Last day to weigh in on “Net Neutrality” — i.e., government-controlled communications

Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 by BZ

Today is the last day the FCC will allow you to express your opinion on so-called “net neutrality.” You can go to the FCC website here.

A nice phrase, except that “net neutrality” isn’t. Neutral, that is.

It is a ways and a means for the government to control and regulate something that doesn’t require controlling and regulating — all it requires is what it currently has: a free market.

When “net neutrality” exists, two things primarily occur: 1) rates go up and 2) innovation plummets.

The bulk of Western Europe has a version of NN and those precise things have occurred: rate hikes and a lack of entrepreneurship and cutting-edge technology. Not to mention general overall lower internet connectivity speeds.

For the obvious reason that, in order to get anything accomplished, a new idea or upgrade has to be proposed to an entirely new and large bureaucracy that will do its best to sit on and table said idea or upgrade, simply to exhibit its power and “prove” its worth.

Public utilities are regulated because everyone needs water and power. Those things aren’t merely “suggestions.” They are mandatory for survival. The internet, however, is not “mandatory” for survival. It’s a “nice” thing to have but you won’t die due to its removal from your life.

So-called “net neutrality” is a specious solution for a problem that doesn’t even exist. It gets our government into an area where it doesn’t belong. And I go back to some of my foundational Libertarian bents here, which occasionally get the best of me:

When the government, any government, intrudes into the primary source of communications today — the internet — it can shut you down when you proffer speech that IT doesn’t care for. Which is what Socialist and Communist countries do, and nations run by dictators.

Signing off on “net neutrality” will not only allow the government to have its hands upon the spigot, but will allow it to silence you and potentially prosecute you as well. For speech that it does not approve — on the Left or on the Right.

Leftists in the government are already working to revamp the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights but, specifically, the First and Second Amendments. Facts in evidence.

Note to self: continue to look around.

P.S.

What does Free Speech protect? It assures the worst of speech; it assures the most challenging of speech. It does not exist for milktoast speech. It embraces truth and emotion and change and shocking speech. Sometimes older speech can be the most shocking, the most challenging, and the most warranted.

Harry Reid wants to REMOVE our First Amendment from the Bill of Rights

Posted on Friday, September 12, 2014 by BZ

Harry Reid = short eyes.

I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime.

I never envisioned having to actually write about the topic.

I never thought that there would be even one American politician that would want, in any way, to reduce Our American Freedoms.

Until now. Until today.

Someone in American politics actually wants to amend the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The actual United States of America Bill of Rights.

Which states, beautifully and succinctly:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t suspect that there could be a more plain directive than that.

Who is the person who wishes to amend such a simple and beautiful foundational precept?

Demorat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

In my opinion, the Wall Street Journal nails the problem and the issue:

Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment

When politicians seek to restrict speech, they are invariably trying to protect their own incumbency.

by Theodore B. Olson

Liberals often deplore efforts to amend the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and especially when the outcome would narrow individual liberties. Well, now we know they don’t really mean it.

Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure.

Yes. Tinkering can cure that aged and so-“yesterday’s news” tragic document.

Because, after all, the US Constitution and its concomitant Bill of Rights need to be “living documents.” Read: documents that need to be changed when it is convenient to the purpose and agenda of Leftists.

They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates. Voters, whatever their political views, should rise up against politicians who want to dilute the Bill of Rights to perpetuate their tenure in office.

And oh yes, oh they should. And that rising up should include black powder and brass and torches and pitchforks.

Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, these Senate Democrats claim that they are merely interested in good government to “restore democracy to the American people” by reducing the amount of money in politics. Do not believe it. When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.

And let us examine, fundamentally, the foundational precepts of the Constitution and what it protects and what it doesn’t.

This scheme is doomed to fail when it comes to a vote in the Senate, perhaps as soon as Monday. The Constitution’s Framers had the wisdom to make amending the Constitution difficult, and Mr. Reid’s gambit won’t survive a filibuster. But Senate Democrats know their proposal is a loser. They merely want another excuse to rail against “money in politics” and Supreme Court justices they don’t like.

But there’s a point here. What’s the point?

The rhetoric of these would-be constitutional reformers is focused on two Supreme Court decisions: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). In Citizens United, the court struck down a law prohibiting unions and corporations from using their resources to speak for or against a candidate within a certain time period before an election.

In other words, money can find itself supporting what it will, and — with teeth-gritting enamel flecks populating the various keyboards of Leftists — corporations are still considered as “people.”

The Obama administration conceded during oral argument that the law would permit the government to ban the publication of political books or pamphlets. Pamphlets and books ignited the revolution that created this country and the Bill of Rights. In pushing to overturn the court’s decision, Mr. Reid and his Democratic colleagues apparently wish they had the power to stop books, pamphlets—as well as broadcasting—that threaten their hold on their government jobs.

Ban the publication of books and pamphlets. That translates, these days, to BANNING MY BLOG and blogs of a like mind.

Under this proposal, I would have to face jail if I continued writing.

Let me quote a so-called “lion” of the Demorat Left:

“In the entire history of the Constitution,” the late Ted Kennedy once stated on the Senate floor, “we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is not the time to start. It would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment. Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution.”

One important notation: Saturday Night Live, look out.

You’d best not poke fun ever again.

And let me quite plainly make — as I wrote earlier — the argument regarding Positive vs Negative Rights.

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures.

It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”

The First Amendment should NEVER be touched. EVER.

Have I made myself sufficiently plain?

“Hate Speech” is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is now your Federal Government

Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2014 by BZ

Prove you’re not insane.

Go ahead, prove it. Organically and via whatever means testing is available, prove it.

Oh, and by the way, also prove you’re not a racist.

Prove anything involving a “not.”

The most difficult thing imaginable is to disprove a negative.

Yet, here we go again on the heels of “rampant racism” in America via Ferguson — the new “Hate Speech” buzzphrase meme.

From the WashingtonFreeBeacon.com:

Feds Creating Database to Track ‘Hate Speech’ on Twitter

$1 Million study focuses on internet memes, ‘misinformation’ in political campaigns

by Elizabeth Harrington

The federal government is spending nearly $1 million to create an online database that will track “misinformation” and hate speech on Twitter.

The National Science Foundation is financing the creation of a web service that will monitor “suspicious memes” and what it considers “false and misleading ideas,” with a major focus on political activity online.

The “Truthy” database, created by researchers at Indiana University, is designed to “detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”

There you go. Just what you need. The federal government monitoring your writings and deciding, in the proverbial vacuum, just what is proper and just what isn’t. In direct contravention of the First Amendment. Please allow me to remind:

Frankly, this “hate speech” tracking sounds like Stalin to me, and Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Like some Third World tin-pot dictator. Except that this is a LAW proposed in the United States of America.

Via now, Mr Barack Hussein Obama. Another tin pot dictator who is clueless, rife with NPD, and unable to manage the most basic of businesses for a profit. He would first classify profit as “evil.” Then he would drive any and said business into the ground. I suspect he couldn’t run a lemonade stand for a profit, much less our country.

Remember when Mr Obama attempted to call out those sites that were deemed to be “fishy”? From FoxNews.com:

White House Draws Fire for Requesting ‘Fishy’ Information From Supporters on Health Reform

by Molly Henneberg

The White House is under fire for a blog post asking supporters to send “fishy” information received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address, flag@whitehouse.gov.

Conservatives have pounced on the request, accusing the White House of acting Orwellian.

“If you get an e-mail from your neighbor and it doesn’t sound right, send it to the White House?”said Sen. John Barasso, R-Wyo. ” People, I think all across America are going to say is this 1984? What is happening here? Is big brother watching?”

“Social pollution.” Really? As if the meme of unhindered and unrestrained government handouts aren’t social pollution for the stupid amongst us? As if there are no limits to the depth and breadth of government largesse? Sustainability? Societal lampreys?

Possible air strike in Syria?

Sorry. Shouldn’t have mentioned that.

Monday’s second SCOTUS ruling in re Union membership:

Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 by BZ

On the heels of the Monday SCOTUS ruling involving Hobby Lobby et al:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

Leftists, Progressives and Demorats all began their unanimous bleat about a so-called “war on women.”

It is, instead, a War on the American Taxpayer. In terms of making the American Taxpayer responsible for funding contraception for women who still have any number of free venues available to them for contraceptive solutions, to include Planned Parenthood and various clinics open in each and every college and university across the land.

The argument was predicated upon religion, yes. But I submit it was also foundationally (if not more so) predicated upon the mandatory payment, by businesses, of contraception for women. Not just for religious-based businesses but for all businesses. And: WHY should ANY business be forced to pay for contraception for any employee?

Male or female, Viagra or pill or diaphragm or condom, no business should be forced by government to pay for those contraceptive items. According to four justices, however, you cannot even opt out. Do they not understand that the federal government is not solving the nation’s problems?

That said, there was a second SCOTUS ruling that occurred on Monday, less revealed.

Harris v. Quinn, 5-4.

From the AP.org:

Court: Public union can’t make nonmembers pay fees

by Sam Hananel

WASHINGTON (AP)

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to public sector unions Monday, ruling that thousands of home health care workers in Illinois cannot be required to pay fees that help cover a union’s costs of collective bargaining.

In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take.

This sounds like a negative SEIU ruling, as affecting Fornicalia.

The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have bolstered their ranks and their bank accounts in Illinois and other states by signing up hundreds of thousands of in-home care workers. It could lead to an exodus of members who will have little incentive to pay dues if nonmembers don’t have to share the burden of union costs.

As in: what becomes the benefit in joining a so-called “union,” in terms of my bottom-line paycheck?

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said home care workers “are different from full-fledged public employees” because they work primarily for their disabled or elderly customers and do not have most of the rights and benefits of state employees. The ruling does not affect private sector workers.

P.S.

If one more liberal Justice is appointed in this country, we will lose our social and political and personal freedoms in this country. And then woe, shall we be.

Danes: there can be “free speech” as long as there is no pushback

Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 by BZ

There is in fact, something rotten in Denmark.

It appears to be from the Danes themselves.

From Pamela Gellar’s Atlas Shrugs:

Danish magazine for lawyers: Free speech is only democratic as long as it does not provoke violent people

By Nicolai Sennels, Jihadwatch, June 20, 2014

Recently the UK Law Society introduced a guide to sharia law. And in Denmark, law professor Trine Baumbach attacks the freedom of speech in the latest issue of Juristen (The Lawyer). Via 10news.dk, translated from Uriasposten:

Freedom of expression can be seen as an expression of democracy — but only to the extent that free speech is used for the benefit of a democratic society and its citizens. … Freedom of expression is one of the foundations of democratic societies, but only to the extent that freedom of expression is not misused to violate the rights of others or used in a way that society risks being plunged into social unrest and civil peace being threatened.

Of course. We “like” free speech until free speech conflicts with something else that is politically incorrect or sensitive or impolitic or requires courage, which is something Lefitsts clearly do not possess.

In other words: when there is pushback — in this case, something involving Islam and Sharia Law — “freedom of speech” is merely an old, volatile and hackneyed phrase. And one that must be kicked to the curb. There can be no courage in the face is Islam vs Westernized Nations. The West must inherently lose, according to the GOWPs of the West. The Guiilty Overeducated White People.

But I say this:

There must be a REASON that our Founding Fathers decided to place freedom of speech on “front street” in terms of our Bill of Rights, which states:

Amendment I

I don’t suppose there can be a more clear and simple delineation of a basic freedom than the First Amendment.

But here’s the “rub.” There will be greater conflicts when so-called “free speech” comes into conflict with “tolerance” and “cultural acceptance.”

What happens when you place Sharia objections of free speech under the guise of “tolerance,” then?

I submit: you lose your free speech.

As Pamela Geller clearly states and I obviously embrace, it is a characteristic of religious barbarians vs the common sensical.

When you embrace the consideration of Sharia Law as opposed to actual western rules of law, you ask for “civilizational suicide.”

“The political function of ‘the right of free speech’ is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression.”

Pamela Geller writes:

Abridging this most crucial freedom so as not to offend savages is civilizational suicide. It is the death knell for the modern enlightenment.

I couldn’t agree more.

Guess what, Denmark? You’re about to LOSE your country. Get prepared.

Bloviating Zeppelin

Right thinking from a Left brain.

Tag Archives: first amendment

Last day to weigh in on “Net Neutrality” — i.e., government-controlled communications

Harry Reid wants to REMOVE our First Amendment from the Bill of Rights

Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment

Monday’s second SCOTUS ruling in re Union membership:

Danes: there can be “free speech” as long as there is no pushback