Posted on 05/07/2010 4:10:21 PM PDT by NoLibZone
The head of the Federal Communications Commission said the agency has the power to impose new rules on Internet service providers in a move that lays the groundwork for "net neutrality" - a politically contentious proposal that bars providers from giving preference to some of the content flowing over their networks.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski pitched his approach Thursday as a middle ground that would "preserve the Internet as a powerful platform for innovation, free speech and job creation." But the agency's two Republicans said it goes well beyond the powers Congress has granted the commission and will leave businesses confused.
"It is neither a light-touch approach, nor a third way. Instead, it is a stark departure from the long-established bipartisan framework for addressing broadband regulation that has led to billions in investment and untold consumer opportunities," Republican Commissioners Robert M. McDowell and Meredith A. Baker said in a joint statement.
Supporters of net neutrality said they hope Thursday's move is the first step toward FCC regulation preventing Internet service providers from slowing down certain types of Web applications.
Mr. Genachowski announced his plan weeks after the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dealt the commission a huge blow by tossing out an order against Comcast Corp. on the grounds that the agency lacked the power to tell the cable firm how to manage its Web traffic. Undermining a marquee priority of the Obama administration's FCC, that ruling set off a political firestorm among Democrats and left-leaning activists who argue that "rules of the road" are necessary to prevent Internet service providers from prioritizing access to certain Web applications over others.
Responding to the decision Thursday, Mr. Genachowski, one of three Democrats on the five-member agency, said the...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Had the net been around, I think Hitler and Stalin would have done this same thing. Dictatorships need to know what the unwashed masses are talking about.
Don’t you just love the way dictators operate? Like all the world’s pond scum, the Obama regime fits right in.
So who is going to stop them form taking all you have? We now know the rule of law does not matter to the Obama regime.
The group called free press is nothing more than a commie front group.
Read 1984 and see what Newspeak is all about, the language of opposites. It describes perfectly what the language of the old Soviet Union looks like, and bears more than a passing resemblance to the lies told today by Obama about the jobs report.
To give a simple example of Newspeak - The word free still existed in Newspeak, but could only be used in such statements as "The dog is free from lice" or "This field is free from weeds." It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free," since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless, had no meaning.
Know the truth and hold to the truth. You are going to need it.
Supreme court already said no. Sure hope this is challenged, if not we are in trouble. No accountability to laws or balance of powers means tyranny.
We are in a massive battle to regain the rule of law. That is an even bigger enemy than Islamic terrorism or communism - because both Islamic terrorists and communists depend on the breakdown of the rule of law and social order in order to create the crisis by which they will swoop in to save the day. No society can survive anarchy; if we don’t make our laws stick, we will soon be in a situation where whatever strongest (and most corrupt) power is able to take over everything, will.
We all know that violence rising would give an excuse for martial law. What people may not realize is that anarchy functions the same way. And if we willingly give up the rule of law by allowing a tyrannical regime to do whatever it wants with no real, effective resistance, then a crisis isn’t even necessary to take over the country.
We have to get serious about enforcing the law. If our current law enforcement, government, and media are too shacked-up with the corrupt politicians to do the job we HAVE to expose and replace them. End of story.
The Obama administration continues to consolidate power in the Executive Branch highlighting the stupidity of Congress.
correction , U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
So when will the challenges come? And if the Supreme Court rules against the Obama regime, who will enforce the rulings.
And isn’t that exactly what is going on ... The Supreme Court did rule, and the Obama regime says up yours, we’re doing it anyway.
After he rigs the Supreme Court - there is nothing left to stop him.
Dictatorships need to know control what the unwashed masses are talking about.
agree ... If you elect someone of no moral character you get no morals
It must be stopped in November.
The Democrats did this once before, read the history of the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act. From it Lincoln was elected president in 1860 ... secession and Civil War followed. So Democrats can be counted on to act on ideology and no character.
Thanks for the correction. After I posted, I thought to myself that was what I should have said.
Exactly.
We know the US Attorney General is always just a political puppet. Reno refused to investigate Clinton even after 2 Congressional reports strongly stated that a full-fledged investigation was in order (the Cox and Thompson Reports), for the sake of national security. So federal law enforcement is out.
My own experience with the FBI on the eligibility issue tells me the FBI is worthless.
That pretty much leaves it to the states, I think. I think the state AG’s have to start arresting people.
It sounds pretty stark, doesn’t it? But I don’t know what other options there are. If the FCC started doing what the SCOTUS has already ruled is unconstitutional, would a state attorney general - like Nebraska’s Jon Bruning, for instance - be able to go and arrest the leadership of the FCC?
Maybe some of the legal eagles around here would know.
If not, then there are no legal avenues for upholding the law. Law enforcement falls to the executive branch - but if the executive branch is a bunch of tyrannical crooks who will never investigate themselves.... it puts the whole country in a bad, bad way.
Why, oh why, didn’t conservatives take the rule of law seriously before the election? Those who said they knew Obama was a communist should have used EVERY AVENUE to keep him out of the White House because they had to know that once he had his foot in the door as the head of the executive/ enforcement branch of government there would be no tomorrow for the rule of law.
You remember FDR and his four terms? FDR broke every rule of tradidtion. If he had not died in office -— who knoiws what would have happened to America.
The Constitution has no enforcement mechanism. It is left to the people.
In devising the Constitution, from what I have read recently, the founders came up against a wall, how could they possibly guard against tyranny from within, and decided it not possible.
Therefore they added the First Amendment — free press, an informed public and the Second Amendment as the final guards of liberty.
November is all hands on deck. We simply cannot fail.
I think it is absolutely vital that we have at least two media companies that simply will not censor what information can be broadcast. We thought Fox was the cat’s meow but at this point they are refusing to even let somebody else give facts in their comments section - much less actually reporting important facts themselves. We can’t have all freedom’s eggs in one basket. When that basket falls into the hands of (for instance) Islamists the nation will be fed poison by the people it had learned to consider credible.
That’s exactly what Saddam Hussein did. We have his documents saying that they should put their lying propaganda on CNN who was more than willing to broadcast it as “news”. Because CNN was considered credible at the time, it was a way for Saddam to launder credibility - passing off counterfeit “truth” as credible because it came from CNN.
Now the Islamists, communists, and their anti-Christian regime are doing the same thing with Fox. CNN was willing to play by Saddam’s terms in order to get access. Fox under their Saudi ownership/influence is doing the same thing. Plus, they don’t want their FCC license revoked, as Obama’s lawyers threatened to do if they reported honestly on the eligibility issue.
The very people who should most know the modus operandi of Obama’s owners (and they know who Obama’s owners are too) are playing right into their hands. I hate that. This truly can determine whether this nation survives.
Right now, I feel like so many of the people on all sides of the aisle and in all positions in government, media, and law enforcement have crapped on us all. Like Judas, they have betrayed us with a kiss. Quite frankly, I’m not interested in listening to any of them. They have all lost credibility with me.
I have no idea of your worldview, but as a Christian I have enjoyed listening to Christian radio, but even that doesn’t appeal to me because they have the little news blurbs where they simply regurgitate whatever the government-run media tells them to say. I suppose we have to choose our battles and they don’t want to get political, but just as Hitler was a man of lawlessness, Obama is a man of lawlessness and everybody who has been significant in his life has had one thing in common with him and each other: they speak the native language of the Father of Lies and they hate Christ.
I would spit out a Christian radio station who reported on government progress in the creation of the Master Race back in the 1930’s and 40’s in Germany - even if they claimed they were only doing it because they didn’t want to take a political stand at the time. It’s still a lie - even if you’re just taking dictation from the Father of Lies and reporting it as “news”. I wish they’d just say nothing at all about anything political if they’re trying to stay out of that battle.
Whew. I got that off my chest. It’s been bugging me.
“So when will the challenges come? And if the Supreme Court rules against the Obama regime, who will enforce the rulings.”
Think Hondorous...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.