Shutting down bloggers, forums and Free speech

[vector7]

January 14, 2015
Obama administration working 24/7 to enforce blasphemy laws

By Carol Brown



Obama is a shill for Islam. Hardly a day goes by when he, or someone in his administration, doesn’t do something that proves it. Some days, the garbage spews so fast it’s difficult to keep up. Just this week alone, the cow manure that was dumped on the American public (and the entire world) came fast and furious and without shame.

There was the predictable refusal to name the enemy, even after the jihad attacks in France. Obama’s determination to avoid taking this most basic step has become a dangerous obsession.

Islam has been at war with the rest of the world for 1400 years. And here we are in the 21^st century going backwards; the President of the United States refuses to name the enemy. We can’t even get to square one.

Meanwhile Islam steadily advances. Despite being stuck in the 7^th century, jihadists are light years ahead of us in this battle of the ages. We’re in a fight for our lives and we’re losing on all fronts.

Including free speech.

The White House is now peddling a new slogan intended to distort the way Americans understand acts of terror unfolding before their eyes. Here’s the latest meme: We are fighting extremism of all kinds.

Never mind that terror sweeping the globe is based on Islamic law. Never mind that jihadists are telling us the reasons for their actions. (And even if they didn’t, one can readily educate themselves by studying the Koran. In fact, please do. Then educate others.)

The vague and false idea that we’re fighting extremism in all its forms is the latest piece of propaganda offered up by an administration bent on concealing the truth. Obama and his minions have set out to convince Americans that what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, and what they’re perceiving about Islam and terror, is false. In short, the administration is actively enforcing blasphemy laws. Welcome to the implementation of Sharia law by the President of the United States.

And so this week started out with dangerous words and ideas tumbling from the mouths of administration officials.

There was the news that Obama is moving up a summit originally planned for October that will now take place in February. The topic: “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.” CNS News reports:

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest announced in a written statement today that President Obama will host a "Summit on Countering Violent Extremism"--not radical Muslim terrorrism--on Feb. 18 and that the event will be held "in light of recent, tragic attacks in Ottawa, Sydney and Paris."
The statement said one "theme" of the summit would be "religious leader engagement," but made no mention of radical Islamic terrorism. It also made reference to "foreign terrorist fighter recruitment" generically, but made no specific mention of radical Islamic terrorist groups recruting (sic) fighters in Western nations.

Also addressing the summit and the administration’s policies on terror, Martha MacCallum (sitting in for Megyn Kelly) had an excellent segment on Monday. Below is an excerpt from the Fox News transcript of the opening of her program. (Link to video and transcript, here.)

MARTHA MACCALLUM, GUEST HOST: …There are new questions about the White House strategy to fight the war on terror. The critics say there is no cohesive strategy for one simple reason they say --the Obama administration refuses to recognize the real enemy and call it what is, radical Islam. Ed Henry pressed White House press secretary Josh Earnest on exactly this issue of strategy today…. (snip)

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Why wouldn't you use the phrase right there, that we are gonna take on Islamic extremism. You said all forms of violent extremism –

(CROSSTALK)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: She asked me what the summit would discuss and all forms of violent -- violent extremism would be discussed, and obviously the most potent and certainly the most, you know, graphic display that we've seen in recent days is, again, is motivated by those individuals that seek to invoke the name of Islam to carry out these violent attacks, and that's certainly something we wanna work very hard to counter and mitigate and we've got a strategy that we've been discussing for some time to exactly do that.

HENRY: What is the most potent form according to you of extremism, why isn't the summit on countering Islamic extremism?

EARNEST: Because violent extremism is something that we wanna be focused on and it's not just -- it's not just Islamic violent extremism that we want to counter there. There are other forms of –

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: Paris, Australia, Canada, isn't the thread through them that it's Islamic extremism?

EARNEST: Well, certainly those are -- the examples you cite are examples of individuals who've cited Islam as they'd carry out -- carried out acts of violence. There's -- there's no -- there's no arguing that.

(I wish Henry had rattled off a longer list of jihadist attacks, including those in the United States. And it’s always frustrating when people talk about Islamic extremists rather than Islam itself. But, ok. You have to start somewhere and considering how far behind the eight ball we are, as long as journalists are moving generally in the right direction, let’s just keep moving.)

After the clip, Fox News ran MacCallum’s interview with Marie Harf who picked up where Earnest left off, repeatedly asserting the idea that the administration wants to counter extremism in all its forms. MacCallum was dogged, but got nowhere against the blond with the horn-rimmed glasses doing a poor job of acting the role of an intelligent adult. Here are some excerpts. (The entire transcript and video can be found here.)

MACCALLUM: You know, every time we see this exchange, it seems like the answer is so tortured like it's so difficult to say what everybody around the world seems to feel so clearly it is and what the leaders have said in Canada and Australia and Paris where they have felt it so potently and personally. They've all said quite clearly that the battle is against Islamic extremism. Why is it so hard to say?

HARF: Well, it's not hard to say, but it's not the only kind of extremism we face…. (snip)

MACCALLUM: -- tell me, what other forms of extremism are particularly troubling and compelling to you right now?

HARF: Well, look, there are people out there who want to kill other people in the name of a variety of causes…. (snip)

MACCALLUM: …I just think a lot of other countries probably listen to the way we're talking about this and scratch their heads and wonder why it's so hard to spit it out in a lot of these -- these conversations. (snip) ...I think the world is looking for a leader, you know, someone in the van (sic) of Winston Churchill or FDR who says, "Look, we know what we're facing here. This is a global war. This is, you know, girls taken by Boko Haram. This is 132 students massacred in Pakistan. This is people who are going out for coffee in Australia. This is people who were come -- just showing up for work in Paris."

And there's a common thread here of radical Islamic extremism and until President Obama or John Kerry or someone else in their position stands up and says, "Look, we know we're facing a global threat of radical Islamic extremism. We must ban together and we must fight it." That's what everybody is longing to hear, it appears, Marie.

Where is that message? (snip) -- let me ask you this, Marie, do you believe that there is a common thread in everything that I just mentioned? Is there a common thread?
HARF: I think that's a little overly simplistic to be honest with you, Martha….

As predictable as these spokespeople for the administration are, it makes them no less terrifying and dangerous. How they live with themselves knowing they are participating in something so malicious I do not know. But I guess malice (among other traits) is a common commodity.

But I digress.

On the topic of lies and enforcement of Islamic blasphemy laws, there was more to come this week as Obama’s unrelenting efforts to enforce Sharia law continued to ramp up with increasing intensity. Per a tweet sent out by CBS news correspondent Mark Knoller, the administration would very much appreciate it if you wouldn’t say “Islamic extremism” or “radical Islam.”

Also @PressSec says US prefers phrase "violent extremism based on a warped view of Islam" to "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam."

If I may be so presumptuous as to correct one wee detail: It’s not the “US” that prefers the phrase the press secretary claims we prefer. Many of us – I hope most of us – prefer words and phrases that reflect the truth. But, yeah, I get it. The administration is doing their level best to brainwash Americans (and the rest of the world) by whitewashing Islam. But, no, I won’t be incorporating the absurd phrase/lie “violent extremism based on a warped view of Islam” into my lexicon, but thanks anyway.

Sharia law is alive and well in the Oval Office.

Alas, there was still more this week on the issue of blasphemy: Obama is going to use our troops as human shields in the battle for free speech, for truth, and indeed for the survival of the west (and indeed all of civilization).

How?

By framing the need to clamp down on speech that offends Muslims as necessary in order to protect our troops. As Ed Lasky noted, The Daily Caller reports:

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

This president had the gall to increase the risk to our troops with insane rules of engagement and now turns around and uses them as a bogus rationale for enforcing blasphemy laws. Our troops, who have fought against jihad, are now being held up as the reason we must take care not to offend Muslims.

It is beyond disgusting. Sometimes there really are no adequate words to be found.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz3OnoVC8wF






Politics

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles






White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defense forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of those 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

In 2012, “there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk,” Earnest said.

“That is something that the commander in chief takes very seriously,” he added, before saying that “the president and his spokesman was not then and will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.”

In December, Congress approved and the president signed a $585 billion defense budget to train and equip soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen to defend Americans — including journalists — from foreign threats. The nation’s media industry does not have a defense budget to protect soldiers.

Earnest tried to rationalize the president’s opposition to the publication of anti-jihadist materials as a moral duty.

Whenever journalists consider publishing materials disliked by jihadis, “I think there are a couple of absolutes,” he told the reporters.

The first is “that the publication of any kind of material in no way justifies any act of violence, let alone an act of violence that we saw on the scale in Paris,” he said.

The second absolute is the president’s duty to lobby editors and reporters against publishing anti-jihadi information, he said. ”And there is — this president, as the commander in chief, believes strongly in the responsibility that he has to advocate for our men and women in uniform, particularly if it’s going to make them safer,” Earnest said.

He repeated the two-fisted formulation a moment later. ”What won’t change is our view that that freedom of expression in no way justifies an act of violence against the person who expressed a view. And the president considers the safety and security of our men and women in uniform to be something worth fighting for,” he said.

Throughout the press conference, Earnest repeatedly said the media would be able to decide on its own whether to publish pictures, articles or facts that could prompt another murderous jihad attack by Muslim against journalists.

But he did not say that his government has a constitutional and moral duty to use the nation’s huge military to protect journalists from armed jihadis, but instead hinted strongly that journalists should submit to jihadi threats.

“I think that there are any number of reasons that [U.S.] media organizations have made a decision not to reprint the cartoons” after the January attack, he said. “In some cases, maybe they were concerned about their physical safety. In other cases, they were exercising some judgment in a different way. So we certainly would leave it to media organizations to make a decision like this.”

“What I’m saying is that individual news organizations have to assess that risk for themselves,” he said. “I think the point in the mind of the president and certainly everybody here at the White House is that that is a question that should be answered by journalists.”

“I’m confident in saying that for the vast majority of media organizations, that [fear is] not the only factor. But I would readily concede that it is one in the minds of many of those news executives. But again, that is a decision for all of them to make,” he said.

Obama’s willingness to pressure media outlets, to quit defending First Amendment rights and also to mollify jihadis, reflects Obama’s overall policy of minimizing conflict with militant Islam.

Throughout his presidency, Obama has tried to shift the public’s focus away from the jihadi threat toward his domestic priorities.

He also repeatedly praised Islam and Muslims, and criticized criticism of Islam. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” he told a worldwide TV audience during a September 2012 speech at the United Nations.

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam,” he declared in a 2009 speech in Cairo. “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar [seminary] — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment,” he claimed.

Obama ha also tried to elevate the status of Islam in the West. “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam,” he told his audience in Cairo. “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

To reduce the public’s focus on jihadis, Obama has even named the jihadi threat as a non-specific issue of “violent extremism,” and has repeatedly said jihadis have no connection with Islam. “Those who have studied and practiced this religion would tell you — Islam is a peaceful religion. … [Violent acts are] entirely inconsistent with the basic principles of that peaceful religion,” Earnest said Jan. 12.

But that claim of a peaceful Islam was repeatedly coupled with Obama’s policy of pressuring journalists not to anger aggressive Muslim believers. ”I will say that there have been occasions … where the administration will make clear our point of view on some of those assessments based on the need to protect the American people and to protect our men and women in uniform,” Earnest said.

“I wouldn’t rule out making those kinds of expressions again,” he added.

[vector7]

Meanwhile...

Rally in Peshawar celebrates Charlie Hebdo attackers

By AFP
Published: January 13, 2015












People place bouquets in front of a banner bearing the names of the two killed assailants who attacked French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, in Peshawar on January 13, 2015. PHOTO: AFP

PESHAWAR: While last week’s attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo sparked global outrage, dozens of people in Peshawar paid tribute on Tuesday to the brothers who carried out the murders.

Though small in scale, the event was indicative of the anger that portrayals of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) can ignite in some parts of the world, particularly in Pakistan where tough blasphemy laws make insulting the Prophet (PBUH) a crime punishable by death.

Local cleric Maulana Pir Mohammad Chishti led some 60 people in prayers for Cherif and Said Kouachi, who shot dead 12 people at the magazine’s offices on January 7, as worshippers called the pair “martyrs”.

They also chanted “Death to Hebdo publications” and “Long live Cherif Kouachi, long live Said Kouachi”, and kissed posters of the brothers who were shot dead by police two days later.

“These two brothers have paid the debt of all Muslims in the world and we present them our salute and respect,” Chishti said.

Aurangzeb Alhafi, professor of Islamic Studies at Punjab University in the eastern city of Lahore said he attended the prayers as a religious duty.

“If freedom of expression stops at the mention of the Holocaust, then it should also stop at the honour of our Prophet (PBUH),” Alhafi told AFP.

Fourteen people are languishing on death row in the country for falling prey to its blasphemy laws, which rights groups say are used to persecute minorities and wage personal vendettas.

Mobs often take matters in their own hands and lynch those accused of blasphemy, and such killers are widely feted.

Charlie Hebdo meanwhile has announced it will defy the attackers by putting a cartoon of a weeping Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) on its next cover.

[American Patriot]

Muslims are pigs

[Phil Fiord]

I was reading a story at http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/...e-bidens-home/

The one about shots fired near Biden's Delaware home. I do not wish ill on him, though I disagree with him. What I saw in comments is so vitriol though.

Screencapped due to having flagged it and it possibly being removed. Note the top comment there. It is a good indicator of the extreme left and how some view matters.

[Phil Fiord]

I will add the link to the users comments. They claim they are peaceful. (sound familiar?) Yet they openly wish all conservatives be put to death. A tad counter to what they claim.

https://disqus.com/by/warrenrevolution/

[vector7]

Companion Thread: Obama Administration's Plans for Regulating the Internet

Say Goodbye To The Internet As You Knew It. Cost To Soar. Blogs And Political Speech To Be Regulated.



The FCC AND the FEC announce their tag-team plans to takeover and control the internet, designed to silence critics of the Ruling Class Oligarchy in D.C. Information will be regulated. Blogs and political forums will be shut down, cost to get online to skyrocket.

Remember when the Marxist/Liberals/Fascists in America decided that the world's best healthcare system was broken and needed to be fixed? That it was unfair and cost too much and needed to be made available for "everyone" at taxpayer expense?

We got ObamaCare as a result. An unConstitutional behemoth of Statism drafted in secret and passed in the middle of the night without a single Republican vote that the regime keeps rewriting as it sees fit while making healthcare unaffordable for most Americans.

Well, the same tyrants are about to do the same exact thing to the internet. "If you like your internet you can keep your internet"is already being screamed by those supporting this takeover.

We've already been blogging on this Obama-dictatorial-takeover of the internet which will go into effect next month via the FCC, and now we learn that another Alphabet under Obama's control will ALSO issue new "laws" and "rules" that will require blogs and any political opinions to be regulated with financials to be demanded and investigated of bloggers like yours truly because they assert I must fall under campaign finance laws.

Freedom of political speech - goodbye. Freedom of the press - goodbye. Freedom of religion - goodbye.

Americans do nothing while the Bill of Rights is being striped from them each and every day.

Well, this author says, I will not comply with whatever "rules" "Laws and Diktats" they make. This federal tyranny is wholly illegitimate and therefore, has acted beyond their allotted Constitutional authority - and therefore they have no authority any of us have to comply with.

FCC, FEC look to ruin the Internet

The left lifts its boot toward the free flow of information
We knew this was coming. Within the last couple of weeks, both the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission declared their intention to regulate the Internet. Fascists always explain their actions as efforts to either make something more efficient, “fair,” or to supposedly “protect” their target. Sometimes they simply lie, like saying they’re nationalizing health insurance to make it more affordable and to increase access to health care.

Now, with the feds’ latest effort, their new slogan might as well be, “If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet.” Make no mistake: The Internet is under assault and saving it is up to us.

Democrats and their liberal sycophants have been contemplating for years how best to smash the Internet. Open discussion among the great unwashed masses poses a threat to the superiorly educated and groomed establishment. First, it was the magnificence of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which made free speech on the radio impossible. President Reagan’s reversal of that Orwellian control mechanism made talk radio possible (to say nothing of the likely increase of gastrointestinal disorders among liberals).

Even prior to that massive win for the First Amendment, the left had succeeded at co-opting the legacy media by swamping the staff and reporters with ideological true believers, making newspapers and the broadcast networks nothing more than PR agencies for the leftist agenda.

Think about it: The sheeple emerging from the liberal academies around the country in the 1960s and ‘70s didn’t move to the countryside to smoke pot and raise puppies. No, they went into media. They became writers, reporters and television news anchors.

Never mind that by the 21st century, their blind partisan allegiance was destroying their industry. I’m sure they feel getting Barack Obama elected to two terms as president made it all worthwhile.

But now they want more. The left’s relevance relies on controlling the public discussion. Bill Clinton learned of the Internet’s importance when the legacy media, via Newsweek, “held the [Monica Lewinsky] story” according to Michael Isikoff, their reporter at the time, in comments reported by the Weekly Standard.

Then some guy with a website called “Drudge” made sure the American people were informed about the reckless actions of a self-obsessed president.

Newsweek? Now defunct. Drudge? More powerful than ever. And that’s the problem the feds want to fix. The Internet must be killed because it dares to keep turning on the light in a room the left prefers remain dark.

The past two weeks reveal the government’s frantic, and determined, effort to take control of the Internet. Using the pretext of “net neutrality,” that is regulating Internet service providers and the speed rate at which they provide Internet service, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler announced the FCC was claiming the power to regulate the Internet like a utility service.

This would be done to make the Internet more “fair,” of course. But the truth of the matter is it’s an excuse to essentially nationalize the Internet. The moment that’s accepted, all bets are off, and the Internet becomes, well, Newsweek.

Reinforcing the suspicion that every American should have about this unprecedented action is the fact that Mr. Wheeler is keeping the 332-page document outlining his plan secret from the American public. He released a four-page summary with major points, but refuses to release the full document to the public.

That’s right, they’re not allowing us to see it. Verge.com reports on the concern of Ajit Pai, a fellow FCC commissioner:

“The American people are being misled about President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet,” he said in a statement, suggesting that Mr. Obama had pressured Mr. Wheeler into reclassification. “Last week’s carefully managed rollout was designed to downplay the plans of a massive intrusion in the Internet economy … . I have now read the 332-page plan. It is worse than I had imagined,” said Mr. Pai. In particular, he warned that reclassifying broadband would open the door to taxes and onerous regulations, and give the FCC “broad and unprecedented discretion to micromanage the Internet.”

This was the first shot across the bow. Within a week of Mr. Wheeler’s remarkable effort to pull an “Obamacare” on the Internet, the Federal Election Commission came through with the second volley.

“Democrats on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) signaled Wednesday that they are prepared to forge ahead with new regulations on bloggers and others using the Internet to support candidates and influence public policy, the Washington Examiner reports. Supporters of Internet regulation urged the FEC to put together new rules to require even third-party Internet-based groups to reveal donors, a move that would reverse a 2006 decision to keep the agency’s hands off the Internet,” according to Newsmax.com.

FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel has said publicly she wants to control political information on the Internet. Of course they do. There’s another election coming up and they must act quickly to do everything possible to eliminate the ability of those who do not pledge allegiance to the liberal cause to be heard.

I don’t have much faith in the Republicans stopping this Democrat power grab, so this once again leaves the average person as the last line of defense against more federal overreach meant to silence and control the increasingly pesky, conservative and vocal citizen. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ruin-internet/

https://swordattheready.wordpress.co...-be-regulated/

[American Patriot]

Bring it Obamagoatfucker.

[vector7]

SOROS CASH BEHIND PUSH... http://drudge.tw/1GvzrH2
10:57 AM - 25 Feb 2015

Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House

Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White...


Washington Examiner @dcexaminer

175 Retweets 33 favorites

• Reply
• Retweet
• FavoriteFoundation

Posted on February 25, 2015 by RRangel

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and the Ford Foundation are behind a $196 million push, between 2000 and 2013, to fund so called “net neutrality.” A top down effort, to place the internet, under the control of the federal government. Where you can bet that a modern “fairness doctrine” will be rearing its ugly head. Given the lies that have taken place, under the Obama administration since 2008, how can anyone doubt it? The anti-gun hard left, would like nothing more, than to undermine their biggest alternative media critics. DRUDGE REPORT@DRUDGE_REPORT Follow
SOROS CASH BEHIND PUSH... http://drudge.tw/1GvzrH2
10:57 AM - 25 Feb 2015
Soros, Ford shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to...

Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House...


Washington Examiner @dcexaminer

175 Retweets 33 favorites

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

The Washington Examiner quotes the Media Research Center:

“The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013,” said the report, authored by Media Research Center’s Joseph Rossell, and provided to Secrets.

“These left-wing groups not only impacted the public debate and funded top liberal think tanks from the Center for American Progress to Free Press. They also have direct ties to the White House and regulatory agencies. At least five individuals from these groups have ascended to key positions at the White House and FCC,” said the report which included funding details to pro-net neutrality advocates.

The Obama administration is moving forward, despite the Federal Communications Commission, already having lost their last attempt at “net neutrality.”
It opens the door to “new taxes.” A “whole host of harms” according to Ajit Pai a member of the Federal Communications Commission. That’s not the half of


FCC approves net neutrality rules

By Alex Byers and Brooks Boliek
2/26/15 1:05 PM EST
Updated 2/26/15 2:21 PM EST



The Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines Thursday to approve sweeping changes to how it regulates the Internet, capping more than a year of noisy debate that sparked millions of public comments and drew the attention of President Barack Obama and congressional leaders.

The agency’s three Democrats voted to approve Chairman Tom Wheeler’s net neutrality order, which would treat broadband like a utility to ensure all Web traffic is treated equally. The commission’s two GOP members, Republican lawmakers and the nation’s telecom giants oppose the rules, saying they will dampen innovation and investment. AT&T has already threatened a legal challenge.

“The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It’s simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field,” Wheeler said at Thursday’s FCC’s meeting. “Today is a red-letter day for Internet freedom, for consumers who want to use the Internet on their terms, for innovators who want to reach consumers without the control of gatekeepers.”

In a separate decision Thursday, the FCC’s Democratic majority voted to override state laws that prevent community-run broadband networks in Chattanooga, Tennessee and Wilson, North Carolina from expanding their geographic reach. The move will help such locally managed networks compete with incumbent cable and telecom companies.

Net neutrality, however, has been the most contentious policy issue.

Wheeler’s plan will prevent ISPs from blocking or degrading legal Internet traffic and bar them from cutting deals to charge companies for so-called Internet fast lanes. It applies net neutrality protections to both land-based and wireless Internet as well as to “interconnection” points between networks deep inside the Web.

The FCC chairman didn’t initially intend to write net neutrality rules, but a decision by the D.C. Circuit of Appeals in January 2014 tossing key elements of the agency’s previous Open Internet order threw the issue in his lap.

His initial replacement proposal — which would have allowed pay-for-play Internet fast lanes, as long as they were deemed “commercially reasonable” — sparked an immediate backlash. Outraged liberals launched a protest campaign and generated millions of comments to the agency in support of tighter regulation. A segment by comedian and HBO host John Oliver lampooning Wheeler’s plan added to the outrage.

After sustained pressure from progressives — and a public push from President Barack Obama in November — Wheeler gravitated toward a tougher approach that subjects ISPs to regulations originally written for phone companies in the 1930s. It’s based on Title II of the Communications Act.

That shift incensed Republicans, who see the rules as drastic over-regulation and a federal government power grab. Ajit Pai, the FCC’s senior GOP commissioner, has said the plan could ultimately give the agency the authority to set rates for Internet service — a charge Wheeler and FCC officials have denied.

“The commission’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet,” Pai said at the agency meeting Thursday. “It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world.?”

GOP lawmakers have been turning up the heat on Wheeler on net neutrality. They’ve launched investigations into what they see as inappropriate White House influence over the FCC’s decision making and offered an alternative legislative proposal that would institute weaker net neutrality rules and tie the FCC hands on future regulation of broadband.

Republicans have also criticized Wheeler on transparency grounds for not releasing his plan ahead of the FCC vote. An FCC official said the agency’s standard practice is to not make proposals public before a vote, adding they’re normally made available within days or weeks depending on the complexity of the topic.

“Overzealous government bureaucrats should keep their hands off the Internet,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “More mandates and regulations on American innovation and entrepreneurship are not the answer, and that’s why Republicans will continue our efforts to stop this misguided scheme.”

The telecom industry is expected to mount a legal challenge to the net neutrality order, and AT&T has indicated the big carriers will likely ask a court to block the plan.

On Thursday, the company warned the FCC’s vote may not last.

“Instead of a clear set of rules moving forward, with a broad set of agreement behind them, we once again face the uncertainty of litigation, and the very real potential of having to start over — again — in the future,” said Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s top lobbyist. “Partisan decisions taken on 3-2 votes can be undone on similarly partisan 3-2 votes only two years hence.”

The FCC’s decision to intervene on behalf of community broadband may open a new phase in the broader debate over competition in the Internet service market.

Some ISPs have lobbied for state restrictions on municipal networks, and Obama has called on the FCC to come to the aid of towns and cities that want to build out their own locally-run Internet service. Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, have warned the FCC against what they call unconstitutional meddling in state affairs.

[vector7]

Obama power grab triggers 1st Amendment nightmare

Judge Napolitano: 'People don't know the danger that is coming'

Published: 2 days ago



Fox News Channel senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate the Internet constitute a major infringement upon freedom of speech, but he believes the new plan will get struck down in court for lack of transparency.

The five members of the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, are scheduled to vote Thursday on a plan to advance Obama’s net neutrality agenda, which also allegedly calls for the Internet to be treated like a utility. Despite the major changes the plan could well involve, lawmakers and the media have been rather quiet about it.

“People don’t know the danger that is coming,” Napolitano told WND. “The danger that is coming is a gaggle of bureaucrats here – three Democrats and two Republicans, the Republicans will probably dissent – claiming they have the power to regulate the Internet.”

He said Congress has passed no statute authorizing new government controls on the Internet, and the First Amendment clearly states that neither Congress nor any government agency it created can make a law restricting the freedom of speech.

Napolitano admits the stated goal of net neutrality sounds innocuous when first presented, but he said the problem Obama and his allies really have is with the free market.

“They claim that the purpose of their regulation is to prevent the Internet from affording priority and faster service to certain preferred users,” he explained. “Would we all like to have fast service? Yes. Do we all know how to get fast service? Yes, we do. Might that cost us something? Yes, it might, but at the present time it is free from government regulation.”

However, the judge said the public goal of establishing Internet fairness will come at a very heavy price.

“If the government regulates the Internet and tells providers how fast they can move information, we will soon see the government regulating the cost of the Internet. We will eventually, just like with broadcast television, see the government regulating the content of the Internet,” said Napolitano, who described the chain reaction he believes the FCC proposal would trigger.

“Right now, the Internet is the freest marketplace of ideas and transfers of information that the world has ever known,” he said. “At least in the United States, it is utterly and totally – there are some minor exceptions – unregulated. Once these federal bureaucrats get their hands on it, give them a couple of years. It’ll look like broadcast television, a watered-down version of what we now have.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano:



Also at work, according to Napolitano, is the federal government’s unquenchable thirst for more and more power.

“Think about it,” he said. “You’re a commissioner on the FCC. You’re regulating telecoms and broadcast TV. Wouldn’t you like to regulate cable while you’re at it? Wouldn’t you like to regulate the Internet while you’re at it? It’s human nature when you have power to want to expand the power. That’s why we have a Constitution, to prevent these expansions of power.”

One of the greatest frustrations for those concerned about the FCC plan eroding speech rights is that the commissioners will not, and say they cannot, reveal any details of the package until after the vote on Thursday. Napolitano said that tactic is actually a double-edged sword. He said the downside of the secrecy is obvious.

“It’s bad because the government has an obligation under federal law, when any of its administrative agencies plan on changing their rules and expanding their power or modifying substantially the manner in which they regulate, to publish those rules for 30 days,” Napolitano said.

And because the FCC is not following the law, it gives opponents fertile ground for an appeal.

“The good part is, the failure to publish this will invalidate the rules once they’re challenged before a federal court. The government is shooting itself in the foot,” said Napolitano, who sees this turning into a replay of another fierce court battle involving the administration.

“This is the very same thing it did when it attempted to implement President Obama’s changes in immigration law, and they were enjoined from doing so last Monday by a federal judge in Texas, who said, ‘You didn’t publish these rules for 30 days, which gives the public the opportunity to comment and, more importantly, Congress the opportunity to modify the rules,”he said.

Napolitano said the biggest asset for net neutrality supporters right now is the disinterest of the American people. He said if that changes, the whole debate will change.

“This proposal by the president (these are the president’s appointees on the FCC) actually has the support of the leadership of both political parties, big-government Republicans and big-government Democrats,” he said. “But some of them will have great pause for reconsideration if there is a great national debate on this.”

He said fierce debate is exactly what the Democrat majority of commissioners is trying to avoid through its secretive tactics.

“That’s the reason why the three Democrats on the FCC want to force it through,” he said, “so there will be no great national debate, because a great national debate will result in the undoing of this.”



Landmark Internet rules approved





Getty Images

By Julian Hattem - 02/26/15 01:00 PM EST

Federal regulators voted Thursday to impose sweeping net neutrality rules that supporters say are critical to protecting the freedom of the Internet.

In a party-line 3-2 vote, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) moved to embrace an approach advocated by President Obama to treat Internet service like a utility in order to prevent major companies such as Comcast or Verizon from slowing, blocking or creating “toll roads” for people’s access to the Internet.

“The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet; it’s simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a Democrat.

“The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.”

After a decade spent by activists pushing for strong federal rules, supporters said the new regulations would be a strong bulwark to prevent people from being abused online. In the end, those activists helped drive more than 4 million net neutrality comments to the agency — by far an FCC record.


On Thursday, the commission’s meeting room was packed with activists, lawyers and journalists who trudged through the February snowfall to attend the historic hearing. Meanwhile, dozens of proponents of the rules gathered outside the agency’s Southwest Washington headquarters to cheer on the vote.
“Today, because of your efforts we are better able to allow millions of Americans to tell their stories, to reach their potential and to reach the American ideal,” said Mignon Clyburn, another Democratic commissioner, in thanking activists for their work.
The vote puts an end to a tumultuous 13-month rulemaking period prompted by a federal appeals court ruling last January, which tossed out previous regulations dating from 2010.

The FCC’s new rules reclassify broadband Internet from an “information” service to a “telecommunications” service under its rules, essentially reversing an FCC policy that dates back to 2002. By making that move, the FCC will be able to exert more authority over people’s access to the Internet, similar to its treatment of utility services like phone lines.

In order to resist avoid a heavy-handed approach, the commission will hold back some of the provisions including, officials supportive of the rules say, measures to oversee companies’ subscription rates.

The regulations will also cover wireless Internet accessed by people over their smartphones and tablets — which were exempt under the FCC’s 2010 rules.

Finally, they will empower the FCC to police “interconnection” arrangements that companies make to hand off traffic on the back end of the Internet.

The bold regulations represent the culmination of months of aggressive lobbying from activists and Internet companies, both at the FCC and throughout the country.

Along with an unrelated action on Thursday to strike down state laws limiting the growth of city-owned broadband networks, the vote is part of a major swing toward asserting federal powers to guarantee equal access to the Internet.

The three Democrats were greeted by a standing ovation as they took their place at the dais.

For Wheeler, the vote is also the result of a stunning turnaround that seemed nearly impossible just one year ago.

Earlier draft rules unveiled by the chairman last year would have allowed Web providers to charge websites to speed up their traffic, which could have opened the door to a “two-tiered” Internet, critics feared. Activists launched a sustained lobbying campaign to get Wheeler to change his tune, which was significantly aided by a push from President Obama in November.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have since launched investigations into whether the White House put any improper pressure on the FCC, which is a legally independent agency.

Both on the FCC and throughout the country, Republicans are unconvinced that the rules will truly be “light touch” with such a broad law.

They have warned that it could prevent companies from offering new and innovative services and might lead to billions of dollars in new taxes. All of that could also have the added effect of forcing companies to slow down their investments, they say, which could lead to slower Internet speeds over the long run.

“The commission’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet,” said Ajit Pai, one of the commission’s two Republicans. “It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took to the Senate floor Thursday morning to blast the rules, warning that the FCC’s plan would “strike a blow to the future of innovation in our country.”

Major Internet service providers have agreed with them.

The head of the USTelecom trade group on Thursday called the rules "the wrong path for achieving broadband deployment in all parts of the United States."

"It redefines the Internet, inserts the federal government deeply into its management, and invites other countries to do the same," organization president Walter McCormick added. "In reversing longstanding bipartisan precedent, and imposing public utility regulation on the most dynamic sector of our nation’s economy, the FCC is adopting policies that were not designed – nor ever intended – for the Internet."

“Significant” changes were made ahead of the vote to eliminate a new legal category of service that critics had feared could allow Internet service providers to force websites to pay them for sending people their way. The move — which was led by Clyburn — also may have made it harder for the agency to keep tabs on the behind-the-scenes interconnection deals, though she said on Thursday that it should only “strengthen” the rule.

The rules likely won’t be formally issued for weeks.

After that, cable companies are guaranteed to sue, which could tie the issue up for court in years.

In the meantime, Republicans on Capitol Hill have begun work on legislation to enshrine some net neutrality protections in legislation but limit the FCC’s powers in other ways. Democrats have so far balked at the proposal, but lawmakers have said that could change after the Thursday vote.

[Malsua]

Do we get to read it yet?

If it's as bad as I suspect it is, those FCC fuckers deserve the Mussolini treatment.

What gives them the right to decide they have the power to regulate shit anyway? The internet is not a broadcast medium.

[MinutemanCO]

Tyranny and totalitarianism will without question rip freedoms from the people any chance it gets. We are on a downhill slide. It may very well be unrecoverable save a major revolution. When, in anyone's recollection, does the government ever give back authority it wrestled from those it governs?

[American Patriot]

According to some around where I work it "was a good thing" because it keeps the "big companies" from sucking up all the bandwidth...

I have no idea.

If it comes down to them telling me I have to have opinions from all sides on my blogs, they can kiss my ass because I won't do it.

[vector7]

Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill as Part of NDAA

]December 08, 2016

Portman/Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation.

“The passage of this bill in the Senate today takes us one critical step closer to effectively confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us. While the propaganda and disinformation threat has grown, the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel. Today we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on,” said Senator Portman. “With the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against our allies and our interests will fail.”

“Congress has taken a big step in fighting back against fake news and propaganda from countries like Russia. When the president signs this bill into law, the United States will finally have a dedicated set of tools and resources to confront our adversaries’ widespread efforts to spread false narratives that undermine democratic institutions and compromise America’s foreign policy goals,” said Murphy. “I’m proud of what Senator Portman and I accomplished here because it’s long past time for the U.S. to get off the sidelines and confront these growing threats.”

NOTE: The bipartisan Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is organized around two main priorities to help achieve the goal of combatting the constantly evolving threat of foreign disinformation.

They are as follows:

• The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for countering foreign propaganda and disinformation. The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China in addition to violent extremists. The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.

• Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques. This fund will complement and support the Center’s role by integrating capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.

http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases


The Ministry of Truth has arrived.

Fake News, Criminalized

By Daily Bell Staff - December 08, 2016

MI6 Chief Says Fake News And Online Propaganda Are A Threat To Democracy … The chief of MI6 has said he is deeply concerned by the threat posed by rival countries attempting to undermine democracy through propaganda and cyberattacks. –Buzzfeed

The next step in attacking the alternative media is to criminalize it.

Right now the alternative media is under attack in Europe for “hate speech” and (potentially) terrorism. In the US, the alternative media is being accused of presenting Russian propaganda. Earlier today, this approach was taken up by British intel (see above).

In the US, there are Congressional attempts underway to provide funds for law enforcement to investigate alternative news sites as supporters of Russian propaganda. But so far there have been no major statements from US federal law enforcement officials. Now, however, we have one from Britain – as the head of MI6 has spoken up.

Since Western alternative media is simply an outgrowth – an expression – of discontent with the current system, those producing it cannot ultimately be seen as tools of Russian propaganda. However, alternative media is proving deeply disconcerting to the larger Western power structure. For this reason, suspicions of Russian propaganda merely provide a justification for investigation. One an investigation has been pursued, it may not stop until something – anything – is found that can be construed as criminal or at least problematic.

In this way alternative media can be first criminalized and then hounded. Or so the plan goes …

More:
Alex Younger, aka “C”, used a rare public speech to say he was deeply concerned about the risks posed by hybrid warfare, where countries take advantage of the internet to “further their aims deniably” through “means as varied as cyberattacks, propaganda, or subversion of democratic process”.
Although he did not name Russia directly, the comments come following accusations that the Kremlin has attempted to influence elections in the US and Europe using underhand tactics ranging from undeclared direct funding, to hacking emails, to spreading fake news.
“Our job is to give the government the information advantage; to shine a light on these activities and to help our country and allies, in particular across Europe, build the resilience they need to protect themselves,” Younger said. “The risks at stake are profound and represent a fundamental threat to our sovereignty; they should be a concern to all those who share democratic values.”

In fact, what is being planned is not going to work. It will likely make life miserable for certain reporters and others associated with the alternative media. But it is far too early for the powers-that-be to stamp out alternative journalism (and the thinking behind it) no matter how much they wish to.

For one thing, alternative journalism is now representative of a larger mindset among tens and even hundreds of millions of people, especially in the West. Thus it will take at least a full generation to wipe out new perspectives and rediscovered information.

Second, because the news is representative of people’s points of view (rather than vice-versa) alternative media insights and information will continue to be presented in various ways – on the Internet as well, only not so obviously.

Finally, the growing war against the alternative media will only reinforce its relevance and credibility, thus causing more people to become informed (or deepen their perceptions) about the issues presented in the so-called alternative media.

There is a whole alternative culture that is offered by modern alternative media. Some of it may be leftist but the initial approach – for those who have tracked its emergence on the ‘Net – was basically libertarian and freedom-oriented.

Even today this specific cultural approach informs a lot of alternative reporting. The fundamental ideas is that the market itself should make determinations regarding human interactions rather than government run by groups of people with greater or lesser competence.

This approach is rooted in free-market – Austrian – economic theory which is actually accepted throughout mainstream economics. It begins with marginal utility, the idea that credible prices can only be generated by marketplace competition. But its insights are much broader.

If everyone in formal academic economics including Keynesians accept the reality of marginal utility (as they do) then how can such massive governments exists, passing thousands of laws, rules and regulations – all of which are essentially price fixes? Shouldn’t human behavior be moderated by competition instead whenever possible?

The same goes for central banking. It contravenes fundamental economic logic. Ask almost anyone in banking of economics (on the left or right) if they believe in marginal utility and the answer will be “yes.” Ask anyone if they believe price-fixing is effective or productive and they will answer “no.”

And yet central banking is a form of price fixing and so is government. Western society exists in a bubble of cognitive dissonance. What is accepted academically is not applied in reality.
And thus freedom – and libertarianism – cannot be attacked logically. Instead, false arguments will be created to damp down the alternative media.

But as pointed out above, it is not going to be simple or easy to remove fundamental truths from the body politic. The last time we witnessed this kind of paradigm was after the invention of the Gutenberg press that blew open societies throughout the West and helped create the New World and then the republic of “these United States.”

It took about 500 years for control of society to be re-established from the top down by certain historical groups … and yet here we are again. The same sort of technological undermining has taken place and it won’t be easily repressed.

It may not take another 450 years but it certainly won’t happen in 10 or 20. And by the time it does take place it is certainly possible that another information revolution will have come to pass.

Time and history are working against authoritarianism and not with it. Depriving people of knowledge and history is a signature of repression. But in the current technological era it becomes more and more difficult.

What is pending is period of chaos and difficulty. But over the next century we may see an efflorescence of the sort that took place after the Gutenberg press with the expansion of the Renaissance and the advent of the Enlightenment and the rediscovery of scientific thinking.

Conclusion: Things may indeed change. But not necessarily in the way controllers imagine.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-ana...riminalized-2/