While Oregon Democrats stood with Gabby Giffords and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to push expanded background checks on April 1, Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer stood for the law-abiding citizens whom the checks will target by describing the gun control push as “borderline treasonous.”
Palmer also made clear that if the Democrats pass the measure there is zero chance of his office enforcing it.
County Sheriffs with balls.
Someone has to have them, in law enforcement.
Because Chiefs of Police certainly don’t have them.
The US Department of the Internet is here, in all its chewy, buttery, governmental goodness. And you can bet the DOI will be jam-gepacked with all the efficiency, thrift, cheer, good will and responsiveness as your local DMV. Or, uh, any other federal government function.
Regulators OK ‘net neutrality’ rules for Internet providers
by Anne Flaherty
WASHINGTON (AP) — Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile now must act in the “public interest” when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone, under rules approved Thursday by a divided Federal Communications Commission.
The plan, which puts the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone and bans business practices that are “unjust or unreasonable,” represents the biggest regulatory shakeup to the industry in almost two decades. The goal is to prevent providers from slowing or blocking web traffic, or creating paid fast lanes on the Internet, said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.
The 3-2 vote was expected to trigger industry lawsuits that could take several years to resolve. Still, consumer advocates cheered the regulations as a victory for smaller Internet-based companies which feared they would have to pay “tolls” to move their content.
On its face, hey, “net neutrality,” what’s not to love about “neutrality,” right?
After all, it’s about “fairness.” Air quotes. “Fair” – “ness.”
But then there’s this:
Opponents, including many congressional Republicans, said the FCC plan constitutes dangerous government overreach that would eventually drive up consumer costs and discourage industry investment.
Initially, one can rest assured there will in fact be a new department created by the federal government (why not the Department of the Internet?), with its concomitant bloated bureaucracy, profligate spending, unfettered reach and brain-glazing indifference.
And as I wrote earlier, if the internet wasn’t broken, why the stultifying alacrity to allegedly “repair” it?
But here’s the real truth to the situation, and what these rules will have wrought:
Michael Powell, a former Republican FCC chairman who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, warned that consumers would almost immediately “bear the burden of new taxes and increased costs, and they will likely wait longer for faster and more innovative networks since investment will slow in the face of bureaucratic oversight.”
It’s not true that consumers would see new taxes right away. The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes on Internet access, although that bill expires in October. While Congress is expected to renew that legislation, it’s conceivable that states could eventually push Congress for the ability to tax Internet service now that it has been deemed a vital public utility.
And why wouldn’t states do this, when they are actively seeking new cash sources for in-state Free Cheese programs?
“Read my lips. More Internet taxes are coming. It’s just a matter of when,” Commissioner Pai said.
O joyous day. A more regulated and less responsive internet, uninterested and unmotivated in technological innovation, for which we’ll all be paying more money.
Run by the same people who brought you ObamaCare and the healthcare.gov website that was the epitome of productivity, coherence and budgetary frugality.
Using Europe as a model, we can see that throttling the internet via “net neutrality” results in fewer innovations and fewer choices. All in the interest of “fairness,” you see.
“Net neutrality distorts competition to benefit one group and disadvantage another—the very definition of crony capitalism.” ~ JeffEisenach
Demorats haven’t seen the rules for the FCC’s “net neutrality” proposal — all 332 pages of them — but they’re applauding the rules anyway. In just the fashion they did with ObamaKare, passed in the dead of night, unilaterally, and unable to see the bill itself — just like the FCC.
Essentially, the US controls the internet. We could cede power of course, but why would we? Oh right. It’s not “fair” for the US to actually have power, according to Mr Barack Hussein Obama. Again, it is all about his background, his raising and education. You need to read this to understand Mr Obama.
FCC Chair Refuses to Testify before Congress ahead of Net Neutrality Vote
by Andrew Johnson
Two prominent House committee chairs are “deeply disappointed” in Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler for refusing to testify before Congress as “the future of the Internet is at stake.”
Wheeler’s refusal to go before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday comes on the eve of the FCC’s vote on new Internet regulations pertaining to net neutrality. The committee’s chairman, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), and Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) criticized Wheeler and the administration for lacking transparency on the issue.
“So long as the chairman continues to insist on secrecy, we will continue calling for more transparency and accountability at the commission,” Chaffetz and Upton said in a statement. “Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are not above Congress.”
If that isn’t bad enough, does anyone consider what I term “logical extensions” — ?
Who physically controls the internet? Who controls the tap, the faucet, the “shut-off” if you will? And how can this power be transferred?
Republicans Fear Net Neutrality Plan Could Lead to UN Internet Powers
by Brendan Sasso
The U.S. government’s plan to enact strong net neutrality regulations could embolden authoritarian regimes like China and Russia to seize more power over the Internet through the United Nations, a key Senate Republican warned Wednesday.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune of South Dakota argued that by claiming more authority over Internet access for net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission will undermine the ability of the U.S. to push back against international plots to control the Internet and censor content.
Countries like Russia already have made it clear that they want the International Telecommunications Union or another United Nations body to have more power over the Internet, Thune said.
“It seems like reclassifying broadband, as the administration is doing, is losing a valuable argument,” Thune said at his panel’s hearing on Internet governance. “How do you prevent ITU involvement when you’re pushing to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, and is everyone aware of that inherent contradiction?”
Excellent questions but won’t be answered.
I have but one logical question:
If these regulations are so wonderful, so beneficent, then why the complete opacity? Why the stonewalling? Why the refusal to embrace transparency upon which, after all, Mr Barack Hussein Obama said his entire administration is based?
Easy answer: the FCC and Mr Obama want no pushback and NO, the regulations will NOT be beneficial for Americans.
Finally: the internet is NOT broken. Why are you insistent upon “fixing” it?
Gun rights groups await judge’s ruling on California’s ‘microstamping’ law
by Malia Zimmerman
California’s gun laws are among the nation’s strictest, but a looming decision in a federal lawsuit could effectively ban handguns altogether in the Golden State, according to plaintiffs who want a judge to toss out a state law requiring all new handguns to be equipped with technology that “stamps” each shell casing with a traceable mark.
The problem with the “microstamping” law, which was signed into law by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 but only took effect in 2013, is that it relies on an unworkable technology, according to gun manufacturers and attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation. If guns without the technology can’t be sold in California, and gun manufacturers can’t implement the technology, the law is, for practical purposes, a handgun ban that violates the Second Amendment, goes the argument.
Thanks Arnold, you blubbering, steroid-ridden baboon. And all with an (R) at the back of your name, as in (R)apist, for screwing over our Second Amendment.
“This is about the state trying to eliminate the handgun market,” said Alan Gura, the lead attorney in Pena v. Lindley, filed on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation against the Chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. “The evidence submitted by the manufacturers shows this is science fiction and there is not a practical way to implement the law.
Since the law took effect in 2013, no manufacturer has made a new firearm that complies with the requirement.Two major manufacturers, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co., announced last year they would stop selling new firearms in the California market, and blamed the microstamping law. The technology has been demonstrated, but gunmakers say requirements that each new model, or even modification, must be re-tested for compliance makes the entire scheme unworkable.
When you, as a Leftist, hate guns, fear guns, and detest the thought of them in the hands of private citizens, you do your very best to eliminate them by any means possible.
This all dovetails. Why is there a push to control the internet? To silence DC pushback on various Leftist plans. Why is there a continuing and unrelenting tsunami to take guns from American citizens? Because, as with the internet, when you silence citizens you eliminate pushback. How do you guarantee the average citizen cannot “push back” against the government? You eliminate the Second Amendment.
Because when you eliminate the Second Amendment you will, by extension, help to eliminate the First Amendment.
Then you truly do have Serfs, Proles and Groundlings in the United States of America.
The Second Amendment doesn’t exist to protect hunters. If you believe that, you are a complete fool.
The Second Amendment exists to keep the individual citizen safe from the over-reaching powers of an oppressive government. And to guarantee free speech.
Obama “Hopeful” Immigration Will Drown Conservatism
by Neil Munro
The spread of vibrant social diversity is constricting the GOP’s ability to champion conservative causes, such as smaller government and independent families, President Barack Obama said in a softball media interview.
“Over the long term, I’m pretty optimistic, and the reason is because this country just becomes more and more of a hodgepodge of folks,” Obama told Vox editor Ezra Klein.
Check where this is going.
“People are getting more and more comfortable with the diversity of this country, much more sophisticated about both the cultural differences but more importantly, the basic commonality that we have,” he said in his talk, which was recorded Jan 23.
But for Obama, “commonality” is a go-to euphemism for big, intrusive, nation-wide government by progressive experts.
The nation’s governors “all have a common interest, and that is making sure that their constituents — who are also my constituents — are able to gain opportunity, work hard, prosper, feel secure,” Obama said in a Dec. 5 comment about visiting governors. “That happens best when we work together, whether we’re talking about Democrats and Republicans and independents working together, or whether we’re talking about state, federal and local officials working together,” he said.
Free-market variety is contrary to a common purpose, Obama said Jan. 21. “Our media is all segmented now so that instead of just watching three stations, we got 600,” he said in an Idaho speech. “You got the [single] conservative station and the liberal stations. So everybody is only listening to what they already agree with. And then you’ve got political gerrymandering… so there are a lot of institutional forces that make it seem like we have nothing in common,” he said.
What does that mean to you?
To me it means: when the nation is consumed by a greater and greater number of illegal immigrants and by an increasing number of persons who will, in fact, vote themselves “largesse” (immigrants, of course, having the right to vote) because they find dependence on the government to be vividly attractive, then Conservatives and the GOP will have nothing to offer the population.
Meaning: the electorate will continue to vote, in perpetuity, for Free Cheese, thus eliminating any competition to Demorats.
Voila. Mr Obama enables Cloward-Piven writ large over the entire nation.
A project being worked on with great vigor by Mr Barack Hussein Obama.