Assault of Freedom of Speech in Net Neutrality

If you thought Obamacare was a fraud perpetrated against the American people, wait until you come to grips with Obama's effort to take over the Internet.  Titled Net Neutrality, as reported in The Wall Street Journal, Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken.

As Ronald Reagan so eloquently pointed out, government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them.

So, why would the government aspire to takeover huge industries? To fundamentally transform The United States of America?

Certainly, there is the taxation angle which, for a government too big to stop feeding itself, would increase revenue.

However, the costs would be a drag on economic growth, which has been most elusive under the tyrannical Obama administration.  Recall from your economic study that the more you tax something, the less of it you get, and that is a limitation on consumer choice.  You pick and choose your utility company, right? 

Then, of course, there is the regulatory angle, where the government seizes control over the industry, arbitrarily deciding, for the good of the people, which crony capitalism "partner" best deserves to control information.

Paraphrasing Reagan once again, when the government gets involved, it won't be the system malfunctioning but somebody mishandling the machinery, seemingly by design.

If you were progressive Democrats, regulation and taxation seem to be an adequate reasoning for embarking on such an endeavor.  But, this group is not your parents Democrats, and from listening to Obama representatives speak in their own words, I fear, like Obamacare, we are not being told the real plan at work here.

Introduce yourself to Mark Lloyd, who we have discussed here on the blog previously.  The former Diversity Czar under Obama, Lloyd speaks lovingly about how a similar takeover of the free press in Venezuela hastened the "glorious revolution" which gave Hugo Chavez smothering power over his political enemies.  For the record, Venezuela is now in economic shambles, and freedom is scarce.

Simply put, the Obama administration claiming they need to gain control over the Internet to fix non-existent issues which would if needed be more efficiently dealt with in the private sector world of competition is nothing more than a vehicle to encroach upon your freedom of speech, taxing and regulating free market commerce while silencing political enemies.

We do not need Net Neutrality, and the Obama administration, in particular, has soundly demonstrated they cannot be trusted with such responsibility.  Channeling the freedom loving mind of Reagan once more, what we need to do in this country is to alter the economic situation by changing one simple two letter word economic control by government to economic control of government.

Our founding fathers spoke of limited government, and expansive government control was something they wrote and warned vehemently against. The government has taken control over finance, energy and health, each of which are far worse off since governmental infiltration, has taken aim at the right to bear arms and now is in direct assault on communications.  

We are rapidly losing the freedoms most claim to hold dear in this country, and America had better wake up quick. If this battle is lost, a tyrannical government limiting, not only your freedom of speech, but your overall freedom, will gain a most significant foothold, one which will likely never be able to be regained.  

Park Net Neutrality

In the aftermath of the wave election last Tuesday, in which the Obama policies, each and every one of them, were soundly rejected, we enter a very dangerous time over the next two years as Obama finishes out his term, and possibly America as we know it.

However, the period prior to the GOP taking over the Senate in January is of particular concern as Obama will aim to get through all his progressive policies while he can, either through legislation, appointment or executive action.

President Obama will not waste any time, as evidenced by his endorsement of legislation of the Internet, often referred to as Net Neutrality.  Obama said "an open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life."

USA Today reports In a written statement, Obama asked the Federal Communications Commission to "create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality," and to ensure that phone and cable companies will not be able "to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online."

The Internet is now perhaps the most significant avenue for freedom of speech the world has ever seen, and free from intervention of those who carry an agenda.

Obama wants to make the Internet a sort of utility, that is government regulated and taxed, similar to your phone or power service.  I am a big fan of those taxes on my phone, aren't you?

But as with the left, the issue is never the issue.

And the issue behind Net Neutrality is to control speech it deems unworthy, or those of political opponents. If you think that cannot happen, please get to know Obama's Diversity Czar, who has some thoughts on communication and democracy in America.  Here are some highlights from one or our previous posts:

Mark Lloyd

We need to take a moment to learn more about an early appointee by President Obama, Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd.  Investors Business Daily, in an editorial in August of 2009, accurately depicted Lloyd as a disciple of Saul Alinsky and a great admirer of Hugo Chavez, who silenced freedom of speech as a dictator in Venezuela.  SOS Venezuela!

IBD references Glenn Beck, who points out Lloyd, in his 2006 book, "Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America," wrote: "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. ... This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. ... At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies."

Alarmed yet? With Lloyd unleashed to implement his ideas, we would have the Fairness Doctrine on steroids.

David Horowitz, over at his Discover the Networks website, noted the following regarding Lloyd:
 

*Seeks to use "diversity" and "localism" as pretexts for shifting the political balance of talk-radio programming leftward.
*Suggests that private broadcasters should pay an annual licensing fee in an amount equivalent to their total yearly operating costs; that money, in turn, should be redistributed to public broadcasting stations.
*Opposes virtually any private ownership of media.
*Disciple of Saul Alinsky's tactics for revolutionary social change.
*Greatly admires Venezuela's Marxist President, Hugo Chavez.

So, we can conclude that, with respect to media operations, Lloyd much prefers governmental control of media outlets, vehemently opposing media outlets operating in the private sector. And much like his mentor Hugo Chavez, Lloyd thinks the government should determine what can be voiced or written on the said media outlets.

Lloyd is no longer with the Obama administration, but his influence, associations and philosophical doctrines remain, poised for implementation.  As Sen. Ted Cruz (R:TX) appropriately notes, Net Neutrality is "Obamacare for the Internet".

As The Blaze and many other outlets reported today, the Obama administration hid from the stupid public the real aspects of Obamacare to get it passed, and they are doing the same thing with Net Neutrality.

It is time for the stupid public to get smart; quickly.  Be advised that if Net Neutrality is implemented, you will not only potentially lose your voice and the opportunity to hear other voices, but a large amount of your freedom of speech, something once upon a time we fought to the death to preserve.

We All Want To See The Plan

When conservatives are in power, government strives to cultivate free markets and empower the individual with limited taxation and regulation.  In the spirit of Adam Smith, a moral compass is a requirement for optimal market efficiency, with those who violate common decency guidelines quickly defeated in the open market.

With progressives in positions of power, due to perceived lack of confidence in the individual, government seeks, in the name of seemingly good ideas and worthwhile initiatives, to diminish individual power and freedom by increasing the role of government in the marketplace.

An illustrative example may be identified on this day while many celebrated Earth Day.  Seemingly worthwhile and innocent regulatory actions for the perceived good of the environment actually place increasing limitations individual property rights and escalate numerous forms of costs for property owners.

Another example is an extremely nefarious piece of legislation, seemingly vague and harmless in its cloaking presentation, which if passed, will challenge our Constitutional rights by an endless erosion of the rights of free speech.

The piece of legislation, “The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014″ (S.2219), is sponsored, in their arrogance, by Democrats Ed Markey of Massachusetts in the Senate and Hakeem Jeffries of New York in the House of Representatives.  The bill seeks:

"To require the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to update a report on the role of telecommunications, including the Internet, in the commission of hate crimes".

Let us look at the opening sentence of the bill we outlined above. Who is the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and what would be considered their mission statement?  Why not, let us check Wikipedia.

In review of the stated goals of the agency, while much of it seems unnecessary, it follows a logical process for our government during these times with respect to utilization and growth of global communications. Investigatory actions with respect to any form of criminology was not identified within the agency tasks and they appear to have no such legal authority.

So, exactly why are we attempting to travel down this road? Are these two legislators seeking additional power for their personal resumes or are they sponsoring legislation as a front tentacle for a web of enacting widespread governmental control over what is exactly able to be communicated over the Internet?  The distinctions are critically important.

Tying their bill to this week's alleged white supremacist shootings in Kansas, Markey says it is "critical to ensure the internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech." He brushes aside expected First Amendment arguments, saying "criminal and hateful activity" aren't covered by the Constitution. HT/Inside Radio.

At quick glance, the bill seems to have merit. After all, who does not want individuals who engage in the commission of hate crimes to be punished to the fullest extent of the law?

However, if law, it would allow a non-elected bureaucrat to cast a wide net in search of such violators, trampling over the first amendment rights of the citizenry in a typical progressive power grab. However, with progressives, as we have learned all too well, the issue is never the issue, and this legislation is no different.

Those who recognize what is actually at play here are appalled by the legislation, including political pundits from opposing sides, ranging from Alan Colmes to Glenn Beck.

The legislation is a back door attack on freedom of speech and an attempt to eliminate the power of the first amendment so that political opponents can be silenced.  The administration is working this angle from many fronts, most notably through the IRS, one of many current scandals engulfing the administration.

Think I am kidding?


Mark Lloyd

We need to take a moment to learn more about an early appointee by President Obama, Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd.  Investors Business Daily, in an editorial in August of 2009, accurately depicted Lloyd as a disciple of Saul Alinsky and a great admirer of Hugo Chavez, who silenced freedom of speech as a dictator in Venezuela.  SOS Venezuela!

IBD references Glenn Beck, who points out Lloyd, in his 2006 book, "Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America," wrote: "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. ... This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. ... At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies."

Alarmed yet? With Lloyd unleashed to implement his ideas, we would have the Fairness Doctrine on steroids.

David Horowitz, over at his Discover the Networks website, noted the following regarding Lloyd:

*Seeks to use "diversity" and "localism" as pretexts for shifting the political balance of talk-radio programming leftward.
*Suggests that private broadcasters should pay an annual licensing fee in an amount equivalent to their total yearly operating costs; that money, in turn, should be redistributed to public broadcasting stations.
*Opposes virtually any private ownership of media.
*Disciple of Saul Alinsky's tactics for revolutionary social change.
* Greatly admires Venezuela's Marxist President, Hugo Chavez.

So, we can conclude that, with respect to media operations, Lloyd much prefers governmental control of media outlets, vehemently opposing media outlets operating in the private sector. And much like his mentor Hugo Chavez, Lloyd thinks the government should determine what can be voiced or written on the said media outlets.

Would Lloyd, and those charged with implementation of the Markey-Jeffries bill, apply equal governance over The Huffinton Post as they would The Drudge Report?  As John Lennon of The Beatles wrote in Revolution, "well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan".  TRUST NO ONE!

The shooting Senator Markey referred to in Kansas City was undertaken by a deranged individual, who was white supremacist.  His antics had nothing to do with what radio station he listened to, or which political figure he admired.  He was not a man of principle and character, but an individaul who violated the law and must be judged by a jury of his peers.  God will be the ultimate judge.

Senator Markey utilizing this crime as a motive for him crafting the bill is a smokescreen.  While the bill itself seeks to contain the first amendment, tying the Kansas City shooting to it places cards on the table in the effort to increase gun control, an attack on the second amendment.

These progressive elites think their thought processes, enacted in governance, are superior to those of our founding fathers.  Imagine, for a moment, the arrogance.

Those seeking to curtail freedom of speech, as has been the case throughout history, are opponents of liberty.  In most cases, these efforts were masked under some presentation of the action having been implemented for some greater good.  Historically, it has worked oh so well.

HT/Tea Party Command Center

Senator Markey and Representative Jeffries, likely under direction of others, moved forward with the bill as one of many avenues to attack the first amendment.  I will let you decide if you think they fail to see the "real plan" or are among the players who are actively seeking limitations of your freedoms outlined in the Constitution.

I have seen the plan. I'll go with the latter.