Obama-Pelosi Marxist Internet Scheme

From: Conservative News Alerts  Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009

---

An Obama-Pelosi-Reid Scheme to take over the Internet?  Please review this message from our friends at 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.

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?

Here's Yet Another Disgusting Obama Administration Attack On The First Amendment.

     Another blatant example of this horrific intent to silence any and all political opposition occurred just recently, when the White House – just before an interview with "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg – announced that FOX News reporters would be prohibited from participating in the White House Press Pool.

     It was more than a declaration of war against FOX News. It was a declaration of war against freedom of the press.

     The Press Pool is a five-member group consisting of ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX News and NBC. It was organized by the White House Correspondents Association, and, as such, it is not the prerogative of the White House to interfere in its activities.

     White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs as much. In fact, two days earlier he said just that to Carol E. Lee of Politico.com in reference to FOX News:
 

Lee: Does that mean the White House doesn't believe they should be part of the press pool? Gibbs: The press pool is decided by the White House Correspondents Association. Lee: So you have no opinion on whether they should be... Gibbs: I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job.

      Two days later it became his job. You can almost envision Obama giving the order… looking down his nose… wagging his professorial finger.

     Obama, after all, is the man who will not be criticized. And he was apparently arrogant enough to believe the other networks would support him for cutting off a rival and enemy.

     They didn't.

     They told Obama, or his messenger, that if he banned FOX News, the other networks would boycott the press conference. Obama blinked, and FOX News won that round, but the incident clearly shows that the Obama Administration is obsessed with squelching the speech of its critics.

     Don't let this attack on the First Amendment succeed.

And Here's Yet Another Organization That Found Itself In Obama's Cross-Hairs For Opposing The Obama Agenda.
     The non-profit U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the latest group to make Obama's hit list. That's because the Chamber – made up largely of small businesses – has questioned the negative impact on its membership of both the Cap-and-Trade bill and ObamaCare. So Team Obama went to war with the organization.

     As the Washington Post reported:

"Instead of working through the Chamber, President Obama has reached out to business executives, meeting repeatedly with small groups of CEOs in his private White House dining room. He also has dispatched top aides Valerie Jarrett and Chief of Staff Rahn Emanuel to corporate boardrooms. Since the summer, the three have met with some of the biggest names in the business community, including the heads of IBM, Wal-Mart Stores, Time Warner, Eastman Kodak, Starbucks, Amazon.com and Coca-Cola."

"In the process, Obama is attempting to rewrite the rules of the game in Washington, where the Chamber and other business lobbying groups have long held a highly visible, and powerful, place at the intersection of policy and politics."

     After Team Obama desperately tried to pry members loose from the Chamber, Valerie Jarrett – the president's chief business liaison – dismissed the organization by saying: "The question we have is: Does the Chamber really represent the business community the way they used to? It seems as though their members are disengaging."

     The Post reports: "Chamber officials hint that they think the White House has been encouraging the defections. Jarrett denied that vehemently, saying, 'They have to be responsible for their own membership, not us.'"

     In tangling with the Chamber, Obama is sending a message to all trade organizations and associations in Washington:

     Support my agenda or I will go after your membership and cut off your legs at the knees. It's a very real and unprecedented threat.

     Obama's ruthless attack on freedom must be resisted wherever it rears its ugly head.

 

Chris Carmouche, C4Strategies, GrasstopsUSA, 8230 Catbird Circle 302, Lorton VA 22079 - 888-864-1964, 888-239-9306 FAX

---