FCC votes today to regulate the internet

Why does the government insist on screwing up things that aren’t broken?

There was nothing wrong with DADT. Does any employer ask about the sex life of any prospective employee? No one has ever asked me if I’m a heterosexual during a job interview. They can’t ask that question.

So now it appears that we are going to see the internet regulated by the government. The goal is to stifle conservative thought and speech but they are saying it’s to make it more fair to the consumer. Where in the Constitution does it say it’s the government’s job to make things “fair” in the markets or for the people?

The FCC says that big corporations like Verizon and ComCast aren’t being fair to it’s customers by slowing connections or not allowing connections to certain sites. If that’s the case then the customer has the option to change providers. And when enough customers drop the company, the failing company will either make changes to appeal to the population or they will fail entirely. That’s how the free market works. It’s called competition.

But the government can’t stand something that works well and is unregulated. Regulation means, in the end, more money for the government, as well as control over the content or production.

The FCC wants to make the internet available to everyone in this nation. Where is it not available? There is nothing that is holding anyone back from access. It’s free in every library in this nation and available in almost every school. It’s cheap in most markets. Is it the goal of the FCC to soon provide every household in this nation with a computer?

The FCC is violating a court order and the Congress by this action. Where does the FCC stop with this? Once one regulation is put in motion, nothing stops it from further regulations.  We all know that government has never stopped at one goal line. They keep moving the goal and keep regulating further. The real goal is to quash conservative thought and speech.

The day will come when I will have to pay for this blog or end it. That’s one of the FCC’s goals – another way to make money for the government and another way to stifle conservative speech. That means that conservative bloggers like me, will not be allowed this free speech forum. It’s already being done in Pennsylvania where a person has to pay $300 for a license to blog.

A license to blog – think about that. We will need permission by the government to exercise our free speech right. There will be countless sites that you will not be able to read or post your opinion to because there will be countless blogs that will no longer exist. It stifles the free speech of readers, as well.

This is going to be a boondoggle for lawyers. Litigation will rule the day and the free market and free speech will be in the dumper.

We have not even touched the surface of what this will do to small providers like Lariat in Wyoming which provides service to rural areas. They are looking at their demise at the hands of this behemoth regulatory agency.

The FCC is making an end run around the Courts, Congress and the Constitution. This is the only way the Obama Regime can erase the first amendment from the Constitution and that is what they want.

Why it might get harder to find good people to run for office or your future is really your past.

I read two interesting columns today in the WSJ that on the surface have nothing in common until you start to think about it.

Peggy Noonan wrote that “all candidates must assume now that they are being taped, wherever they are, including private conversations. Sharron Angle was taped in a private meeting with a potential supporter, who leaked it to the press, to her embarrassment. The taper/leaker was a sleaze and a weasel—a sleazel—but candidates can no longer ever assume they are speaking in confidence; they have to assume even aides and supporters are wired. (Go reread “Game Change” and wonder if some of the conversations reported there were taped.) The zone of privacy just got smaller, and the possibility of blackmail, a perennial unseen force in politics, wider. Prediction: This fact will, at some point in 2012, cause an uproar.”

And the next step from recording is filming and posting on YouTube.

“Annoy the wrong person, behave in a way some blogger disdains, and you will soon find yourself locked in the digital pillory, exposed to snark and ridicule. These are supposed to be salubrious incentives to civil public behavior, but I haven’t seen much evidence that a Web-armed society is a polite one,” according to Eric Felton.

He goes on to say that “The most odious aspect of these online humiliations is that they don’t go away. As law professor Daniel J. Solove notes in his book “The Future of Reputation,” the Internet saddles us with permanent digital baggage: “Internet shaming creates an indelible blemish on a person’s identity. Being shamed in cyberspace is akin to being marked for life.”

It made me think that in this day and age, how do we find politicians with absolutely spotless pasts? And on the internet, thanks in great part to the anonymous character of it, you don’t need proof to make accusations.

Let’s look at some partially exaggerated scenarios. Are we going to have candidates whose college frat pranks, whether true or not and then maybe posted on a social network site, can come back years later and haunt them during a campaign? Do we expect an 18 or 20 year old to know, that their “dabbling in witchcraft on a date” and maybe some classmate filmed it on a cell phone, will sink their political aspirations in 20 years when it’s posted to YouTube? How many 18 or 24 year olds know they will be running for political office in 20 years? How many of us knew at 22 that we would be where we are now? And how many of us did what qualifies as basically stupid things in high school and college?

It makes me wonder how many otherwise qualified and exceptional people will shy away from running for office because of these kinds of pitfalls. Or how many otherwise fine lives will be ruined. This is a new age that we are just growing into. Most of us have not had the world wide web at our fingertips for too much more than a decade. And many of us have no idea on whose hard drives our past is residing: whether it’s a completely true past or partially manipulated one by someone who would wish us ill.

It’s something to ponder, I think.

 

 

 

 

Harry Reid saved the World! This is not just funny. It’s deeper than that.

The first thing I thought when I saw this last night on Drudge was: Is this guy finally succumbing to dementia?

And then I laughed at him.

But the deeper message that has been bugging me all day is the shear arrogance of this statement.

HE saved the world?

He saved the WORLD?

So, we have all been suffering so much that we never noticed and he is so humble that he never brought to our attention how much of a debt we owe him.

And he wants Nevada to send him back so he can save us some more.

In all our suffering we can’t think clearly (according to Obama) and we need him and Reid to lead us through the fog of our confusion and our inability to assemble a sensible or intelligent thought. We just can’t do that without the Democrats/Marxists to lead us.

Quite frankly, we aren’t smart enough. Or we are just in need of a psychiatrist, like Juan Williams is.

Which is it? Are we all just too stupid to understand current events or are we just crazy extremists who are in need of some sort of national intervention to save us and force us to see the light?

Reid saved the world and Gore invented the internet and the oceans have stopped rising thanks to divine intervention from the messiah Obama. The message is that we can not get along or even survive without these people.

Yes, we do owe a debt but it’s not a debt of appreciation. It’s a debt in the trillions dollars that we will be paying off for generations.  And these people are so arrogant and so delusional that they actually do believe we owe them a prayer of thanks.

THEY BELIEVE THIS!

So I ask you, who really needs psychiatric help?

 

editors note: I just need an editor to catch my typos and misspellings.

Rahm’s secret strategy

The Hegelian Dialectic. It’s a three step operation consisting of a Thesis/Anti-Thesis/Synthesis.

Step one is the problem or the thesis that party A presents.

Step two is the opposition to the thesis or reaction to the problem by Party B.

Step three is the solution to the problem by (artificial) synthesis of the problem.

I use the word artificial because in step one the problem is often already solved or it doesn’t really exist. It’s just put out there to cause fear or panic so that Party A can provide the solution. Often Party A already has the solution because he created an artificial problem.

An example:

Present the problem (crisis) or create one: a national cyber attack.

Opposition/reaction to the crisis: mass panic, fear that could lead to hysteria.

Synthesis or solution: martial law, government shutdown of the internet.

See how easy this works? Instead of a cyber attack, it could be a flu pandemic that puts the scene in motion. And when the “crisis” is bad enough, big and scary enough, the people will give up their rights for government protection.

This is what Rahm means when he says “never let a crisis go to waste.”

Brokaw bashing internet for spreading misinformation, smears

H/T to Gateway Pundit for being ahead of the game from the start.

“You  have to vet information, you have to test it the same way you do when you buy an automobile… you have to do the same thing with information…”

Well, gee Tom. Where were the networks and the press on this Van Jones thing? Where was the information from the MSM? Not one word! Not one story! Anyone who didn’t listen to Fox or Glenn Beck or read internet blogs, had no idea who this guy was, because you and your pretty face anchors refused to acknowledge there was a story.

And if this was a smear campaign, where were you guys to debunk it? No where to be heard. If some horrible injustice has been served on Jones, why weren’t the Greek chorus of Obamatrons, harping on the right for lying and smearing this “good man” before it came to a resignation in the middle of the night, on a weekend?

Face it, you dropped the ball. You, in fact, decided to not play ball. You decided to ignore this story and hope it would go the way of some internet urban myth. And when it didn’t, when it had legs that scurried all corners of the blogosphere, you come back and blame the messengers for telling it.

You guys in the LameStream Media are pathetic. Your credibility with the American public is “in the sewer” for trying to sit on a story and keep the country ignorant. This is not 1969. The press no longer drive the news. People do. People find out. People dig up the facts, youtube them and then they become viral. And you guys are left back at the ranch, holding your dicks, wondering how this all got away from you…

SCHMUCKS!