barack Obama’s gun control plan. Currently, background checks are required only for sales by the nation’s 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, but not for gun show, person-to-person sales or other private transactions.
The senators’ talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons, said people who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to describe the negotiations publicly.
The private discussions involve liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is the No. 3 Senate Democratic leader; West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, an NRA member and one of the chamber’s more moderate Democrats; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., another NRA member and one of the more conservative lawmakers in Congress; and moderate GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois.
“It will not limit your ability to borrow your Uncle Willie’s hunting rifle or share a gun with your friend at a shooting range,” Schumer said last week in one of the senators’ few public remarks about the package the group is seeking. He said he believed a bipartisan deal could be reached.
Polls show that requiring background checks for nearly all gun purchases has more public support than Obama’s proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, and it is among those given the best chance of enactment. Even so, it is opposed by the NRA and many congressional Republicans, who consider it intrusive and unworkable for a system they say already has flaws.
“My problem with background checks is you’re never going to get criminals to go through background checks,” Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, told the Senate Judiciary Committee at its gun control hearing last week.
An agreement among the four senators could help overcome that opposition by opening the door to support from other conservative Republicans besides Coburn. It also could make it easier to win backing from Democratic senators from GOP-leaning states, many of whom face re-election next year and who have been leery of embracing Obama’s proposals.
Schumer and Kirk each have “F” scores from the NRA, while Coburn and Manchin have “A” ratings.
Prompted by the December massacre of 20 first-graders and six adults in Newtown, Conn., the Democratic-led Judiciary Committee plans to write gun control legislation in the next few weeks. The committee’s chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has expressed strong support for universal background checks and it is expected to be a cornerstone of his bill, but a version of that language with bipartisan support could give the entire package a boost.
“If the language is meaningful, it would be obviously a huge step,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which represents child welfare, religious and other groups favoring gun curbs. “To have someone like Coburn, who’s voted consistently with the gun lobby, to come out and endorse a meaningful background check would be very helpful.”
It is likely that any gun-control bill will need 60 votes to pass the 100-member Senate. Democrats have 55 votes, including two Democratic-leaning independents.
Leaders of the GOP-run House are planning to see what, if anything, the Senate passes before moving on gun legislation. Strategists believe that a measure that passes the Senate with clear bipartisan support could pressure the House to act.
Federal data on gun purchases is gathered by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is run by the FBI.
According to Justice Department estimates, the federal and state governments ran 108 million background checks of firearms sales between 1994 when the requirement became law and 2009. Of those, 1.9 million — almost 2 percent — were denied, usually because would-be purchasers had criminal records.
People legally judged to be “mentally defective” are among those blocked by federal law from firearms purchases. States are supposed to make mental health records available to the federal background check system and receive more generous Justice Department grants if they do, but many provide little or no such data because of privacy concerns or antiquated record-keeping systems.
Coburn got involved in the background check talks about two weeks ago and says a compromise could make it harder for dangerous people to acquire firearms.
“The whole goal is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals,” he said in a brief interview.
Manchin could be particularly influential with Democrats like Sens. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who face re-election next year in deeply Republican states. Besides being an NRA member, Manchin ran a campaign ad in 2010 in which he promised to defend West Virginian’s Second Amendment rights to bear arms and “take on” the Obama administration — all while shooting a hole in a copy of a Democratic bill that would have clamped limits on greenhouse gases — another sore spot for a coal-mining state like West Virginia.
In an interview, Manchin said that besides hoping for a background check compromise, he wanted inclusion of a commission that would study “how our culture has gotten so desensitized toward violence.”
Participating senators declined to provide details of the talks. But people following the discussions say the talks have touched on:
—The types of family relatives who would be allowed to give guns to each other without a background check.
—Possibly exempting sales in remote areas.
—Whether to help some veterans who sought treatment for traumatic stress disorder — now often barred from getting firearms — become eligible to do so.
An NRA spokesman, Andrew Arulanandam, declined to comment on the senators’ discussions.
In this short but cogent post by VotingAmerican you can clearly see, what every whinny liberal and centered conservative knows. And that is that the vast majority of Americans do not trust any form of Government to be able to protect them. We also realize that making thes guns black market just ups the ante for decent law abiding citizens thereby giving the criminal element a peek at our hand. But will it happen? We say, if and or when the government tries to take the law abiding citizens guns, it will be a blood bath. Molon Labe. -PBN
Only 22% of Americans believe gun control will reduce crime
58% of Americans believe violent crime would be reduced if more people had guns
65% of American gun owners say they would defy gun confiscation
52% of gun owning Democrats would defy gun confiscation
70% of gun owning Republicans would defy gun confiscation
73% of gun owning Independents would defy gun confiscation
77% of gun owning Men would defy gun confiscation
52% of gun owning Women would defy gun confiscation
68% of gun owning whites would defy gun confiscation
54% of gun owning non-whites would defy gun confiscation
58% of gun owners with a college degree would defy gun confiscation
69% of gun owners without a college degree would defy gun confiscation
Among every segment of the gun owning population, a majority says they will defy gun confiscation.
Conservatives are worried that the negotiations that will begin this week to avoid the “fiscal cliff” will end in disaster. Tax increases that will weaken the economy could be combined with spending cuts that never materialize in an agreement that will leave many Republicans — especially those who have signed the “no net new taxes” pledge promoted by Americans for Tax Reform — vulnerable to public outrage, and indeed to primary challenges in the midterm elections.
TurboTax Timmy even gets it… sort of. “I don’t see how you do this without higher rates. I don’t think there’s any feasible, realistic way to do it,”
“America… truth is we’ll only earn about 12% of what we need, that leaves us with
88% that will come out of every middle class American’s hide. Obama hates America.” -PBN
“When you take a cold, hard look at the amount of resources you can raise from that top 2 percent of Americans through limiting deductions, you will find yourself disappointed relative to the magnitude of the revenue increases that we need.” Timothy Geithner
Mitt Romney is the man for the moment. His career history indicates that he’s never met a challenge he hasn’t overcome. From his personal life to his business record, whether saving the Salt Lake City Olympics or serving as Massachusetts governor, he has excelled. Now, he is willing to take on the major challenges facing America that threaten the immediate and long-term well-being of the nation.
Looking back, certain leaders — George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan immediately come to mind — emerged at a time when our nation desperately needed a man with unique gifts and abilities. Critical times require exceptional individuals, leaders whose character, abilities and experience equip them to tackle the nation’s problems. They lead not for political expediency, their own glory or to build up their own egos, but for the sake of the nation’s future. History is replete with instances when a particular leader made, for good or ill, an enormous difference morally, socially and economically.
Numerous pundits are saying that never in the history of America has there been such a clear choice between two different philosophies as in the worldviews of the two 2012 presidential candidates. The stakes of this election are enormous.
President Obama has made it clear that he wants America to look more like Europe. He has apologized for what he calls the nation’s past mistakes. He told a Russian leader that he would have “more flexibility” to work with other nations during his second term, when he didn’t have to face re-election. He has distanced the United States from both Great Britain and Israel, two of our strongest and closest allies. Every day, revelations about Benghazi, Libya, are looking more horrific and disturbing in what they tell us about the state of our foreign affairs.
Abe Katsman of the Times of Israel writes of the Romney landslide among American voting in Israel:
“The Presidential election results are in. Well, at least the votes from Americans in Israel. Not one to keep readers in suspense, I’ll reveal the most important numbers up front: Gov. Mitt Romney received 85%–85%!–of the vote; President Obama managed only 14.3%. This, according to exit polling just released by iVoteIsrael, the non-partisan group promoting and facilitating voting by U.S. citizens currently in Israel. Their statistics reveal some fascinating results. More importantly, these results have implications for the outcome of next week’s election. (Again, not to keep you in suspense: those implications favor the Republicans.)”