Latest Posts

0
Salvadoran website El Faro has built its reputation with stirring stories of gangland, sparking threats at home and racking up prizes abroad. By Sarah Esther...

Newsletter

By Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart News

There is something decidedly odd about the California State Legislature’s decision to hire former Attorney General Eric Holder, now back at the prestigious Covington & Burling law firm, to fight the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

There is something decidedly odd about the California State Legislature’s decision to hire former Attorney General Eric Holder, now back at the prestigious Covington & Burling law firm, to fight the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.
The weirdness goes beyond the fact that it may be

The weirdness goes beyond the fact that it may be unconstitutional for the legislature to have hired Holder, given that the state already has its own attorneys who are certainly capable of doing what the state government requires

One of those attorneys is none other than Gov. Jerry Brown’s nominee for Attorney General, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA). He has a long track record of fighting Republicans on issues like immigration and entitlement reform, and has made clear he intends to fight the Trump administration every step of the way to protect California’s one-party state and its “progressive” policies. He is also, as the local media noted appropriately at his nomination, California’s first Latino Attorney General.

So why does California need Holder? Does the California State Legislature believe somehow that Becerra lacks the ability to do the job? Probably not, since a committee of the State Assembly approved his nomination this week in a 6-3 party-line vote. Does Holder bring something special to the job of representing the state that Becerra does not? They are both Washington creatures and know how to fight on the national stage. Is there some reason to pay both of these men, working separately?

Note that California has some recent, and bad, experience with duplicating government functions. Much of last year’s political energy was spent in a pointless feud over gun control between Senate President pro Tem Kevin de Léon (D-Los Angeles) — the first Latino to serve in that role in more than a century — and Lieutenant Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Democratic favorite for governor in 2018 against formidable challenger Antonio Villaraigosa, who served as the first Latino mayor of Los Angeles.

Newsom wanted to legalize marijuana via referendum. But then he decided to add a gun control referendum, Proposition 63, which bans large-capacity ammunition magazines and requires ammunition purchasers to undergo a background check. Sen. de Léon championed his own gun control efforts through the legislature, triggering a nasty spat.

The potential for clashes between the executive and legislature, even on common policies, is clear. Why would California risk repeating history?

Come to think of it — why did Newsom insist on credit for both the marijuana and the gun control initiatives, without finding any room for de Léon to share the “progressive” accolades?

The Newsom-de Léon fight happened at the same time as the race for U.S. Senate between Becerra’s predecessor, Kamala Harris, and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), pitting the state’s first black and Hispanic candidates for the seat against each other. Before she faded down the stretch, Sanchez had carried the hopes of California’s rising Latino constituency. But Harris clinched the biggest endorsements and donors very early in the race.

Over and over again, California’s emerging Latino leadership has offered new leaders to the state. And in each case, the state’s existing Democratic Party establishment has maneuvered to block them.

Eric Holder, who has no roots in California, walked into his new job with no confirmation hearings; Becerra has to jump through the hoops. What is the message there?

One hesitates even to touch the Democratic Party’s identity politics game. Perhaps the real rivalry is between Northern and Southern California: the San Francisco Bay Area has a stranglehold on statewide office, and most of the state’s Latino stars hail from L.A. and Orange County.

Still, it is odd that the California State Legislature decided that as qualified as he is, Rep. Becerra needs a “double” — at a cost of $25,000 per month — from a white-shoe law firm on the other side of the country.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News.

Your Editor Explains: For balanced opinions, we’ll need and use them all.

by Suzanne Gamboa

Werner Oyanadel was at his office in Connecticut when a fresh President Barack Obama made a historic move for Latinos: he nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Oyanadel, 45, who works for the state’s assembly, remembers the May 26, 2009 nomination as a moment of joy that united much of the community during an otherwise bleak time.

“It was a celebration and in many ways it felt good in that everything that was happening near us was depressive — the economy was doing bad, the outlook for quality of life for Latinos was not positive,” said Oyanadel. “Later on, I was personally happy to realize this was just the beginning.”

upporters of Obama tout substantial gains for Hispanics under his watch: The return of Latinos to work after a recession that hit them harder than white workers, as well as a drop in Hispanic poverty rates. About 4 million more Latinos obtained health insurance and the administration waged court battles for the preservation of voting rights. Obama used his presidential power so thousands of young Latino immigrants could remain in the U.S. without fear of deportation and have the chance to work. And from his office, he forged a new relationship with Cuba.

To Oyandel’s delight, Sotomayor’s nomination was followed by a total of six Latinos in Cabinet secretary jobs over eight years as well the hiring of other Hispanics in key administration and White House jobs. Obama made Cecilia Muñoz, a daughter of Bolivian immigrants, one of his top advisers on domestic policies.

Discussions of Obama’s legacy for Latinos frequently become mired in what he did not do on immigration — mainly the failure to get Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. His deportation polices have repeatedly come under fire.

But looking at his presidency through a Latino lens also requires seeing it through the varied lives and backgrounds of U.S. Hispanics as well as significant demographic changes driven by Latinos.

“Obama was president with a growing Latino population. It exerted just naturally more political [and] economic power, a greater role in our society,” said Bernard Fraga, associate professor of Indiana University’s politics department. “Latinos are more important in U.S. society than they have ever been.”

Obama is ending his presidency next week with a 71 percent approval rating among Hispanics, recovered from lows of nearly 50 percent in 2013 and 2014.

For Latinos, he will leave a legacy of inspiration, elevation, opportunity and economic lift, with the caveat of disappointment and for some, disillusionment, for what he didn’t get done on immigration.

By the time Obama became president, Latinos had become the largest minority group, edging past African Americans in 2001. But while more than three quarters of whites had private health insurance when Obama entered office, only about 44 percent of Hispanics did. Latinos led all racial and ethnic groups, except Native Americans, in the rate of uninsured.

“We were the target for Obamacare,” said José Dante Parra, CEO of Prospero Latino strategy group.

Felipe Benítez’s mother, a retired doctor who emigrated from Mexico, was one of the people who signed up for Obamacare soon after the president signed the Affordable Care Act into law.

María de Lourdes Rojas was old enough for Medicare, but wasn’t eligible because her working years had preceded her arrival to the U.S. and so she had not contributed from her paycheck to Medicare. Before Obamacare, she was paying steep monthly premiums for private health insurance, said Benítez, a communications strategist in Washington, D.C. Rojas is a U.S. citizen.

Remember when (Obama) signed the bill and the mic was still hot and (Vice President) Joe Biden leaned in and said ‘This is a big f***ing deal’? Well for me and the family, it was a big f***ing deal — BFD,” Benítez said.

Obamacare has drawn strong criticism among Republican Latino opponents, primarily for its requirements on businesses. But supporters point to strong gains: 4 million more Hispanics have gained insurance, young Latinos are covered until they are 26 through their parents’ insurance, no insurance denials for pre-existing conditions and the expansion of community health centers, which have benefited those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

“Obamacare “is one of the things I will always be grateful for and always remember and I will fight to keep it,” Benítez said.

In his last news conference of 2016, Obama said he was proud of the coalition he built in 2008 and 2012. Latinos turned out strong for him in 2008 when he promised to take up immigration reform in his first 100 days and again in 2012 after he used executive action to protect young undocumented immigrants from deportation and to grant them work permits.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA, has benefited nearly 800,000 young people and indirectly some of their families, because many have been able to attend and graduate from college, work jobs or launch professions and businesses and become homeowners.

DACA recipient Brenda Romero, 22, gives Obama a qualified endorsement.

“There’s two sides of the coin: as much as his presidency has given me an opportunity to pursue my education and be able to work and not be afraid of deportation, some of the highest deportation numbers in history have been under him.”

Obama focused deportations on those who had recently crossed the border, including those who had previously been deported and on those detained on an alleged crime. His office created a priority system for deportations, then tweaked it in his second term amid protests by some of his allies — Latino leaders and immigration activists — who had tagged him “deporter in chief.”

Obama deflated some of that antagonism with another executive action that would have shielded parents of citizens and legal residents from deportation and widened the eligibility pool for DACA. But those programs are stymied in court.

“Immigration does sort of drown out other policy victories, particularly the Affordable Care Act, for other Latinos,” said Gabriel Sanchez, a University of New Mexico political science professor.

While immigration got a lot of the attention during Obama’s presidency, there were Latinos unaffected personally by the debate and the legislative battles over the issue. They look to other areas where Obama’s policies influenced their lives.

In 2014, Roseanne Ortega graduated college with a degree in education.

A single mom, Ortega, 32, said she was able to attend school while working full time and taking care of her then 2-year-old daughter. She credits grants, other financial assistance and job opportunities with helping her graduate without debt.

She now teaches Kindergarten and hopes to one day get a Master’s degree and teach at the university level. Spending on higher education substantially increased under Obama, including greater access to more affordable student loans and an increase in individual Pell grant awards.

Ortega said she’d give Obama an A for his performance as president. “Financially I wouldn’t have been able to do it,” she said.

Among younger Latinos, high school graduation levels are at historic highs and the teen pregnancy rate is at its lowest levels.

Unemployment among Hispanics has dropped more than any other group since the Great Recession, from a high of 13.1 percent in 2009, compared to 9.2 percent for whites. In October, Latino unemployment was at 5.7 percent, compared to 4.2 percent for whites.

Parra, the political strategist, recalled speaking with an Uber driver in Miami before the last presidential debate. They were talking politics and the driver was unenthusiastic about the election and the candidates.

“All of a sudden (the driver) volunteers ‘Obama on the other hand, that guy helped me keep my house — I was about to lose it,'” Parra said. Latinos lost 66 percent of their household wealth in the Great Recession, especially in states like Nevada and Florida.

“One of his legacies is definitely an economic one because, remember, we were disproportionately hit by the foreclosure crisis and all these (recovery) programs were very helpful to many people,” Parra said.

While unemployment has dropped, the wealth gap between Latinos and whites persists and studies show that the economic recovery has been slower for people at middle and lower income levels. But Hispanics are more optimistic now: a June 2016 Pew report found 33 percent of Latinos said their finances were “good,” compared to 19 percent in November of 2008.

Obama’s decision to end the country’s 50-year-old policy toward Cuba is one that has many implications in the Latino community. The thaw has split the Cuban American community, but has improved relations with Latin American and Caribbean countries.

Elizabeth Díaz, who visited Cuba after the thaw, said she considers Obama a great president for opening up travel to her family’s native country, making it possible for her to visit recently and bring back pictures of what her relatives left behind.

“As much as my grandmother fought me going there … when I came back and showed her everything, she was super happy,” Diaz said.

Ric Herrero, who served as executive director of CubaNow, which seeks to improve connections among people in both countries, said Obama’s normalization of relations with Cuba “will be remembered for decades.” The policies had been “a stone in our shoe” when it came to relations with the rest of Latin America.

“Now that stone has been removed and I think Latinos here have taken notice of that and have been overwhelmingly supportive of that policy,” he said.

Cuban-American lawmakers have opposed the changes, citing Cuba’s record on human rights and the absence of free elections. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. and a Cuban American, recently sent to President-Elect Trump a plea to stop sharing intelligence with Cuba.

Obama’s campaigns for president energized a number of young Latinos, many who were voting for a president for the first time or who became engaged because of his candidacy. After his election, some of those Latinos joined his administration and others became involved in political and social organizations. While the federal government’s hiring of Hispanics still lags behind their presence in the U.S., the pipeline of Latinos to elected office, politics and social advocacy groups has expanded.

Since Obama became president, there has been a greater shift toward the Democratic Party by Latinos, in part because of Obama’s candidacy and re-election. In an October 2016 Pew Hispanic poll, two-thirds of Hispanics supported or leaned toward the Democratic Party. The way he energized the community, particularly its younger members who make up 44 percent of Latino voters, could have been an even greater force for Democrats had Clinton won, Fraga said.

While different Latinos will debate whether the changes Obama made were indeed transformative, Fraga said he shifted expectations nonetheless.

“The fact that Barack Obama, an African American son of an immigrant, became president of the United States really demonstrated to the Latino community, why not us?” Fraga said.

Your Editor Warns: Lifting the racial barrier is an ongoing process.

Holding the Power: After taking insults from Donald Trump throughout the 2016 campaign, Florida Senator Marco Rubio now “holds the key vote on Trump’s nomination of former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to be secretary of state. And he knows it.” Will he seek revenge?

The Florida Republican has the power to sink Rex Tillerson’s nomination for secretary of state and deal an early blow to a president-elect who belittled him a year ago.

By Russell Berman

Donald Trump lobbed all manner of insults at Marco Rubio when the two Republicans were rivals for the presidency. The Florida senator was, most memorably, “Liddle Marco” in the vernacular of the taller Trump. He mocked him for his profuse sweating, for his “really large ears,” for being no more than a typical D.C. politician. And to add injury to insult, Trump trounced Rubio in his home state’s primary and went on to win Florida in the general election with almost no help from its junior senator.

Now, however, it’s Rubio’s turn to make Trump sweat.

Just reelected to a second six-year term in the Senate, the 45-year-old holds the key vote on Trump’s nomination of former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to be secretary of state. And he knows it.

Rubio sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, which must sign off on Tillerson before his nomination can go to the Senate floor for a final vote. The panel has 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, so if all the Democrats oppose Tillerson—which they very well might—the defection of just one Republican will be enough to stall, and probably sink, his chances of confirmation.

After questioning Tillerson more aggressively than any other Republican on the committee (and a few Democrats), Rubio came away clearly dissatisfied with some of the answersand undecided on his nomination. “This is a very important decision, and I recognize the partisan split on the committee and what it would all mean,” he told reporters after the hearing. “So I have to make sure I am 100 percent behind whatever decision that I make, because once I make it, it isn’t going to change.” Tillerson’s friendly relationship with Vladimir Putin and his past criticism of sanctions against Russia have raised concerns among senators in both parties. But it was Tillerson’s refusal to condemn Putin and President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines for war crimes and human rights abuses that particularly irked Rubio.

Asked by CNN’s Manu Raju whether he is prepared to be the one Republican to vote no, Rubio replied: “I’m prepared to do what’s right. I’m not analyzing it from a partisan perspective.”

Because of the GOP’s slim majority in the Senate, Rubio is one of several Republicans Trump denigrated on his way to the White House who are now in a position to thwart his agenda, or at least to exert leverage in ways that could make life for the president-elect uncomfortable. And those personal rifts may make their more serious differences on policy tougher to paper over. Senator John McCain of Arizona was an early target for Trump, who dismissed the ex-POW’s reputation as a war hero by saying, “I like people who weren’t captured.” McCain, a longtime Russia hawk, has criticized Trump’s attitude toward Putin and is also undecided on the Tillerson nomination.

“I’m prepared to do what’s right. I’m not analyzing it from a partisan perspective.”

In the case of another former GOP presidential contender, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, it seems Trump isn’t done teasing. “I’ve been competing with him for a long time. He is going to crack that 1 percent barrier one day,” Trump joked during his press conference on Wednesday, making fun of Graham’s poor showing during the primaries last year. (He did add that Graham is “a nice guy”—or at least, he said, that’s what he’s heard from others.) Graham on Thursday morning praised Rubio’s line of questioning with Tillerson and said he shared his colleague’s concerns about the nominee’s responses. “When it comes to Russia, I want more clarity,” Graham said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “We’ll see if he can clean up his answers.” As to Tillerson’s chances of confirmation, he said: “I think his nomination is salvageable from my point of view.”

Then there’s Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who began to make noise about potential Trump Cabinet picks shortly after the election. He vowed to oppose both Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton for secretary of state, citing their hawkish stances on U.S. military engagement abroad. Paul’s hard line could have effectively killed their chances because, like Rubio, he holds a potentially decisive vote on the Foreign Relations Committee. (He seems more favorable toward Tillerson and has reportedly said he’s leaning toward voting for him.) More recently, Paul has tried to upend the GOP leadership’s strategy on repealing the Affordable Care Act by voting against a budget resolution aimed at fast-tracking the legislation. He’s even appealed directly to Trump, boasting in a tweet that after speaking to him by phone, the president-elect “fully supports my plan to replace Obamacare the same day we repeal it.” Trump hasn’t acknowledged his conversation with Paul, and it’s not yet clear whether the Kentucky senator’s gambit will ultimately ease or complicate the party’s drive to repeal and replace the health law.

Aside from having all clashed with Trump last year, Rubio, McCain, and Paul have something else in common: They each secured another six-year term in November, meaning they won’t have to face voters again until after Trump runs for reelection in 2020. (Graham is up for reelection in 2020, too.) Their recent victories offer an extra measure of political protection from a Trump-inspired backlash, making it easier for them to oppose Trump as president even if he remains popular among Republicans. That dynamic doesn’t exist in the House, where Republican lawmakers have become increasingly sensitive to the possibility of a primary challenge every two years.

“Politically, if you’re in a ruby-red district, this is a president who’s going to be very difficult to oppose,” Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a former head of the House GOP’s campaign arm, told me in a recent interview.

Rubio doesn’t have that worry, and even if he was on the ballot next year, he could point to the fact that his margin of victory in Florida was larger than Trump’s (although that was probably thanks to support from Democratic and Independent voters more than Republicans).

Political considerations, of course, would only be one factor in Rubio’s decision on whether to confirm Tillerson for a job that, as he told both the nominee and reporters, he considers to be the second most important in government, “with all due respect to the vice president.” Over three rounds of questioning on Wednesday, Rubio laid out a substantive case for the importance of human rights in foreign policy. He pressed Tillerson repeatedly to call out clear violations by Putin, Duterte, and by the government of Saudi Arabia in its treatment of women. In each case, Tillerson stopped short of issuing the unequivocal denunciations Rubio wanted, and at one point he called Tillerson’s reluctance to do so “discouraging.” When Rubio, citing the Russian-backed atrocities in Aleppo, asked him directly if Putin is a war criminal, Tillerson replied, “I would not use that term.”

The United States, Rubio told Tillerson near the end of the day-long hearing, needed to project “moral clarity” to the world. “We can’t achieve moral clarity with rhetorical ambiguity,” he said. Rubio then delivered an extended explanation of the questions he had asked Tillerson and why he felt so strongly about their importance for a candidate for secretary of state:

[The secretary of state] is the face of this country for billions of people, for hundreds of millions of people, as well, and particularly for people that are suffering and they’re hurting.

For those people, those 1,400 people in jail in China, those dissidents in Cuba, the girls that want to drive and go to school, they look to the United States. They look to us and often to the secretary of state. And when they see the United States is not prepared to stand up and say, “Yes, Vladimir Putin is a war criminal; Saudi Arabia violates human rights. We deal with these countries because they have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, because China is the second largest economy in the world. Because Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner in what’s happening in the Middle East. But we still condemn what they do.” It demoralizes these people all over the world, and it leads people to conclude this, which is damaging, and it hurt us during the Cold War, and that is this: America cares about democracy and freedom as long—as long as it’s not being violated by someone that they need for something else.

That cannot be who we are in the 21st century. We need a secretary of state that will fight for these principles. That’s why I asked you these questions. That’s why I ask those questions, because I believe it’s that important for the future of the world that America lead now more than ever.

Sensing that Rubio’s vote might be slipping away, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the Republican chairman of the committee, used his closing remarks to appeal to Tillerson’s critics to give him the benefit of the doubt on the issue of moral “clarity.” “Senators,” Corker said, “develop pretty strong opinions, and sometimes, we express those opinions in a very crisp, direct, strong manner, just to break through the clutter that we have to deal with to make a point.”

A nominee coming in, on the other hand, wants to make sure that he’s not getting out over his skis. He’s working for a president that he doesn’t know that well yet. He’s trying to accommodate the fact that in fact he’s going to be working in an interagency situation to come to conclusions. So I just hope that those things will be taken into account if there are questions about clarity.

Will Rubio actually torpedo Tillerson’s nomination? A day later, he wasn’t saying. “Senator Rubio is working through this process, and we don’t have anything to announce at this time,” spokesman Matt Wolking said. He wouldn’t say whether Rubio planned to meet with Tillerson again before deciding how to vote.

Democrats opposed to Tillerson circulated a video highlight reel of Rubio’s questioning. But they were also skeptical that Rubio, who endorsed Trump months after calling him “a con artist,” would have the political courage to cross the president-elect. “Let’s all fast-forward to the part where Rubio slinks into the Senate chamber to vote for Tillerson because Trump told him to,” tweeted Dan Pfeiffer, a former top adviser to President Obama.

Indeed, it would be no small thing for Rubio to oppose Tillerson knowing that he alone could sink his nomination. It would deal an embarrassing early blow to Trump, who said on Wednesday that he had assembled “one of the great Cabinets ever put together.” While nominees of every recent incoming president have had to withdraw for various reasons, the Senate hasn’t rejected a top Cabinet nominee since it failed to confirm John Tower, President George H. W. Bush’s pick for defense secretary, in 1989. Rubio’s opposition would surely provoke Trump. But it would remind the president-elect that even though he defeated and belittled “Liddle Marco” a year ago, he can’t take him for granted now.

Your Editor Muses: Insults hurt. And then, you never know,,,,

By Zacks Equity Research,

Mexican pay-TV and broadcasting behemoth, Grupo Televisa S.A. TV, is likely to gain significantly from its ownership stake in U.S. broadcaster Univision Communications Inc. Notably, Univision is the largest privately held Spanish-language broadcaster in the U.S. According to a recent report by TheStreet, the owners of Univision are seriously considering an initial public offering (IPO) for the company in 2017.

Two weeks ago, Televisa secured authorization from the U.S. telecom regulator Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to own up to 40% of U.S. Spanish-language TV network Univision Inc.’s voting stock and up to 49% of its common shares. Further, the FCC approved a move to raise the total number of shares in Univision that can be held by foreign investors from 25% to 49%.

In 2007, Univision was acquired by a consortium led by billionaire Haim Saban for a total consideration of $13.7 billion. Other investors were Madison Dearborn Partners, Providence Equity Partners, TPG and THL Partners. In early 2012, Televisa effectively purchased a 35% stake in Univision for $1.2 billion. Per the agreement, Televisa paid $130 million in cash for a 5% stake and purchased convertible debt for the remaining 30% stake.

Moreover, Televisa holds the right to buy an additional 5% stake over the next five years, which would effectively increase its potential ownership in Univision up to 40%. Currently, Televisa effectively holds a 38% (8% in equity and 30% in convertible debt) stake in Univision. This leaves scope for buying 2% stake in 2017.

Univision is the fifth largest TV network in the U.S. The company’s portfolio consists of two leading Spanish-language broadcast networks, several cable channels, TV stations and a chain of popular Spanish-language radio stations. Currently, a considerable share of Televisa’s income is generated from its U.S. operations, which includes the sale of content, website and cable TV. Televisa allows Univision to access its content and then rebroadcast it on TV and the Internet for a royalty. In the first half of 2016, Televisa’s royalty from Univision was $154 million, up nearly 9.4% year over year.

In 2014, the government of Mexico had introduced reforms within its telecommunications sector, which included the pay-TV segment as well. Factoring this development, the Mexican telecom regulator the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT) allowed Televisa to enter into the nation’s wireless market. However, the company is yet to take any decision regarding this development.

Notably, the company’s reluctance is mainly due to the presence of large incumbent wireless operators such as America Movil SAB AMX, Telefonica SA TEF and AT&T Inc. T. America Movil currently carries a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy).

We note that the U.S. Hispanic TV market is highly lucrative and is growing at a remarkable pace. In 2015, Reuters estimated that Univision’s IPO could raise $1 billion which will eventually raise the company’s value to more than $20 billion. Consequently, Televisa is poised to gain significantly from Univision’s IPO.

Price Performance of Televisa

2016 was not a good year for Televisa. The stock lost a substantial 25.93% value in the last one year in contrast with a 12.11% gain exhibited by the Zacks categorized Broadcast Radio and TV industry. Growing competitive pressure in the Mexican pay-TV market from peers like TV Azteca and others along with shrinkage in operating margin are the near-term concerns. This is the primary reasons behind the stock currently carrying a Zacks Rank #5 (Sell). We will closely monitor whether management can introduce any effective turnaround strategy in 2017.

Your Editor Is Happy, But Wonders: What really triggered the FCC decision AND ITS TIMING?