“I DIDN’T BELEIVE YOU THEN AND I DON’T BELIEVE YOU NOW!” Yells Congressman at Hearing on Net Neutrality

New post on The Last Great Stand

“I DIDN’T BELEIVE YOU THEN AND I DON’T BELIEVE YOU NOW!” Yells Congressman at Hearing on Net Neutrality by Voice of Reason

 

NET NEUTRALITY IS A COMPLETE HOAX!

 

I AM GOING TO YELL THIS FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES!

 

HINT: CALL YOU CONGRESSMAN AND LIGHT THEM UP OVER THIS!

 

HERE IS THE DIRECTORY FOR ALL OF CONGRESS!

 

NOTHING DRASTIC - MAYBE AROUND 300 CALLS PER PERSON PER DAY?

 

SOUNDS FAIR TO ME!

 

 

OBAMA ACCUSED OF "MEDDLING" IN SWEEPING NEW INTERNET REGULATIONS

 

OF COURSE HE IS!

 

PEOPLE STILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT NET NEUTRALITY REALLY IS!

 

One would THINK after we elected someone NOT FIT FOR THE OVAL OFFICE because as a nation we were TOO LAZY to vet the candidate first, that we might have learned a lesson. NOPE. One would THINK after after we learned about all of Obama’s MEDDLING in the affairs of the IRS, and how HORRIBLY that turned out, that we might have learned a lesson there. NOPE. One would THINK after how bad the country got SCREWED with Obamacare, and all the shady backroom deals that went on to pass that bill that Obama has ILLEGALLY and UNILATERALLY changed 19 TIMES, that we might have learned as lesson from THAT. NOPE. One would THINK after the President of the United States was named LIAR OF THE YEAR with the whole routine about, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” that maybe THEN we might have FINALLY learned a lesson. NOPE.

 

When two of the most reputable polling agencies in the country tell us that overwhelmingly AMERICANS BELIEVE OBAMA IS INCOMPETENT, DISHONEST, AND UNTRUSTWORTHY and the TWO WORDS USED MOST TO DESCRIBE OBAMA WHEN REFERRING TO HIM ARE “LIAR” & “INCOMPETENT, that we might have learned from THAT. STILL, NOTHING. One would THINK after DEMOCRATS IN HIS OWN PARTY BEGAN CALLING OBAMA “FLAT FOOTED,” “DETACHED,” AND “INCOMPETENT,” that we might have learned SOMETHING for heavens sake. NOPE. Still, here we sit, not one iota wiser than the day he took office. Forget the KEYSTONE PIPELINE AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT ASSAULT, the Internet is going to be NOTHING like we've know it. IF, IF, I said IF Obama's changes are SO good, then WHY has the FCC chair REFUSED to even tell CONGRESS when CALLED before them. 

 

WHAT?!?!?!?

 

CALLING THE MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY!!!

CALLING CAPTAIN TRANSPARENCY!

 

 

As I said in a previous post related to Net Neutrality:

 

I’m sorry, did I read that correctly? The FCC Chairman REFUSES to come before Congress? If there is nothing to hide, and this is all about “FAIR SPEEDS AND RATES FOR NETFLIX USERS,” then what is there to hide?

 

HINT: THE WHOLE BILL!

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEUTRALITY!

 

I have made a REALLY big deal on my Facebook and Twitter pages about "NET NEUTRALITY" for a long time… and as per usual… I’ve been ignored for a long time… and as per usual I was right AGAIN. If you are reading this, then CLEARLY you care enough about the future of this nation to spend 5 minutes READING something that is not contained solely within a headline, sound bite, or a picture to be shared a million times on Facebook. However, that also means that since you are in the overwhelming MINORITY by actually READING, the responsibility lies on YOU to TELL every person you know the TRUTH, and SHARE this information EVERYWHERE you can including YOUR Facebook and Twitter pages.

 

This country is EVAPORATING right before our eyes, and if past performance is any Indication of the future, then you might want to start telling everyone you know about many of the other topics myself and other members of the alternative media have been SCREAMING about for a few years in some cases. So far, most of us are battling what? 1000? Take that as a hint the media is LYING TO YOU!

 

 

REFUSES to testify? What would happen if you or I REFUSED to testify when called before Congress? Not only does he refuse to come before Congress, he REFUSES to release what they are doing… ARE YOU KIDDING?

 

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

 

WIKIPEDIA DEFINES CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS AS:

 

"Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of documents."

 

The CRIMINAL OFFENSE of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at NOT LESS THAN ONE MONTH AND NO MORE THAN ONE YEAR IN JAIL, and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.

 

ADD THAT TO THE LIST OF LAWS OBAMA IS IGNORING!

 

OBAMA DICTATED INTERNET TAKEOVER TO THE FCC - AND NOW THE CHAIRMAN REFUSES TO TESTIFY OR ANSWER QUESTIONS!

 

THIS IS HOW THIRD-WORLD DICTATORSHIPS OPERATE!

 

Sword-At-The-Ready reports: 

 

After the shellacking the Democrat party was handed this past November, His Heinous Barrack Hussein Obama goes to the FCC – an ‘independent’ agency and hands them SECRET PLANS HE DEMANDS THEY IMPLEMENT in order to NATIONALIZE (COUGH, SOCIALIZE, COUGH) and TAKE OVER the internet.  Under the FALSE GUISE of ‘net neutrality’ two Republicans on the committee blew the whistle and warned that this is ‘ObamaCare for the internet’ – intended to ultimately restrict content and access to news and information.

 

WRITTEN IN SECRET (REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING?) AND PASSED INTO “LAW” BEFORE ANY OF US KNOW WHAT “RULES” WILL BE IMPOSED - THIS IS EXACTLY HOW A DICTATORSHIP OPERATES! 

 

AND AMERICA DOES LITTLE MORE THAN WHIMPER!

 

 

The Republicans run like sissies from daring to confront and stop this lawlessness.  When they ordered FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to testify before a Congressional oversight committee today, BEFORE the takeover tomorrow, Wheeler defiantly refused to do so – and the Republicans on the committee were indignant enough to simply state without emotion that they are “deeply disappointed”.

 

“Deeply disappointed”?????  HOW ABOUT GETTING THE SERGEANT-AT ARMS TO MAKE AN ARREST FOR CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS? How about the House and Senate demand hearings before the FCC is allowed to make ‘law”?  How about the House DE-FUND the FCC entirely until they comply with the demand that they let the American people study these Obama-drafted plans before they make them policy????

 

But no – the GOP is a surrender-monkey party that is more content to go along with the dictatorship because they think they will keep a seat at Obama’s table than stand up to oppose unconstitutional and lawless dictatorial decrees that strip up of our liberties.  The most we will get is a shrug of the shoulder and a sigh of “disappointed” from the lips of a completely neutered and totally complicit Republican party.

 

THE PERMISSIBLE AND FREE INTERNET AS WE KNEW IT...

 

IS GONE ONCE THE NEW RULES BEGIN!

G-O-N-E!!!!!

 

You will not feel it right away, but in time the pain will become perhaps more pronounced than your health care costs.  Keep watching your bill go up in the coming months as the ISP giants repackage their services to comply with these new secret plans and maximize their income in other ways.  If you read or write blogs like this one – in a year – it is possible they will no longer exist due to FEC campaign laws being applied to any political discourse.  The federal Beast will then run and control the totality of the internet, limiting access, content and speed, while the cost will skyrocket beyond the reach of most, and all the so-called opposition party can muster is ‘deeply disappointed’????

 

WE ARE SO SCREWED! 

 ON OUR OWN, UNABLE TO RESIST AND DEFY TYRANNY!

 

IT’S WELL PAST LOCK AND LOAD TIME!

 

 

 

NET NEUTRALITY: 

WHAT IT REALLY MEANS, AND HOW IT COULD IMPACT YOU

 

What I am about to say really should not come as any great shock, but unless you’ve taken the time to look into it, you could very easily be duped by the RIDICULOUSLY MISLEADING name the progressives have come up with. The author of the article says EXACTLY what I was thinking when I heard of “Net Neutrality,” and why shouldn’t he or I think it… except for the fact that it presumes Obama and Co. are being honest. Duh. What were we thinking on that one? The author writes:

 

“When I first heard people talking about Obama's attempt to push the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to "keep the internet free and open" I thought, well, that sounds good to me. Last Monday, in his plea for the implementation of rules for net neutrality, Obama used terms like "fairness" and "freedom." He expressed the need for more government control to ensure equal Internet access for everyone.”

 

For being duped by the "Net Neutrality" name, shame on me. I should know better. In my defense, Obama and this administration have SO MANY lies going, and SO MANY scandals, it is impossible to be on point and see through the ALL the nonsense ALL the time. It’s mentally taxing to have to look beyond the surface of what is said and figure out what is REALLY going on with EVERYTHING that comes out of the sociopath’s mouth. Unfortunately, to know what’s going on you simply MUST do that or Obama is going to dupe you. PERIOD. 

 

HOW DO YOU KNOW IF OBAMA IS LYING? 

HIS LIPS ARE MOVING! 

 

I’ll let the author speak about the nuances of “Net Neutrality” in the article below, however I do want to say a few more things. First, as a general rule of thumb, if a bill or idea comes from the Democrats, and it has a name that makes it difficult to say you oppose it just on the merits of the name alone: BEWARE! For example: “The Affordable Care Act” has been ANYTHING BUT affordable, the “Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” did EVERYTHING BUT reform and protect consumers, and true to form: “Net Neutrality” does EVERYTHING BUT maintain free speech and keep the Internet “neutral.” 

 

Democrats come up with these CRAZY NAMES to try to catch Republicans in "GOTCHA MOMENTS." Consider this: pick any reporter from any of the Obama loving media outlets, and ask yourself if they are more likely to ask about the MERITS of a bill, or to ask, "Are you for or against the Affordable Care Act?" TRAPPED! Who would allow the media to get THAT sound bite? What is a Republican supposed to say? "Uh, yes, I am in total opposition to the 'Affordable Care Act' because... [CUT]." You don't ACTUALLY think the liberal media is going to give enough time to explain that the bill's name is misleading DO YOU?

 

THINK ABOUT IT: Why would the President who SIGNED A BILL “IN SECRET” MAKING FREE SPEECH ILLEGAL, or who SIGNED A BILL THAT COULD LAND A PERSON JAIL TIME FOR PROTESTING, want anything close to free speech and “Neutrality” to prevail on the Internet? Why would the same party that SOUGHT TO ALTER THE FIRST AMENDMENT’S FREE SPEECH PROTECTION all of a sudden be FOR free speech? Liberals like Senator Feinstein were going as far as to TRY TO REMOVE BLOGGERS RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH so the Communists in D.C. could better control the narrative they WANT people to hear, instead of the TRUTH. Thankfully, THE DEMOCRATS' ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE THE FIRST AMENDMENT FAILED. 

 

IN AN EMPIRE OF LIES, TRUTH IS THE ENEMY!

 

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

 

In the video included in, DHS INSIDER SAYS THAT THAT OBAMA HAS GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT TO RACE WARS, we are told Obama is reportedly ESPECIALLY irritated with alternative media (citizen journalism) on the Internet, because people are learning the TRUTH too fast, and ignoring the CRAP being spewed by the Obama loving media. We are told CISPA will be making a comeback soon too (naturally), so BE ON THE LOOKOUT!

 

TEAM OBAMA:

 

 

Freedom Outpost writes: Net neutrality. That sounds like a friendly term, like something we all would WANT, right?

 

When I first heard people talking about Obama's attempt to push the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to "keep the internet free and open" I thought, well, that sounds good to me. Last Monday, in his plea for the implementation of rules for net neutrality, Obama used terms like "fairness" and "freedom." He expressed the need for more government control to ensure equal Internet access for everyone.

 

And he said that abandoning the principles of net neutrality "would threaten to end the Internet as we know it."

 

But, as with everything else that interests me, I had to research it for myself. Whenever a politician (especially one who aggressively forces things like Obamacare) pushes for something, I think it is natural to have some level of skepticism.

 

So, for the last week, I have been heavily researching this so-called "net neutrality" to find out what it is all about, and why so many support it.

 

In reality, "net neutrality" is as confusing as its name.

 

There are two pieces to this that need to be identified and explained before we go further. One is the term "net neutrality" and other is "Title IIregulation."

 

What IS net neutrality?

 

Here's what Obama wants to you think it is:

 

"Net neutrality" has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.

 

Obama wants the FCC to "create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online." (Could it be that this is a way for the GOVERNMENT to restrict what we can do or see online? Read on to find out.)

 

Here are the rules he is recommending:

 

• No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
• No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called "throttling" — based on the type of service or your ISP's preferences.
• Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called "last mile" — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
• No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a "slow lane" because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet's growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

 

How does Obama want the FCC to do all of this?

 

His explanation, in his own words:

 

So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

 

The "other vital services" Obama is referring to are public utilities like water and electricity. In other words, he wants the internet to be regulated the same way.

 

THAT "SOUNDS" LIKE OBAMA IS LOOKING OUT FOR AMERICA CITIZENS DOESN'T IT?

 

LET'S INVESTIGATE!

 

Back in June, Tom Woods talked to Berin Szoka about net neutrality and what it means.

 

Szoka is the president and founder of TechFreedom, a non-profit technology think tank in Washington, DC. Before founding TechFreedom, Berin was a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Center for Internet Freedom at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, and previously practiced Internet & communications law.

 

Please visit TechFreedom's net neutrality myth-busting website Don't Break the Net for a more detailed explanation of Title II and what reclassifying the internet would mean for consumers.

 

Here is Szoka's interview with Woods.

 

Last week, the Cato Institute spoke with Szoka:

 

Is Obama exploiting the confusion over net neutrality in an attempt to push Draconian Title II regulation – and, ultimately, more taxes – upon citizens?

 

IT SURE SEEMS THAT WAY!