It also exists so that American may not simply hunt, but protect themselves against government, if necessary. Check your history.
Control of every aspect of your life, control, monitoring, regulation.
FCC Commissioner: Feds may come for Drudge
by Rudy Takala
(CNSNews.com) – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member Ajit Pai said over the weekend that he foresees a future in which federal regulators will seek to regulate websites based on political content, using the power of the FCC or Federal Elections Commission (FEC). He also revealed that his opposition to “net neutrality” regulations had resulted in personal harassment and threats to his family.
However, Pai said it was only the beginning. In the future, he said, “I could easily see this migrating over to the direction of content… What you’re seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself.”
Continuing, he said, “It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse. He doesn’t have to file anything with the FEC. The FCC doesn’t have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that.’”
We’ve seen this already from the federal government, in terms of the IRS terrorizing Conservative groups with threats and actions not directed to any other political community.
“Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance? That everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News… is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don’t think so,” Pai said.
“The First Amendment means not just the cold parchment that’s in the Constitution. It’s an ongoing cultural commitment, and I sense that among a substantial number of Americans and a disturbing number of regulators here in Washington that online speech is [considered] a dangerous brave new world that needs to be regulated,” he concluded.
Those persons who are ignorant of the world surrounding them would be the first to say “that’s ridiculous, you’re paranoid. Nothing like that could ever happen in the US.”
In response I’d say: “it’s already happened. Where were you?”
Why do you think there is such a push to eliminate the Second Amendment by the federal government, to onerously regulate firearms and ammunition?
Because without the ability to defend ourselves on a civilian level, the federal government, any government, can lay rules and regulations on a population that has no ability to fight back in any manner.
Let me provide further clarity: the Second Amendment, as some think, doesn’t exist solely to enable people to go hunting if they wish. It exists to keep the populace safe from an overbearing government.
The Obama Regime is leaving in a few years, thank the Lord. But if another Demorat steps in, you’ll find your fundamental rights challenged once more. If that occurs, this nation could very well erupt in a fashion no one wants to see or consider.
These things are occurring right here, right now, in the United States of America, ladies and gentlemen.
Pass the word.
by AWR Hawkins
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.
“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.
332 pages of regulations — why can’t we see them?
From the NationalReview.com:
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?
Check your six, I always say.
From the NationalJournal.com:
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?
Simple as that.