GrassTopsUSA

After moving to take control of just about every aspect of your life, the Obama-Pelosi regime is about to clamp-down on all conservative thoughts and expressions by applying the so-called Fairness Doctrine to the Internet.

A few days ago, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under the leadership of Barack Obama's recently appointed Chairman, Julius Genachowski, voted to move forward on what is commonly and deceptively called "Net Neutrality."

Genachowski, incidentally, is the man who appointed Barack Obama's Diversity-Czar Mark Lloyd (need we say more).

In addition to the FCC action, Congress may be poised to move very soon on so-called "Net Neutrality" legislation proposed by far-left Congressman Ed Markey.

Markey's bill is deceptively called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, but a more accurate title would be the Government Internet Control Act of 2009.

If you believe Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and radical leftists in Congress, such drastic action in Congress and on the part of the FCC is urgently needed to keep the Internet "open" and "free."

Don't believe it for one second.

Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn recently called "Net Neutrality," "the fairness doctrine for the Internet."

Blackburn added that those who post content on the Internet "do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet" and moreover, those who post content on the Internet do not want or need a "czar of the Internet to determine when they can deploy their creativity over the Internet."

FOX News' Glenn Beck went further and actually called Net Neutrality a "Marxist" plot to "control content."

Make no mistake, so-called "Net Neutrality" represents such a clear and present threat to your ability to speak freely on the Internet that even Senator John McCain stepped up to the plate and  proposed legislation within hours of the FCC's announcement to specifically prohibit the Obama-FCC from forcing this draconian violation of the First Amendment on the American people.

Are you wondering why Blackburn and McCain and Beck so concerned? Are you, like many people, not clear on the whole topic of "Net Neutrality?"

If you want to know what "Net Neutrality" is all about and the dire consequences it poses to the American way of life, then read on.

But we must stop it now because the Obama-Pelosi regime is moving quickly.

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

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to Barack Obama and the Democratic and Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Or alternately, you can send your urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to Barack Obama and each and every Member of the House and Senate... that's over 530 Blast Faxes.  Tell them that the American people are not fooled. Tell them that you are not fooled. Extreme liberals in Congress and in the White House are simply not content to silence conservative opinions on the airwaves. They want to silence political dissent on the Internet as well.

Let them know in no uncertain terms that you view so-called Net Neutrality as the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet... a shameless attempt by extreme liberals in Congress and the White House to silence conservative thoughts and opinions on the Internet.

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

Of Course "Net Neutrality" Sounds Innocent Enough... But It's Not.

Yes, it sounds innocent. In fact, Section 12, Subsection A, deceptively titled "Internet Freedom Policy" states; "It is the policy of the United States to protect the right of consumers to access lawful content, run lawful applications, and use lawful services of their choice on the Internet..."

Proponents of "Net Neutrality," such as Art Brodsky, the communications director at Public Knowledge, an advocacy group that supports so-called "Net Neutrality," claims that Blackburn and Beck and McCain are just plain wrong.

Of course, Public Knowledge proudly lists some of the organization's funders on its website.

And among those funders you'll find a variety of far-left organizations such as the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.

And listed under the caption of "Organizations We Work With With" you'll find organizations like Common Cause and George Soros' foundation, The Open Society Institute.

Here's what Brodsky says:

"Net Neutrality is the opposite of the fairness doctrine. ... Net Neutrality takes away the ability of any entity, government or company, to control speech."

Poppycock.

To put it plainly, "Net Neutrality" will neither preserve freedom nor guarantee neutrality.

Like the Fairness Doctrine, its real purpose may very well be to set the stage for the suppression of free speech - to provide a vehicle for the Obama Administration and liberals in Congress to terrorize and extort Internet Service Providers that host content critical of the increasingly thin-skinned Obama Administration.

Sound a little far-fetched? Read on.

Forget Everything You Might Hear Or Read About "Net Neutrality."

     What we all should keep in mind (and shout to the mountaintops if necessary) is, as with any government take-over of private industry, what the government claims "Net Neutrality" legislation will accomplish and what "Net Neutrality" legislation will actually accomplish... are two different things.

     And, Brodsky's statement, when it comes to the ill-named Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, is just plain false.

     Here's Brodsky's statement again; "Net Neutrality takes away the ability of any entity, government or company, to control speech."

     In actually the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 actually empowers government to control speech.

     In the very first paragraph, the legislation calls for the establishment of a "national broadband policy" and further down, it requires providers of Internet services to abide by "reasonable network management" practices.

     Of course, what constitutes "reasonable network practices" is very broadly defined and is implicitly left to the discretion of the FCC.

     So what's the big deal? The following recent real-life incident may provide an explanation.

     You may remember that Humana Insurance recently released a letter to its customers which accurately stated that ObamaCare could result in drastic cuts to the Medicare Advantage program.

     The Obama Administration, and Senator Max Baucus, didn't appreciate Humana telling senior citizens that Medicare benefits under ObamaCare could be cut (it was supposed to be a secret).

     And it didn't matter that the statement was accurate... almost immediately, Obama's Department of Health and Human Services issued a gag-order and launched an "investigation" into Humana.

     This incident, in and of itself, should serve as proof positive that the Obama Administration has no problem abusing the power of government to punish dissent.

     So is it a stretch to believe that Obama's FCC, with the power to regulate "reasonable internet practices" and levy potentially huge fines (also called for in the legislation) might one day launch an "investigation" into Internet service providers that host conservative websites?

     Before you answer that question, remember... Obama has already taken effective control of the automotive industry, after saying his administration had no interest in running a car company.

     He's taken effective control of American International Group (AIG), the nations' largest insurance provider. He's trying to nationalize our health care system. He appears intent on spending the United States into bankruptcy.

     And he still apparently salivates over the idea of shutting down Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and FOX News.

     What must happen before the American people wake up, smell the coffee and understand the motives and intentions of the Obama-Pelosi regime?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Network Neutrality == Internet Status Quo
written by sierrabravo, November 01, 2009

I don't understand the fear-mongering that is being stirred up around what is essentially a technical proposal to preserve the status quo operational nature of the internet. Network neutrality prevents carriers from playing games with people's internet feed, such as (1) filtering out Skype calls because the carrier wants you to buy into their own VOIP package or (2) extorting money from the likes of Google/Netflix for the "privilege" of delivering their content. The telecos want to monetize the internet without providing value-add.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

You way misunderstand net nuetrality
written by Rich, November 02, 2009

What's worse? Big government or big business messing with your life? Neither one is good. With net nuetrality, content cannot be monitored or filtered. The exact opposite of the fairness doctrine. As an owner of several small websites, I don't want to have to clear my website with ISPs or the government. With net nuetrality I am guaranteed that I won't have to. Without it there is no guarantee.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Agreed!
written by chrono, November 03, 2009

sierrabravo,

Clearly you don't understand what Net Neutrality is really about. N.N. is about appying 'fairness' across the entire net specturm and in order to do so the govt. needs FAR more authority then their current limits allow them to have. Net Neutrality and the Cyber Sercurity bills ( S.773 ) under current proposal equal little more than a completely govt controlled and filtered internet. Somewhat like China currently has, but throw in True Internet Police and Civil suits because 'hate speech' and defamation of character lawsuits.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment