It’s Live! From the State Department…

http://imgs.ntd.tv/pic/2014/1-22/p3642301a33403066.jpg

State Department Spokeswoman, Marie Harf.

I listened to the interview given by State Department spokesman, oops, spokeswoman, Marie Harf. After listening to her babble for a bit, I was struck with the realization that Ms Harf was the source of every blond joke I’ve ever heard. She continued to be the poster-girl of blond jokes by claiming, later to critics of her statements, that her remarks were, “too nuanced,” for the common people to understand.

I’m filing this episode of the liberal mindset under, “Reality beats fiction.”

Ramirez-02182015

 

 

Speed bumps

Late yesterday, a Federal Judge in Texas issued a temporary restraining order against Obama Executive Order that game ‘amnesty’ for illegal aliens. The Judge is hearing a 26-state suit against Obama’s use of executive orders to bypass Congress, specifically opening the nations doors to millions of illegal aliens within and perched on our borders.

BAIER TRACKS: COURT SHAKES UP AMNESTY FIGHT ON HILL…
“As is so often the case, states lead the way. A lawsuit filed by 26 states against President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, took a big step forward. On Monday, a federal judge blocked the president’s actions granting legal status to millions of illegal immigrants. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s decision puts a freeze on the president’s plan, the first phase of which was supposed to begin Wednesday. While the administration will no doubt appeal the ruling, this decision could provide a legislative opening for the Homeland Security funding bill that is stalled in the Senate. The bill is being blocked by Democrats and would also be certainly vetoed by the President should it pass. So what is the way out of the standoff?  The Republican argument may be to ask how they could fund anything that has been blocked by the courts and go full steam ahead on offense. Or, Republicans may be so encouraged about the chance for legal remedy that the looming showdown is drained of some of its urgency and move toward compromise. We’ll see what they choose.” – Bret Baier. — FOXNews Newsletter, February 17, 2015.

The White House says it will appeal.

***

There is a column posted on the American Thinker website that would be hilarious…if it weren’t so true. The subject? “Illegal aliens complain about life in suburbia.”

It seems that life here is sooo…difficult. They can’t drive because they can’t get licenses. If they settle away from urban areas, there aren’t any lawyers with immigration experience…and the lawyers that do, want to be paid! By the illegal aliens! Up front in many cases!

Not only that, but many schools have no or limited bilingual education. They seem to think children speak English!

Boo! Hoo!

Illegal aliens complaining about life in suburbia

By Pedro Gonzales, February 17, 2015

Lawbreakers are victims! Kirk Semple writes in the New York Times:

José was looking for peace and quiet, in addition to work, when he decided to settle in the hinterlands of upstate New York 14 years ago. “A lot of farmland and trees,” he recalled, speaking in Spanish. “It reminded me of my village in Mexico.”

But he quickly learned that being poor and undocumented and living far from the well-established immigrant networks found in the nation’s big cities made life especially difficult. There was the absence of public transportation (he cannot legally drive), the scarcity of lawyers with immigration expertise and a feeling of isolation fed by his inability to speak English and the lack of opportunities to learn it.

“It’s a big challenge,” said José, 38, who works on a dairy farm in Livingston County, where he lives with his wife and four children, about 230 miles from New York City. “We’re a forgotten community in terms of service.” (He asked that his last name not be published because of his immigration status.)

And there you have it. The Illegal Aliens aren’t hiding in the shadows any more, they’re as out as Anderson Cooper, and not only that, they have a sense of entitlement. What right do they have to anything from America? They are here illegally!

“I worry about people falling through the cracks,” said Emma Kreyche, an organizing and advocacy coordinator at the Worker Justice Center of New York, a group that provides legal representation and advocacy for agricultural and other low-wage workers across the state.

I think the illegal aliens are the ones creating cracks, by having taxpayer money spent on them while they themselves pay no income tax.

Carina Diaz, 31, who emigrated from Mexico in 2005 and lives in Genesee County, said that until recently, her children’s schools neither provided translators for parent-teacher conferences nor translated important documents into Spanish.

Should Carina sue the schools for failing to adequately provide for illegal aliens? Or sue all of America for not speaking her language?

“I would say, ‘What’s this say?’ “ Ms. Diaz recalled in Spanish. “ ‘I want to participate in the school!’ “ Other immigrant parents, she said, chose not to make such demands for fear of retribution. “The parents don’t want to say anything because they don’t want anything done against their kids,” she said.

She’s so oppressed by the country she sneaked into!

While some schools in her area had begun to provide interpreting services, she said, there were still no low-cost or free English as a second language classes available for adults. “Many people want to take them but there aren’t any,” she said.

And they’re not even free! Why are illegal aliens even asked to pay for anything? Uninvited guests should be treated better than that!

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/illegal_aliens_complaining_about_life_in_suburbia.html#ixzz3S1RzKOjM

Poor, poor illegals. Perhaps life would be easier if they just went back to wherever they came from?

 

Blargh!

Yes, it’s one of those days. According to the calendar it’s Presidents Day. You know, that artificial holiday created by merging Washington’s and Lincolns birthdays to give public employees a 3-day weekend in the middle of February.

Overnight we received 3-4″ of snow. So far this winter, the snow has passed either to the north of us or to the south of us. Last night’s big dump passed south again but we were within the outskirts. So instead of getting 6-8″ as did some parts of Missouri, we only got 3-4″ according to my Mk I eyeball measurement of the snow sitting on the railing of my backyard deck. With a temp of 13°F this morning, I think I will stay inside today.

My lack of motivation seems to be mirrored by the news, too. I usually receive eight to a dozen newsletters/updates/breaking news announcements. This morning, it was only two newsletters and they were short to boot. I wonder if the whole world has decided to take the day off and join the local kids and my g’kids for a snow-day.

As for news. It seems to be a habit for the feds to release their edicts over the weekend for the MSM to ignore. Apparently they hope that if something is dumped on Saturday, by Monday morning, with the MSM ignoring it, the news will just slip away.

Case in point. The BATFE announced that it is planning on banning a particular kind of ammunition popular with AR-15 owners, the M855 5.56mm cartridge. It is a military round, slightly heavier than the Vietnam era cartridge that used a 55gr bullet. The M855 is 62grs and is more stable when fired through brush or in strong winds. This makes the bullet slightly more accurate in adverse conditions than the older cartridge.

The M855 is the US equivalent of the NATO cartridge known as SS109. The bullet had a steel core. When the M855 appeared on the market, the BATFE rightly determined it was not armor-piercing because it did not meet the BATFE definition of ‘armor piercing.’ Some gun-grabbers claimed that the steel core automatically meant the round was designed for armor piercing. The BATFE said it was not.

Over the weekend, the BATFE announced it will reverse itself next month. The instant result will be a feeding frenzy of sellers and buyers for the existing stocks of M855 before the ban is enacted.

It’s just another step of federal tyranny. If they can’t ban firearms, they ban the ammunition for those firearms, one small piece at a time.

The Judge Speaks

Judge Andrew Napolitano of FOX News wrote an editorial that appeared on the FOX News website. It was relatively short. Its reasoning is specific. It is an indictment of the Patriot Act and the abuses that have occurred since its passage.

Is our Constitution just a worthless piece of paper?

By

During his [George W. Bush] presidency, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. This legislation permits federal agents to write their own search warrants when those warrants are served on custodians of records — like doctors, lawyers, telecoms, computer servers, banks and even the Post Office.

Such purported statutory authority directly violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy in our “persons, houses, papers and effects.” That includes just about everything held by the custodians of our records. Privacy is not only a constitutional right protected by the document; it is also a natural right. We possess the right to privacy by virtue of our humanity. Our rights come from within us — whether you believe we are the highest progression of biological forces or the intended creations of an Almighty God — they do not come from the government.

If the terms and meaning of the Constitution could be changed by the secret whims of those in the executive branch into whose hands they have been reposed for safekeeping, of what value are they?

This is not an academic argument. If our rights come from within us, the government cannot take them away, whether by executive fiat, popular legislation or judicial ruling, unless we individually have waived them. If our rights come from the government, then they are not rights, but permission slips.

The terms of the Patriot Act were made public, and those of us who follow the government’s misdeeds could report on them. After all, this is America. We are a democracy. The government is supposed to work for us. 

We have the right to know what it is doing in our names as it is doing it, and we have the right to reveal what the government does. Yet, under this law, the feds punished many efforts at revelation. That’s because the Patriot Act prohibits those who receive these agent-written search warrants from telling anyone about them. This violates our constitutionally protected and natural right to free speech. All of this has been publicly known since 2001.

Then, in June 2013, Edward Snowden, the uber-courageous former CIA and NSA official, dropped a still smoldering bombshell of truth upon us when he revealed that the Bush administration had dispatched the NSA to spy on all Americans all the time and the Obama administration had attempted to make the spying appear legal by asking judges to authorize it.

Snowden went on to reveal that the NSA, pursuant to President Obama’s orders and the authorization of these judges meeting in secret (so secret that the judges themselves are not permitted to keep records of their own rulings), was actually capturing and storing the content of all emails, text messages, telephone calls, utility and credit card bills, and bank statements of everyone in America. They did this without a search warrant based on probable cause — a very high level of individualized suspicion — as required by the Constitution.

Snowden revealed that Obama’s lawyers had persuaded these secret judges, without any opposition from lawyers representing the victims of this surveillance, that somehow Congress had authorized this and somehow it was constitutional and somehow it was not un-American to spy on all of us all the time. These judges actually did the unthinkable: They issued what are known as general warrants. General warrants were used against the colonists by the British and are expressly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. They permit the bearer to search wherever he wishes and seize whatever he finds. That’s what the NSA does to all of us today.

Last week, we learned how deep the disrespect for the Constitution runs in the government and how tortured is the logic that underlies it. In a little-noted speech at Washington and Lee Law School, Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of both the CIA and the NSA, told us. In a remarkable public confession, he revealed that somehow he received from some source he did not name the authority to reinterpret the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy so as to obliterate it. He argued that the line between privacy and unbridled government surveillance is a flexible and movable one, and that he — as the head of the NSA — could move it.

This is an astounding audacity by a former high-ranking government official who swore numerous times to uphold the Constitution. He has claimed powers for himself that are nowhere in the Constitution or federal statues, powers that no president or Congress has claimed, powers that no Supreme Court decision has articulated, powers that are antithetical to the plain meaning and supremacy of the Constitution, powers that any non-secret judge anywhere would deny him.

If the terms and meaning of the Constitution could be changed by the secret whims of those in the executive branch into whose hands they have been reposed for safekeeping, of what value are they? No value. In such a world, our Constitution has become a worthless piece of paper.

At the time of its passage, not much was known about the Patriot Act. It was a hasty response to 9/11 and to the intelligence failures that occurred before and after the attack. The Clinton administration had been diligent in weakening our military and intelligence organizations. The media built one scandal after another regardless of the merit of the incidents. In addition, interservice rivalry prevented sharing of information between agencies purposed for intelligence gathering. The intelligence organs had lost their identity and became politicized…to our detriment.

As with any pendulum, it had swung from one side of effectiveness to the other. The Patriot Act did not maintain the effectiveness of intelligence, it misdirected the aim of intelligence from outward to…inward. And we have all suffered from that change in direction.

A liberal Senator from the North East claims people want high-capacity magazine because, “they are arming against the government.” Apparently, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) has never considered why people feel the need to arm themselves against the government. His statement is sufficient reason as it stands. But it is the abuses of government, such as those perpetrated by the Patriot Act, that provides the motivation Senator Murphy fears. Perhaps if he asked that question, “Why?” he would discover another answer and another alternative for his ire.

As we have seen, the senatorial GOP led by Mitch McConnell have no interest opposing the tyrannical acts of government. No, instead of opposing, they support such acts to the detriment of us all.

I have presented Judge Napolitano’s editorial in an attempt to expand its presence across the internet. It’s worth reading and consideration.

One of those days…

Here I was, all fired up to write this morning and…nothing, zip, nada. Nothing struck my fancy. Oh, there were numerous items I could choose such as the continuing examination of Brian Williams’ history. It seems, now, that he may have fudged some expense reports, so some say. Newsworthy? Perhaps, given the recent feeding-frenzy about him, most of it fully justified.

There is also the coordinated attack by the FEC and the FCC to regulate those pesky websites and blogs, like mine, who expose the lies and unconstitutional acts of the Administration, democrats and Marxist liberals. They can’t stop us talking, but they think they can block us from the internet.

Still, it just doesn’t have that prick of interest this morning. Neither is the twenty-three ‘Pub union shills who voted against RTW in the Missouri House yesterday. The bill passed but not enough to override Nixon’s veto. The bills should pass swiftly through the Senate. The real question is, “Will RTW survive Jay Nixon’s veto?”

Since I haven’t found anything today that has that spark, I think I’ll do something else today with my time. What, I don’t know yet. We’ll see how the day flows.

Y’all have a great day!

All the news the MSM is afraid to report

There was a murder in Chapel Hill, NC, recently. A man, his wife and his wife’s sister were killed. All three were muslims. The MSM and Al Jazeera had a field day. It wasn’t long until a suspect was in custody.

Then, suddenly, the story dropped from the news! If it weren’t for the British and Israeli press, the story would have completely disappeared. Why? The suspect wasn’t a bible thumpin’, gun-totin’, red-neck Tea Partier. No, he was a liberal, atheist whose favorite news outlet was MSNBC and his favorite news-reader was Rachel Maddow.

By-the-way, if the FCC has its way, you wouldn’t be able to find news in the foreign press. The FCC wants the internet to be ‘equal’, read controlled and censored.

***

I’ve been writing this blog since 2008. I’ve ruffled the fur of politicos from my local city council, a couple of county office holders, some state Representatives and Senators, and I have a running battle with the RINOs in Washington and my local Congresswoman. Obama has a solution. It just appeared on the Drudge Report.

Federal Election Commission to Consider Regulating Online Political Speech

, February 11, 2015 – 10:15 AM

(CNSNews.com) — The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a hearing today to receive public feedback on whether it should create new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on the Internet that one commissioner warned could affect blogs, YouTube videos and even websites like the Drudge Report.

The hearing is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC last year, which struck down the FEC’s previous cap on aggregate campaign contributions from a single donor in an election cycle.

Before the decision, individuals were limited to a combined total of $46,200 in contributions to all federal candidates, and $70,800 to federal political action committees and parties.

Individuals are no longer restricted by aggregate limits, which Chief Justice John Roberts said “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise ‘the most fundamental First Amendment activities’.”

They may now “contribute up to $2,600 per election to a federal candidate, $10,000 per calendar year to a state party committee, $32,400 per calendar year to a national party committee, and $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC [political action committee],” according to the FEC.

The commission, which consists of three Republican and three Democratic members, last considered such regulations in 2005. However, intense opposition from First Amendment groups resulted in rules that were limited to paid advertisements from political campaigns, parties, and PACs.

This time around, organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have warned that some Democrats on the commission would like to impose much more burdensome regulations that could serve as the equivalent of spending caps in restricting political speech.

The article continues at the website. You can read it all, here.

What the FEC and FCC wants is to plant commissars in every newsroom, every TV station and to license all news outlets. It would effectively kill independent bloggers like me. Shades of the KBG and the Soviet Union. This is what the liberals and the democrats want. After all, Joe Stalin was such a great leader and brought Russia out of feudalism…by starving millions of people in the Ukraine when he collectivized agriculture. He murdered more across the former Soviet Union and in his subjugated East European countries. In fact Russia, Putin, is still killing anyone who opposes him and in the Ukraine. You won’t hear about that from the MSM, either.

***

If you do a bit of research, you will also find that the Cold War has returned. Obama and the democrats ignore the signs but they are there.

WEST: NORAD Head Says Russia Increasing Arctic Long Range Air Patrols

http://i0.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/f22s-intercept-Bear.jpg?resize=625%2C469

US Air Force F-22 Raptor escorting a Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bomber. US Air Force Photo

SAN DIEGO, CALIF. – While Russian military aircraft have stepped up their activity everywhere from the North Sea to the Baltic to the Black Sea in the last year they have also been spotted more frequently closer to the U.S. territory in the Arctic, the head of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) told USNI News on Tuesday.

In particular – flights of Tupolev Tu-95 Bear ‘H’ Bombers have increased recently NORTHCOM’s Adm. Bill Gortney said.

“They’ve been very aggressive – under my NORAD hat – for us in the Arctic,” he said to USNI News following a keynote address at the WEST 2015 conference.
“Aggressive in the amount of flights, not aggressive in how they fly.”

Since the March seizure of the Ukrainian region of Crimea by Russian forces Moscow has significantly stepped up air patrols in Europe, Asia and near the Americas.

The flights extend as far North as the edge of American air space near Alaska and as far South as U.S. holdings in Guam.

In December, two Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 Hornets intercepted a two Bears near the Beaufort Sea entering a U.S. and Canadian Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).

A Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear 'H' off the coast of Scotland in 2014. UK Royal Air Force Photo

A Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear ‘H’ off the coast of Scotland in 2014. UK Royal Air Force Photo.

NATO interdicted a record number of Russian flights in 2014 and the Russians claim likewise the U.S. has stepped up its own flights near Russian territory.

During the Cold War, Russian long-range aircraft routinely patrolled the edges of U.S. and Canadian airspace probing NORAD defenses, but largely stopped after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As for the current round of patrols, the bomber flights are being used as a “messaging tool,” Gortney said.
“Obviously it’s pretty clear that they’re doing that. So they’re flying in places… where they’ve never flown before.”

At the height of the Cold War, Americans stationed in Moscow were continuously harassed by the KGB. Embassy employees sometimes were sequestered on the Embassy grounds for their protection. Non-governmental Americans, news reporters and others, were assigned a ‘minder’ to insure they neither saw nor reported anything contrary to the official Soviet agenda.

Those times are returning. This time it’s Putin’s Federal Security Service disguised as the Russian mob who are targeting Americans.

Report: Crime, Anti-American Harassment in Russia Grows

New Security Dangers Follow Moscow’s Annexation of Crimea

BY: ,

Anti-American sentiment and criminal activities have increased in Moscow since Russian forces took over Ukraine’s Crimea and continue to destabilize eastern Ukraine, a recent State Department security report reveals.

Security threats in Moscow and Russia include petty crime, physical attacks, activities by organized crime groups, corrupt law enforcement and security officials, widespread cyber crime, and economic espionage, according to the Feb. 6 report produced by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), a State Department group that supports American businesses abroad.

“The social and political unrest in Ukraine has led to increasing political tensions between the Russian Federation and the U.S. and other Western nations,” the report, based on reports from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, said. “As a result, anti-American and anti-Western sentiment appears to be increasing, especially in certain media outlets.”

A copy of the internal report was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The report said U.S.-Russia ties were “greatly strained” after Moscow’s actions in Ukraine.

Embassy reports indicate a number of Americans were verbally harassed and physically assaulted in the last part of 2014, but the report said so far no major campaign of targeted attacks against Americans was detected.

“Immediately following the imposition of economic sanctions on Russia by the U.S. and Europe, some American ‘iconic brand’ companies were heavily scrutinized by the Russian authorities, and in some cases, closed, if only temporarily,” the report said.

The report concluded that Russia’s political, economic, and social climate “changed markedly as a result of the country’s illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, ongoing support for military separatists in eastern Ukraine, U.S./Western economic sanctions, and a dramatic drop in the price of oil that significantly weakened the value of the Russian ruble.”

On cyber threats, the report said: “The cybercrime threat is acute. The risk of infection, compromise, and theft via malware, spam email, sophisticated spear phishing, and social engineering attacks is significant.”

The report warned all U.S. businesses and citizens to exercise caution and adhere to all cyber security best practices.

The report also said Russian economic espionage and theft of intellectual property poses a threat to Americans.

“American businesses are susceptible to economic and industrial espionage,” the report said. “Information theft, especially from insufficiently protected computer networks, is common. It is recommended that businesses employ counter-surveillance techniques, such as video monitoring devices, alarm systems, and computer network protection programs.”

Russia’s Federal Security Service also can take action against Americans doing business with the Russian military-industrial complex.

“Any misunderstanding or dispute in such transactions can attract the involvement of the security services and lead to investigation or prosecution for espionage,” the report said.

In a section on Russian government surveillance, the report said, “OSAC constituents have no expectation of privacy.”

All telephone and electronic communications are subject to monitoring and surveillance, something that “can potentially compromise sensitive information.”

“The Russian System for Operational-Investigative Activities (SORM) permits authorities to monitor and record all data that traverses Russia’s networks lawfully,” the report said. “Travelers should assume all communications are monitored.”

The article continues here.

The rot in Washington extends much further than allowing a massive influx of illegal aliens bent on usurping citizen’s rights and money. It extends to purposely alienating long-term allies all the while intentionally ignoring real threats to our national security.

It is a truism that people get the government they deserve. It’s unfortunate the rest of us have to endure that same government along with the sycophants.

Will it pass?

For a number of years now, ‘Pubs have filed Right-to-Work (RTW) bills in the legislature. This year is no different. If I’ve counted correctly, three bills have been filed that address RTW, one, a partial implementation, was filed by a St. Louis democrat.

RTW has failed in the past. Narrowly, each time and each year the margin narrows toward success. Will this be the year when Missouri finally passes a true, not some watered down ineffectual version, Right-to-Work bill?

Maybe.

All three bills have successfully passed out of committee. Speaker John Diehl has placed all three on the House calendar for a floor vote. The two bills sponsored by ‘Pubs are nearly identical. The democrat version limits RTW to the construction trades only.

The unions believe they have enough legislators in their pocket to block RTW again. They cite a number of ‘Pub union shills newly elected last November. I note most of them are from the eastern side of the state, primarily around St. Louis.

The unions have gone so far as to put at least one legislator, a democrat, on their payroll. I’d call that an ethics violation. Will the ethics committee? Doubtful. It cuts too close to home for many legislators on the eastern side of the state.

***

Obama’s feud with Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu led him to send for partisan assistance to Bibi’s opponent in the upcoming Israeli election. The fued wasn’t just about Netanyahu’s upcoming speech before Congress. It’s a knife fight in a darkened room.

Israeli Election Update: U.S. Intervention Appears to Backfire

Likud takes its largest lead yet, shortly after news broke of the Obama administration trying to sandbag Netanyahu.

February 9, 2015 – 1:00 pm

Israeli polling published Friday seems to indicate that the Obama administration’s push to remove Binyamin Netanyahu from power and to replace him with the more pliable Yitzhak (“Buji”) Herzog is backfiring. The intervention was first reported by the left-leaning newspaper Haaretz just over a week ago.

This is how the numbers look as of Friday:

zarmi_israel_poll_numbers_2-9-15-1

This is the most significant lead either of the front-runners has had since this election cycle began. Previously, Likud or HaMachane haTziyoni had led the other by only one or two seats. If the final election results look like this, the most likely governing coalition will involve Likud, HaBayit haYehudi, Yahadut haTorah, Kulanu, Shas, and Yachad (64 seats out of a total 120).

It should be noted that such a coalition, incorporating not only the right-wing Bayit Yehudi but also the nationalistic Yachad, would be on a collision course with the EU and U.S. as the party platforms now stand.

Yachad in particular would tie Netanyahu’s hands and limit his flexibility in ways he would not find congenial. The Yachad party is comprised of three elements: loyalists of former Shas head Eli Yishai, who heads the list; religious Zionist elements disappointed with the secular nationalistic constitution forced upon Bayit Yehudi by Naftali Bennett, who in consequence left that party under Yoni Chetboun; and the radically national ‘Otzma Yehudit faction, who had not joined HaBayit haYehudi when Bennett created the current party out of two smaller, earlier ones because it was insufficiently nationalistic for them.

A split between the Yishai/Chetboun faction and ‘Otzma Yehudit under the strains of coalitionary negotiations appears likely, which would yield a smaller but more wieldy coalition for Netanyahu (probably 62 seats as of this writing).

Obama’s incompetency abounds. The Israeli Parliament has no two-party system. Like most similar governments, governance is by a coalition of small parties constantly in turmoil. Such a government has great difficulty getting anything done. On the other hand, it is much easier to remove a political leader who alienates the country. All-in-all, I still like our bicameral system better.

***

If the Obama and his pet chairman at the FCC have their way, the Internet, as we have know it for its free-wheeling ways, will soon be gone. Net-neutrality is coming via regulation. The dems have failed to pass Net-neutrality in Congress. Now, Obama will implement it via regulation.

Republican FCC Member Warns Net Neutrality Is Not Neutral

Chriss W. Street 9 Feb 2015
Ajit Pai, the sole Republican Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), inferred in a Tweet that President Barack Obama’s secret, 332-page “Net Neutrality” document is a scheme for federal micro-managing of the Internet to extract billions in new taxes from consumers and again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler recently acknowledged that the two Democrats on the commission had decided to avoid Congressional input regarding the Internet by adopting President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1934 Communications Act to regulate the Internet with the same federal control as the old AT&T customer monopoly. To make sure that libertarian advocates would remain in the dark, Wheeler “embargoed” release of any of the specifics in the new administrative “policy” that will act as law.

The FCC legislation that was passed eighty-one years ago by the most leftist Congress in American history to ban companies from participating in “unjust or unreasonable discrimination” when providing phone services to customers.

But in 1949, the Democrat-dominated Commission implemented the “Fairness Doctrine” that required holders of media broadcast licenses to present “issues of public importance” in a manner that is “honest, equitable, and balanced” in the “Commission’s view. It would take 39 years before a conservative Congress could overturn a policy that hijacked the mainstream media to kowtow to liberals or face loss of their licenses.

If the Internet economy was a country, it would rank fifth, behind only the U.S., China, Japan, and India. Economic activity on the Internet totals $4.2 trillion, and almost half of the earth’s 7 billion people are already connected to the Web.

Ajit Pai’s description of “President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet” sounds Orwellian. He tweeted a picture of himself holding the 332-page plan just below a picture of a smiling Barack Obama with a comment, “I wish the public could see what’s inside.” The implication depicted Obama as George Orwell’s “Big Brother.”

Pai also released a statement: “President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works,” he said. “The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband… These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.”

Pai had previously observed that he was concerned about the plan would hinder broadband investment, slow network speed and expansion, limit outgrowth to rural areas of the country, and reduce Internet service provider (ISP) competition.

“The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market,” Pai said. “As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get.”

Pai’s confrontational comments came after FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler penned an op-ed in Wired Magazine detailing his spin on the core aspects of the Democrat’s desire to lump ISPs under the amended Title II of the 1996 Telecommunications Act — which was used to break-up the AT&T telephone monopoly into four regional Bell companies at the dawn of the digital age.

“Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC,” Wheeler wrote on Wednesday. “These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.”

Pai responded that the “Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation” during the Obama Administration. On January 14, 2014, the D.C. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals struck down most of the FCC’s November 2011 net neutrality rules. The Appellate Court vacated the FCC’s “anti-discrimination” and “anti-blocking” as essentially discriminatory and blocking in an attempt to again give the FCC political appointees the power to dictate what they believe is honest, equitable, and balanced.

Pai said that after a year of debates responding to the courts twice striking down FCC efforts to regulate the Internet, “There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.”

Pai promised he would make further comments as he reviews the plan himself in the next two weeks in the run-up to the FCC’s public vote on February 26. He has blamed the two Democrat Commissioners’ for their dismissal of any negotiations with Congressional Republicans in setting the “basic rules” governing Internet access.

As Breitbart has highlighted before, turning the Internet into a “telephone service” would “empower an intrusive public sector that thrives on high taxes, heavy-handed controls and the status quo.”

The real purpose for these regulation is to enable the FedGov to regulate content on the internet, i.e., to impose censorship. Do not be mislead by democrats, there is nothing ‘neutral’ about this. It’s nothing less than an attempt to nationalize internet access and censor content.

Many people are concerned about the intrusiveness of social media like Facebook. If these new FCC regulations are enabled, Facebook will the least of your privacy concerns.

Just as an FYI, you have to pay a tax in the UK to have access to the internet. In times past, you actually had to have a license to have a webserver, a website, or a phone in the UK. I ‘think’ the latter has loosened up a bit. Maybe.

When federal bureaucrats control our internet, internet access taxes and licensing will not be far behind.