So they're using Assange as a scapegoat for imposing censureship on the Internet.  Oh well, so much for Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

Freedoms We Lost

------------------------------------

By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

View Full Image

David Klein

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.

Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach.

In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.

Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.

After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.

More on Technology

• Your Apps Are Watching You
• Holiday Help: People vs. Robots

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.

Mr. McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

FCC WORKING WITH AL SHARPTON TO LET HIM DRAG RUSH AND OTHERS IN FRONT OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES

Here comes the Censors



What I don't get is he claims that Rush and the others offend others because of "who" they are, I'd like to see a SINGLE example of what he's talking about, because from what I've seen and heard from Rush, he attacks others based on their BELIEFS, specifically, if they believe in Socialism, he's going to explain WHY they are wrong.

Cash Cow Disease: The Cognitive Decline of Microsoft and Google

It Pays to be Poor!

Someone Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than Me – A Middle-Classer

Written by Daisy  //  November 22, 2010  //  Weeps And Glees  //  16 Comments

Interesting stuff. I read it this morning here, and the chart they provided as a visual (for people like me who avoid just numbers alone) was pretty damn telling.

A family of 4 on minimum wage now has more disposable income than a hard working American middle class family making $60,000 a year.

Zero Hedge reported, via Free Republic:

Tonight’s stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the “Evil Empire”, Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that “a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.” And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper – it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world’s most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.

And here’s the nifty little graphic that tells the story quite clearly:

The analyst in the article states that someone is pretty much better off working one week a month at minimum wage than working their ass off at a full-time $60K-a-year gig. Go figure.

And it reminds me of that chick I once saw at a grocery store in Atlanta – she had a Louis Vuitton purse full of freakin’ food stamps, which she used to pay for her groceries (shrimp was included, of course), and then got into her Mercedes and drove away.

Yep. I guess I’m the chump for working 60-hour weeks. Stupid me…

Confidence In The U.S. Will Collapse And Change Will Come With Alarming Speed

People just don't get it, they don't seem to realize what a HUGE problem we're sitting on, yet the average person goes on as if nothing is wrong. We need to change direction FAST, and we need to prepare ourselves, our families and our friends.


The Collapse of the Dollar and How to Profit from It: Make a Fortune by Investing in Gold and Other Hard Assets

Volunteers Wanted: We Need You, Race to the Finish Line for Allen West!

Dear Supporters, We are now close to fifteen days away from Election Day. These final days are critical in our efforts to bring principled leadership to Washington. Volunteer now to ensure victory in November. There are many ways to get involved:  GO VOTE! Early voting starts this Monday Become a Poll Captain Distribute campaign literature and put yard signs at polling locations. Early Voting Polling Locations for Broward Polling Locations for Palm Beach Election Day Polling Locations for Broward Polling Locations for Palm Beach Important: Call supporters to get out the vote  Office Hours: M-F 9am -7pm, Saturdays 10am-close, and Sundays 1pm-close. Neighborhood Walks Distribute campaign literature and talk to your neighbors If interested contact Kate Wesner at kate@allenwestforcongress.com or 561-722-3654. From more information on any of our volunteering opportunities please contact Kate Wesner at kate@allenwestforcongress.com or 561-722-3654. Thank you for all your support! GO WEST and GO VOTE! You can also text "GOWEST" to 777111 to get breaking news from the campaign

Obama claims GOP trying to destroy Social Security

I ran across this story and thought it was a Joke.  Social Security is broke, this year for the first time it's paying out more than what they're taking in, as for a Trust fund there ISN'T any "Trust" fund.  It's a bunch of "funny Money".  Government simply taxes everyone for what they need to keep the system going.  That's not a trust fund that's welfare. Yet Obama claims the GOP is trying to "destroy" something that in reality, DOESN'T EXIST!  

Let's take a look at Chile, where the average working stiff actually has a higher net worth than those here in the U.S.  Why, because their private IRA's and Pension funds are REAL Assets, not the funny money variety that the Government "guarantees" us here.  In addition, these funds can be willed to a spouse or kids, can the same be said of the Social Security "Trust Fund" here in the U.S.?  I think not!

Obama claims GOP trying to destroy Social Security

Erica Werner

President Barack Obama used the anniversary of Social Security to trumpet Democrats' support for the popular program and accuse Republicans of trying to destroy it.

Seventy-five years after President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Social Security into law, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday: "We have an obligation to keep that promise, to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities and all Americans — today, tomorrow and forever."

Some Republican leaders in Congress are "pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall," Obama said.

He contended that such privatization was "an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit while tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock market."

Most Republicans, in fact, are wary of touching that idea, because Social Security is virtually sacrosanct to voters, particularly seniors.

Nonetheless, Democrats have been able to seize on the issue because of a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, that would allow younger people to put Social Security money into personal accounts.

Ryan's idea is similar to a proposal pushed unsuccessfully by former President George W. Bush. It's not been endorsed by party leaders and has attracted only a small number of GOP co-sponsors.

With Social Security's finances strained, policymakers talk frequently about the need to address the solvency of the entitlement program. How to do so is less clear, as Obama's comments Saturday underscored.

Obama said he's "committed to working with anyone, Democrat or Republican, who wants to strengthen Social Security." But he proposed no ideas for doing that.

Many Democrats adamantly oppose any cut in benefits to reduce costs and some won't accept a gradual increase in the retirement age, something that was done in the last overhaul in 1983. Republicans say an increase in Social Security taxes is out of the question, even for the wealthy.

Unless Congress acts, Social Security's combined retirement and disability trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037. At that point, Social Security will collect enough in payroll taxes to cover about three-fourths of the benefits.

Obama has created a bipartisan fiscal commission that is supposed to come up with recommendations in December on improving the government's troubled finances and has said everything should be on the table.

"Democrats made an impossible mess out of health care and cut a half-trillion from Medicare, so I don't know whether the commission will come up with anything on health care or not," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said in a statement. "But on Social Security, hopefully they will come up with a credible plan that I can support and my members can support."

Republicans used their weekend address to accuse Democrats of pursuing an "extreme ideologically driven agenda" that threatens the nation's economic recovery.

"I am deeply concerned about the direction we're heading in right now," said former Rep. Pat Toomey, speaking for the GOP. "That direction is being driven by extreme policies that are coming from one-party domination of government in Washington. ... It's time we put some real checks and balances back in place this November."

Toomey, the GOP Senate nominee in Pennsylvania, focused on bailouts for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the car companies; the economic stimulus legislation that has failed to cut unemployment rates; and Obama's health care law.

"Now, where do all these bailouts, takeovers and spending sprees leave us?" Toomey asked. "They leave us with a weak economy without job growth and with a mountain of debt for our kids."

First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico - NaturalNews.tv

First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico - NaturalNews.tv

I just came across this from a few months ago and I COULD NOT believe this. For all you Left Wingers out there, this is NOT from FOX News, (since you're alway saying they're biased against this administration), this is from none other than the Clinton News Network, er... I mean CNN.

This text will be replaced by the player

Thoughtcrime: D.C. Reporter Suspended for Accurate Report on BP’s Donations to Obama

Thoughtcrime: D.C. Reporter Suspended for Accurate Report on BP’s Donations to Obama

If Paul Revere were alive today, instead of saying "The British Are Coming", he would say "The Thought Police are coming, the Thought Police are coming!!"

Posted by Robert Bluey Aug 11th 2010 at 11:46 am in Featured Story, Obama, Politics, Washington Post, media bias 

WJLA-TV, a Washington, D.C. ABC affiliate, suspended reporter Doug McKelway following his alleged “partisan” comments at a liberal rally on Capitol Hill marking the three-month anniversary of the Gulf oil spill. Video of the broadcast tells a different story:

Apparently facts are now “partisan.”

McKelway stuck to the truth about BP’s political contributions and pending cap-and-trade legislation, newsworthy subjects given that the event’s organizers were lobbying to “pass legislation to end America’s addiction to oil and urged lawmakers to donate campaign money raised from the oil industry to the clean-up efforts in the Gulf.”

According to the Washington Post, it was McKelway’s supposedly controversial comments on July 20 that led to his suspension. Anonymous sources at the station are now accusing him of “insubordination” in an apparent attempt to fire him.

McKelway’s live report began with a factually correct statement about BP’s donations to President Obama. McKelway accurately noted that Obama received $77,051 from the BP employees, information verified by the Center for Responsive Politics.

When McKelway asked one of the event’s participants to comment on it, Ted Glick of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network acknowledged it was a problem for Obama. The rally was organized by left-wing groups Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Public Citizen.

At the end of the live segment, McKelway talked about the prospect of cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate, a topic related to the rally, which urged lawmakers to “take immediate action to pass climate and energy legislation.”

Nevertheless, the Washington Post, quoting anonymous sources, indicated McKelway’s report crossed the line. The newspaper reported:

According to several of McKelway’s colleagues, the newsman’s reporting may have lapsed into partisan territory when he commented live on the air about the oil industry’s influence in Washington, particularly its contributions to Democratic politicians and legislators.

This is absolutely absurd. The Post’s decision to use anonymous sources to smear McKelway was bad enough, but reporter Paul Farhi also wrote a subjective description of the broadcast instead of simply stating the facts. The newspaper’s own reporters engage in flagrant partisan behavior on a daily basis.

WJLA’s station manager and news director declined to comment on the personnel matter. McKelway isn’t talking either.

Based on what we know — and discounting the questionable and anonymous sources in Farhi’s story — it appears this is a classic case of the mainstream media silencing those who report inconvenient truths about this administration. McKelway is a veteran newsman who has consistently strived for balance in reporting. Unfortunately, in a news environment like Washington, D.C, liberals don’t always like the facts. In this case, McKelway appears to have suffered the consequences.

White House 3M Jobs Figure Not Based on Real Numbers

Three Million Jobs: Really?   [Veronique de Rugy]

The White House can repeat these “jobs saved or created” numbers as often as it wants; it won’t make them true. Consider this Business Week report on a study released today by the Council Of Economic Advisers:

The report says the stimulus has “saved or created” about 3 million jobs, and is moving toward a goal of 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year, according to an administration official speaking on condition of anonymity before the report’s release today.

As it turns out, when you unpack the numbers, you find that Romer and her team didn’t actually count how many people got a job thanks to the stimulus. Instead, the number is a projection that relies on the myth that a dollar of government spending creates up to 2.5 dollars of economic growth.

That’s strange. Robert Barro of Harvard University has estimated that, even in the best-case senario, $1 of government spending will generate between $0.40 and $0.70 ofeconomic growth, i.e., much less than the amount of growth that we would get if that dollar was invested privately. What’s more, if that dollar has previously been taxed out the economy, then the overall effect of $1 of government spending is a destruction of $1.10 of economic growth. Not exactly the rosy projections that Romer is touting today. (And Barro is not alone. Even the most optimistic projections of the economic effect of government spending never display such numbers. Never.)

Recovery.gov, which actually counts the number of jobs created (if in a very favorable light), only displays roughly 680,000 jobs, not 3 million. Why would the White House not up that number if in fact 3 million jobs had been created? Because they don’t have names and addresses to back up their gargantuan projections.
 
The business community itself doesn’t seem to know where these miraculous jobs are. A few weeks ago, the chairman of the Business Roundtable — the association of top corporate executives that has been President Obama’s closest ally in the business community — accused the president and Democratic lawmakers of creating an “increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.” The stimulus, they say, is hurting them, not helping:

“In our judgment, we have reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore,” Seidenberg said in a lunchtime speech to the Economic Club of Washington. “By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses.”

Romer, on the other hand, lives in a fantasy world where the administration’s policies will encourage investment:

The economic stimulus legislation pushed by U.S. President Barack Obama last year will help encourage $280 billion of investment by private industry and local governments, according to an administration report being released today.
The analysis, by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, estimates that about $100 billion in government grants, loan guarantees, interest subsidies and tax breaks will be matched almost three-to-one by other spending on clean energy projects, economic development and building construction.

Well, not exactly: The Federal Reserve has calculated that almost $2 trillion of capital is sitting on the sidelines right now, waiting for the government to stop its policy of destruction. The business community is not investing $1.8 trillion because of the uncertainty injected by the government’s policies, including the stimulus.
 
I am about to release the third Stimulus Facts report based on Recovery.gov data, which show that four out of five jobs created were created in the public sector. Remember the promise made by Romer herself when the stimulus was passed, that the bill would create 3.5 million jobs in two years, mostly in the private sector? Almost two years later,682,370 jobs were reported created, not 3 million, and over 510,000 of these were in the public sector. (My preliminary data is online here; my paper on whether government spending stimulates economic growth is here.)

Basically, the White House can claim all the job creation that it wants. The data show a completely different story. I am testifying before Congress and Rep. Paul Ryan at 1 p.m.to make these points.

Obama Administration Dismisses Charges against Racists and Bigots

Thugs Assault Congressman Etheredge

From CollegeNews.com:
Resjudicata
2010 06 14

Jack booted college thugs from the Tea Party’s vicious Youth Video Projects department attacked innocent Congressman NC Rep Bob Etheridge (Dem) as he returned from conducting the people’s Pelosi business. Both thugs were able to escape from the victim after the poor congressman was able to overcome and detain one of the assailees for a short time and squeeze a gurgled epithet from the more brawny of the two skinny thugs. The congressman’s friends from the SEIU benevolence league have offered to protect the congressman from future random attacks by sacrificing other people’s rights to assure he is left unopposed in the business of raising taxes for the peoples own good of course. Keith Olbermann was quick to point out the obvious racial overtones that weren’t heard or seen during the altercation.  Rosie O’Donnell also commented during her radio show on the blatant anti-gay rhetoric not being uttered during the attack by the pro life Catholic Church mob down the street during a church service.  The congressman coming from a Pelosi fund raiser to repeal Arizona’s AB1070, was heard to yell “I have a right to know who you are” and “Vee haf veys ouf making you show zee papers” at the assailants, no admission by the attackers of belonging to any neo-type group was forth coming.  After the congressman’s dust up with the hooligans, Janet Napolitano quickly declared the scene safer than it had ever been before and pledged to be even more vigilant for neo-anti taxpayers like these two youths. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the President will withhold any comments about whose @#$% ass to kick for at least a month or two. A full investigation of the assault by the top prosecutors in the US AG’s office has been promised by the US Attorney General. Mr. Holder said funds allocated in the next year’s budget for the persecution of the two youths will require billions to assure the American people this type of freedom of the press or speech behavior by youths running rampant with cameras and microphones cannot continue unchecked. Harry Reid has proposed massive tax hikes on the rich to fund the new legislation.

I'm guessing Mr. Etheredge takes Arguing with Idiots to a whole new level!