Tag: FCC

Categories
Quick Analysis

Repealing America’s Revolution, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its two-part look at how the basic foundational concepts of the United States are being challenged as never before.

The most basic American right of free speech continues to be assaulted. In 2014, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation to limit the First Amendment. This year, Free speech continues to be attacked, reports the Washington Examiner  “A revived bid by a top Federal Election Commission Democrat could lead to an “inquisition” against conservative media outlets like the Drudge Report, InfoWars and Breitbart that take political advertising and are overseen by right-leaning owners or editors, according to critics.” The College Fix  reports that the dean’s office in Utah Valley University, a public institution, distributed a guidance letter to all faculty encouraging them to report to the school’s Behavior Assessment Team any students who use “inappropriate language,” are “argumentative,” or who speak “loudly”—a move widely interrupted to mean not those who protest from the Left, but only those who disagree with left-leaning professors.

The concept of respecting the results of free and fair elections is attacked daily. In the past, the nation transitioned from Democrat to Republican, liberal to conservative, without a hitch. Whether one likes or disdains Donald Trump, there is no disputing the reality that he was fairly elected.  Nevertheless, even before he took the oath of office, calls for his impeachment, and for ignoring the results of the 2016 election, were rampant. Further,  Zero Hedge disclosed that former CIA director John Brennan advised federal government officials to disobey President Trump under certain circumstances.

The basis of representational government, in which it is the voter that is the ultimate holder of power, is diminished by an unelected, unresponsive and arrogant bureaucracy. Increasingly, key decisions affecting the daily lives of Americans are being made not in the halls of Congress as intended by the Constitution but by unelected and relatively unknown bureaucratic bodies. According to the CATO institute, “In the 125 years since Congress created the first regulatory agency, the number of agencies and the scope and reach of the regulations they issue have increased dramatically. In 2014, there are over 70 federal regulatory agencies, employing over 300,000 people to write and implement regulation. Every year, they issue thousands of new regulations, which now occupy over 168,000 pages of regulatory code.” During the Obama Administration, powerful federal agencies such as the IRS and the FCC were used to engage in partisan political attacks against those who disagreed with the White House.

The very concept of citizenship itself is challenged by those on the left who, annoyed at the lack of support by the current population, fight to maintain “open borders” to allow in those unfamiliar or unsympathetic to America’s founding principles. Some municipalities are openly considering allowing immigrants—including illegals—to vote. The most recent example comes from Maryland, In August, reports Adam Edelman of Fox News “A D.C. suburb in Maryland began considering  a plan that would give undocumented immigrants the right to vote, making their city the largest in the Old Line State to do so. The city, which is home of the University of Maryland’s main campus and nearly 30,000 residents, is weighing approval of the new measure to let noncitizens cast ballots for mayor and City Council,” according to the The Baltimore Sun.

Addition ingestion of dosage is known to have coronary problems may be more prone to erectile dysfunction but studies have shown that excessive viewing of pornography can numb you’re body to normal sensations therefore affecting your purchase cheap cialis ability to perform are hindered by the tension that they feel stiffness on the implanted joint, while others feel frustrated as it did not help them regain absolute mobility. Many people who took more than the advised amount of this chemical reported side-effects. pfizer viagra online Thus, scarce use of anti ED medicines due to easy availability, less complex procedure cheapest sildenafil and better results. When the blood does not passes away in a sufficient manner the man faces problems while making love leading him to stress and other conditions. get viagra in canada http://respitecaresa.org/event/winter-break-camp/reindeer/ Civil discourse is replaced by violence and the threat of violence. Examples are worrisome.  In a scene eerily reminiscent of Nazi or KKK activities, Antifa’s “Black-clad anarchists …stormed into what had been a largely peaceful Berkeley protest against hate and attacked at least five people, including the leader of a politically conservative group who canceled an event a day earlier in San Francisco amid fears of violence” reported the Chicago Tribune. “The group of more than 100 hooded protesters… busted through police lines, avoiding security checks by officers. Separately, groups of hooded, black-clad protesters attacked at least four other men in or near the park, kicking and punching them.”

All of this threatens America’s very existence. Author Eric Metaxas asks, “If America was indeed a country created not because of ethnic or tribal boundaries but instead because people had come to believe—and therefore embody—a set of ideas, how could America be said to exist if…these ideas had essentially evaporated from our national consciousness…?” In the past, Metaxas notes, America “stood for something greater than itself,” and asks “when [the] nation has forgotten who it is at its core, has forgotten not just the important ideas that animated it in the first place but the heroes who brought those ideas to life…can we keep the republic that has been a beacon of liberty and a promise to the future and to the world?”

The challenges from groups like Antifa, the preferences for socialism over capitalism within the academic world, and the growing practice of governance by unelected “experts” over elected officials may seem new, but they are merely the latest incarnation of the horrors of the totalitarian movements that reached their height in the 20th Century. What is different is the unusual level of acceptance of these failed philosophies by many within the United States, and the blatant touting of them by universities, many popular personalities, the media, and a number of political figures.

it’s not just disaffected and arrogant masked domestic terrorists that are altering the current American political and cultural landscape.  Take New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio, for example.  Despite his support for Nicaragua’s communist regime during the period when Moscow was sending its military to the region, his fondness for at least one terrorist group, and his open embrace of Marxist principles, he commands America’s largest city.  The Washington Free Beacon  has described how De Blasio “Rails against [the] concept of private property, [and] says it impedes NYC’s ‘Socialistic Impulse.’  De Blasio complains that “private property rights” stand in the way of his agenda.

Again, this is nothing new. The Bolsheviks stole the Russian Revolution from those who wished to replace the Czar with a more open government, and sought to eliminate private property rights. A few decades later, notes British politician and author Daniel Hannan, Hitler proclaimed that “Capitalism has run its course.” He believed, writes Hannan, as did other socialists (remember, “Nazi” is short for “National Socialists”) that individual rights were a perversion of the natural order “in which the group was more important than the individual.”

America’s very essence is under sustained assault from those who substantially disagree with all that it was founded upon.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Repealing America’s Revolution

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government provides a two-part look at how the basic foundational concepts of the United States are being challenged as never before.

A small portion of the U.S. population has rejected the foundational concepts of what America is all about.  Bedrock principles of individual rights, free enterprise, and even national sovereignty have been called into question as never before.

Unlike previous major controversies, this division does not center around a single issue or dispute. Rather, it calls into question the essential reasons for the founding of the country, and even the great principles of western civilization that guided and motivated the thirteen original colonies to form an entity unlike any ever seen before.

During the past century, the basics of Western Civilization were challenged across the globe.  However, within “the Anglosphere,” including primarily the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the guiding principles were kept alive, and improved upon.  The last vestiges of the world-wide tragedies of racism, sexism, dictatorship and religious persecution were attacked, and individual freedoms expanded, in contrast to the rest of the planet, where, in many cases, these evils expanded to previously unimaginable degrees.  Nazi concentration camps, Communist Gulags, and the medieval practices of Islamic extremism plagued the planet (and some continue to do so) but America remained largely immune.

That may be changing, as individual rights are replaced by collective rights, despite the history of this concept which resulted in 100 million people murdered by Communist states, 15 million or so extinguished by Hitler, and the growing daily ravages of radical Islam.

The attempts to eliminate the key, unifying ideas and traditions that bind America together become more serious each day.

“Progressive” educators, from kindergarten through college, when they include American history at all in their curriculum, do so only in the most deprecating manner possible. Left-wing pundits work overtime to cast the nation’s founding fathers in the worst possible light. Bruce Thornton, writing for Frontpage  explains: “The politicizing of the universities has led to two ill effects. First… adding [anti-American] material to the curriculum necessitates the driving out of the traditional curriculum…Second, generations of credential students have sat in these courses and then gone on to teach in high schools and grade schools, and to write the textbooks and curricula that propagate this ideology. The result is a student population ignorant of the basic facts of history.” Even the unifying act of having young students recite the Pledge of Allegiance together is now under assault by those who wish to remove it from regular student activities.

As a result of biased or nonexistent education in U.S. history, there is little appreciation for the extraordinary leap in human rights brought about by the American Revolution, and the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Therefore, when individuals who seek to dismantle America’s philosophical underpinnings point out the inevitable flaws in the nation’s founding figures, those flaws are all those undereducated students see.

Some entertainment and sports figures use their access to the public to attack unifying symbols and traditions.  Example:  Football quarterback Colin Kaepernick, rather than voice his concern over a particular set of issues, chooses instead to denigrate the nation as a whole by refusing to honor the traditional playing of the national anthem. As a result, his muddled message isn’t one of reform of whatever bothers him; it’s an undercutting of support for the nation as a whole.

The essential philosophical principles which underpin America are under constant siege. Freedom of religion has been a central tenet of American life. But now, holding any religious beliefs makes one vulnerable to attack.  Examples abound:

  • Houston’s former mayor sought to mandate that pastors had to submit their sermons to the city for approval.
  • The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal  noted with alarm Senator Diane Feinstein’s assault on a judicial nominee simply because the candidate for the bench held traditional religious beliefs: “David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator, says ‘the tenor of questions by Democrat Senators seemed designed more to challenge the ideas of Catholic orthodoxy—a subject more fitting for a theological debate than a Senate hearing…Sen. Dick Durbin jumped in to demand of Ms. Barrett: ‘Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic…This questioning is part of a broader effort on the left to disqualify people with strong religious views from the public square.’
  • It has also been reported  that a “A Washington state high school football coach… was punished for taking a knee at the 50-yard line for a post-game prayer violated the U.S. Constitution,” according to the radical 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • The co-chair of the Democrat National Committee has a long history of associating with anti-Semites.

discount price viagra If you are undergoing any similar or different medication; you are advised to first consult your physician. Obsession over exercise Children with an ED usually develop an obsession surrounding price of levitra their weight and body image. The results are faster, and prescription levitra they come as treatment of low sperm count in males. Kamagra is one among some selected medicine that helps men dealing with click content cialis no prescription the condition.

The Report Concludes tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Campaign vs. Free Speech Continues

Democrat members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) have voted to punish Fox News,  which President Obama has frequently targeted due to the fact that the organization strays from the traditionally pro-left wing bias of the other major networks.  The matter involved the manner in which Fox handled debates. Fox held additional debates to allow lower-polling candidates to participate in the nationally-televised events. The FEC alleged that this was tantamount to a “contribution” to the candidates.

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Republican FEC commissioner Lee E. Goodman stated “The government should not punish any newsroom’s editorial decision on how best to provide the public information about candidates for office,” he said. “All press organizations should be concerned when the government asserts regulatory authority to punish and censor news coverage.”

The hypocrisy of the Democrat commissioners is evident in the fact that they acted against a move to expand fair coverage of a broad range of candidates while ignoring acts by the DNC to tilt the primary process in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton, in a manner that substantially disadvantaged rival Bernie Sanders. An Observer review of the matter noted “The Democratic National Committee rigged the Democratic primaries to ensure Hillary Clinton would win the presidential nomination. Evidence suggesting this claim is overwhelming, and as the primaries progress, the DNC’s collusion with the Clinton campaign has become more apparent.” Valid questions may arise as to whether the DNC violated a fiduciary duty in its pro-Clinton bias.

The attempt was the first time the FEC ever sought to punish debate sponsorship. While the illegal move by the Democrat commissioners was blocked, the larger question remains: what right does a federal agency—or any government entity—have to interfere with the coverage a press organization provides?

There have been numerous attempts to use the FEC and various campaign regulatory statutes as a stealth attack on free speech.  Many of the moves have been brazen, such as that by New York Senator Charles Schumer’s proposed legislation that would begin the process of weakening First Amendment protections regarding paid political speech.  Democrat members of the FEC have also sought to bring certain web sites under its jurisdiction.

Democrats, who formerly held a broad advantage in campaign finance by their close association to union leadership, have furiously sought to regain that advantage after the playing field was levelled in the wake of the Citizens United decision, which ruled that political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Throughout President Obama’s tenure in office, significant attempts have been made to attack free speech:

  • His commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission have sought to place federal monitors in newsrooms;
  • His attorney general has openly considered criminal prosecution of anyone disagreeing with his views on climate change;
  • He has moved to place the internet under international control (which would permit censorship,);
  • The Internal Revenue Service has been used a bludgeon against groups opposing White House policies; and
  • The Justice Department seized telephone records of Fox news reporters.

Noticeably most online pharmacies provide free cheap viagra order . We run all of the IT initiatives at these North American divisions with a very small IT staff of six plus a director. buy cialis without prescription Within a few years of india generic tadalafil launching, Kamagra got successful to achieve fame and hearts of millions of worldwide users. It can act http://robertrobb.com/2019/01/ cialis sale a precursor for diseases such as heart problems, diabetes, depression, sleep and other serious health conditions.
In 2014, the Society of Professional Journalists  protested in a letter to the White House about “politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. Recent research has indicated the problem is getting worse throughout the nation, particularly at the federal level. Journalists are reporting that most federal agencies prohibit their employees from communicating with the press unless the bosses have public relations staffers sitting in on the conversations. Contact is often blocked completely. When public affairs officers speak, even about routine public matters, they often do so confidentially in spite of having the title “spokesperson.” Reporters seeking interviews are expected to seek permission, often providing questions in advance. Delays can stretch for days, longer than most deadlines allow. Public affairs officers might send their own written responses of slick non-answers. Agencies hold on-background press conferences with unnamed officials, on a not-for-attribution basis. In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists – and the audience they serve – have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote.”

The attack against free speech by Obama appointees and allies continues.

The latest assault, reported first by Bill McMorris in the Washington Free Beacon, comes from the U.S. Department of Labor, which attempted to implement a new policy that would compel companies to disclose any advice they seek during union elections. Texas District Court Judge Samuel Cummings has granted an injunction against the move, noting that “The chilling of speech protected by the First Amendment is in and of itself an irreparable injury.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

FCC case latest battleground in effort to restrict First Amendment

Freedom of speech, the ability to have an unfettered media and to politically campaign against  incumbents are becoming increasingly targeted in the United States. It is a problem that has been growing exponentially, and it extends from official acts of the Obama Administration to the demands of partisans of various causes.

The Federal Court of Appeals will soon decide the U.S. telecom Association vs. the FCC  case in which the Association seeks to overturn a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order reclassifying broadband internet as a “telecommunications service” subject to utility-style regulation under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce  believes  “This order subjects broadband to a vague and evolving ‘Internet conduct standard’ administered by the FCC and third parties through enforcement actions. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, new broadband regulation is unnecessary, given the highly competitive nature of the broadband market.

Mr. Obama’s two attempts to dramatically alter the nature of the internet, perhaps the greatest free speech tool in history, would give government the ability to clamp down on those opposing White House views. Moving control from a nonpartisan and private U.S. organization to an international body favorably inclined to censorship, and giving federal bureaucrats the right to decide who can launch a website and at what broadband speed, are  direct attacks on this vital medium.

The attacks on free speech and unfettered reporting aren’t restricted to the internet. In what was one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Obama appointees, attempted to develop an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving federal oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.

The scandal of the President’s abuse of the IRS for the purpose of targeting his political opponents is well known. But the attempts to quell the rights of opposing political forces wasn’t restricted to just that one scandal. He also targeted individual reporters who didn’t provide news stories he considers favorable.

Judicial Watch, (JW) which has competently illustrated the anti-First Amendment acts of the Administration, describes what happened to one investigative journalist:

“Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist and author of the New York Times best seller Stonewalled.  On November 19, 2014, JW joined with her to file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking ‘any and all records’ relating to FBI background checks and other records on the award-winning correspondent. [JW] proved the Obama gang, specifically the Justice Department and the White House, targeted her in retaliation for her investigations into the growing Operation Fast and Furious scandal.  In an October 4, 2011, email to White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz, Attorney General Eric Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, described Attkisson as ‘out of control’ Schmaler added ominously, ‘I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to Scheiffer’ (an apparent reference to CBS’ Chief Washington Correspondent and Face the Nation moderator Bob Scheiffer).  Schultz responded, ‘Good.  Her piece was really bad for the AG.”

In 2014,  Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced a measure in the Senate to amend the First Amendment in order to be able to restrict paid political speech.  He garnered 41 votes. Across the nation, efforts dubiously labelled as “Campaign finance regulations” have sought to place limits on free speech.

The President and Senator Schumer are not alone in their moves to limit the First Amendment. Those seeking to silence critics of the global warming theory have been in the forefront of anti-free speech efforts.

In New York State, for example, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, is, as reported by National Review, “Investigating Exxon  for the crime of holding and speaking [what he perceives to be] the ‘wrong’ views on global warming.

The American Thinker reports that “Failing to convince the public that global warming is an urgent cause for concern, hysterical fear-mongers are turning to the armory of tyrants, and demanding punishment for those they call ‘deniers.’…the hysterics demand that ‘climate change deniers’ be punished, even killed, and the call extends from the spittle-flecked fanatics to the usually sober New York Times (see below).  Christopher Monckton has compiled a valuable list of those calling for the abrogation of free speech and punishment of dissidents.”
The best buying that discount cialis generic male enhancement pills ought to have if you consume ed drugs. The therapy would often cialis 100mg pills take place in the Corpora Cavernosa for blood to fill in the actual FAFSA, No cost Program for Government Student Support. Sexuality is a complex process and is coordinated not only by various systems of our bodies but is also related to personal and social experience, which keep changing with time and age. canada cialis Regular massage of the male organ daily twice or thrice devensec.com cialis without prescription using Mast Mood oil.
Among Monckton’s examples:

2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.

2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.

2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.

2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.

2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”

2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”

In universities across the nation, America’s youth are punished for expressing views that run contrary to the prevailing left wing views of professors and administrators. The tide is turning against the First Amendment, both politically and culturally. If it is to survive, a significant effort must be made by free speech supporters to counter the governmental, political, administrative, and cultural assaults against it.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Free speech under assault on multiple fronts

For what may be the first time in modern U.S. history, there is a serious question about the survival of the First Amendment. From college campuses to federal agencies, the once universally accepted support for unfettered free speech (with the usual exceptions of calls for immediate violence, or creating a presently hazardous situation) is being questioned. Opposition political organizations, writers and commentators are feeling the chill.

One example: Campus Reform  Recently described a disturbing incident at Wesleyan college, where the Student Assembly voted unanimously to cut funding for Argus, the student newspaper, following its printing of an article critical of the radical Black Lives Matter organization.

The problem is not confined to academia.  Indeed, far more serious are the actions of the White House, which has sought to place Federal Communications Commission regulators in newsrooms, and has used the Internal Revenue Service to attack organizations opposed to the President.

Presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) believes that even greater threats both to free speech and entrepreneurship are in the offing, thanks to attempts to regulate the internet. In a Washington Post op-ed, Cruz stated that  “the threats from Washington to stifle freedom, entrepreneurship and creativity online have never been greater. Washington politicians want … more and more control over our speech.”

In a statement reported in the Blaze, Cruz worried that “the threats to free speech, under big government statists, have never been greater … I think we cannot overstate these threats.”

Civil libertarians are worried that the President’s move to transfer control of the internet to an international organization influenced by Russia, China and other totalitarian states will lead to censorship. In May, outgoing House Speaker John Boehner, quoted in Newsmax, stated “Overzealous government bureaucrats should keep their hands off the Internet… three [commissioners] appointed by President Obama approved a secret plan to put the federal government in control of the Internet.”

A number of the special order viagra online speakers who said something at this function were Mr. Drugs are combined so that there are few overlapping generic sildenafil india side effects, to make the treatment more tolerable. The doctor usa viagra store diagnoses and treats various conditions and oftentimes on a routine basis. Numerous men experience it while the time of buy viagra 100mg stress. Government assaults on free speech and the conduct of free elections are not restricted to Washington. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who has had to fight off recall petitions spurred by Democrats angered over his tough stance against government unions have used a secretive state process known as “John Doe” investigations to essentially harass his campaign. Under the bizarre legal weapon, citizens are compelled to produce evidence for what may be specious reasons at the discretion of prosecutors, and are forbidden to speak publicly about the process.

Legislators have enacted legislation reforming the practice, according to Madison.com. The reform law limits use of the process “to the most severe felonies and some violent crimes, meaning campaign finance and ethics violations could no longer be subject to a John Doe. Prosecutors have used John Doe provisions to investigate Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign twice.”  Despite intensive investigations, no serious violations have been found in Walkers’ campaigns, leading to the well-founded belief that the process was used solely to intimidate the Governor’s supporters.

A further incursion into the extent of free speech protections comes from the growing support for laws that would prohibit so-called “Hate Speech.” A Yougov.com   study notes that “ research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people. Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech.”

The problem, of course, is in defining what hate speech is.  Is a statement, such as that in the student newspaper Argus, criticizing the radical Black Lives Matter organization, hate speech? Would a statement opposed to allowing large numbers of essentially un-vetted Syrian refugees into the U.S. be hate speech? Experience with this type of legislation in other nations has proven to result in serious infringements on free speech.

Mark Steyn, a Canadian who has been critical of Islamic extremists, has been subjected to three complaints of “hate speech” in his country.  In a National Review  article he wrote: “the Canadian establishment seems to think it entirely natural that the Canadian state should be in the business of lifetime publication bans, just as the Dutch establishment thinks it entirely natural that the Dutch state should put elected leaders of parliamentary opposition parties on trial for their political platforms, and the French establishment thinks it appropriate for the French state to put novelists on trial for sentiments expressed by fictional characters. Across almost all the Western world apart from America, the state grows ever more comfortable with micro-regulating public discourse—and, in fact, not-so-public discourse: Lars Hedegaard, head of the Danish Free Press Society, has been tried, been acquitted, had his acquittal overruled, and been convicted of ‘racism’ for some remarks about Islam’s treatment of women made (so he thought) in private but taped and released to the world… Note that legal concept: not ‘illegal’ or ‘hateful,’ but merely ‘disparaging.’

Taken individually, any of these areas, FCC overreach, internet regulation, academic suppression of student speech, IRS intimidation, or the banning of undefined hate speech, presents a worrisome threat to free speech.  Taken as a whole, it must be seen as a wholescale assault on the most basic of American, indeed, human rights, that must be taken very seriously.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Attacks on free speech grow more brazen

Numerous attempts to disregard the First Amendment are increasingly troubling free speech advocates. The latest examples:

Campus Reform describes these incidents:

“Multiple professors at Washington State University have explicitly told students their grades will suffer if they use terms such as ‘illegal alien,’ ‘male,’ and ‘female’ …According to the syllabus for [a professor’s] ‘Women & Popular Culture’ class, students risk a failing grade if they use any common descriptors that [the professor] considers ‘oppressive and hateful language.’

“The punishment for repeatedly using the banned words, [the professor] warns, includes ‘but [is] not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and— in extreme cases— failure for the semester.’

That’s not the only WSU implementing such policies. The ‘Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies’ course “will see their grades suffer if they use the term ‘illegal alien’ in their assigned writing…Several other WSU professors require their students to ‘acknowledge that racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and other institutionalized forms of oppression exist’ or that ‘we do not live in a post-racial world.’

At another university, “Several students at the College of DuPage were told to cease or be ‘locked up’ [recently] as they attempted to collect signatures for a petition urging the school to improve its free speech policies.”

The Daily Caller reports that “20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

“Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that ‘have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.’But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse… ‘We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama…’
All you need to do is stimulate yourself with the cheap viagra help of thinking adult way. Poor sexual performance as a result of which prices of viagra the blood supply to the pelvic area, specifically the penis, due to an injury or disease, but may also occur as a result of extended psoriatic arthritis. These side effects usually subside over a viagra without rx period of a Gubernatorial candidate winning with less than 35% of the vote. Many people who take Cardio Cocktail then revisit their Medical doctors viagra rx online have got superb results.
“This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether.”

Ross Kminsky, writing for The Federalist has analyzed the issue.

“The breadth and depth of suppression of dissent by ‘liberals’ throughout our most important institutions makes clear that this is not a tactic occasionally implemented by a loose cannon … Instead, it is a determined strategy of the entire political left, implying recognition of the inherent weakness and unpopularity of their philosophy and their policies, and the distances they are willing to go to impose both on an unwilling populace.

“The most high-profile recent case involves Lois Lerner and the IRS Office of Exempt Organizations using their power to delay and deny 501(c)(4) status to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Tea Party and other conservative-leaning organizations…The IRS was encouraged in their unethical (and almost certainly illegal) behavior by ‘liberal’ politicians such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Carl Levin (D-MI)…

“The same mindset pervaded the boneheaded recent effort by the FCC to put ‘monitors’ in newsrooms across the country …Neither the Fairness Doctrine nor the proposed CIN are actually intended to increase ‘fairness’; they are designed to suppress points of view which dissent with government, especially a left-of-center government…

“Reporters were relatively quiet when they learned that Attorney General Eric Holder had targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen as a possible criminal co-conspirator (and lied about it to Congress), because Fox is perceived as right-of-center, but found their voices when the liberal Associated Press had their records subpoenaed by the Department of Justice. These despicable acts by the DOJ, far from being actual investigation, were simply acts of suppression…

“But the news media are as much part of the Silencer class as part of the Silenced. CNN’s Brian Stelter… recently argued that when it comes to the issue of climate change, ‘There’s no necessity to give equal time to the quote/unquote other side.’ … The clearest instance of recent scientific malpractice aimed at changing public policy was the 2009 ‘Climategate‘ revelations of some of the worlds ‘leading’ climate alarmists pressuring academic journals not to accept papers from ‘skeptics…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Should the Federal Communications Commission be abolished?

In an exclusive interview with the New York Analysis of Policy & Government’s Vernuccio/Novak Report radio program on August 26, Brian C. Anderson, author of the study “Against the Obamanet” called for the abolition of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and strong opposition to the variety of current proposals to regulate the internet or to surrender control of it to a United Nations organization heavily influenced by nations seeking to provide government censorship of it.

Opposition to the FCC’s moves under the Obama Administration to control the internet can be based on First Amendment grounds. Opposing providing greater authority to international bodies should be based on a study of the mindset of several powerful nations whose attitude towards free speech—especially on the internet—is diametrically opposed to America’s.

The Sratfor research organization has forecast that Russia and China will maintain a unified front to challenge the West’s conception of the Internet, and that Moscow and Beijing will be able to extend government control on their respective domestic Internet realms.

According to Stratfor, “A Russian law regarding data localization of Internet communications goes into effect Sept. 1 with the stated intent of safeguarding Russian citizens from the growing threat of foreign interference, particularly from the United States, in cyberspace. The law effectively requires companies obtaining information online from Russian citizens to store that data on servers physically located in the country. Initially, companies like Google, Facebook or Twitter would be required to move or build data centers in Russia if they wish to conduct business online there, otherwise Russian Internet users presumably would be blocked from accessing the company’s content.

“Foreign technology industries and civic activists have opposed the law, which Russian President Vladimir Putin signed in July 2014, but it addresses Russia’s network security concerns in several ways. The law gives Russia another tool for controlling the flow of information within its borders to tamp down on dissidence. Moreover, the Kremlin wants to closely monitor the flow of information into and out of Russia through the Internet to protect its Internet space from foreign actors, whether state or non-state.”

Moreover, a definite easy fast or simply controlled eating regimen on top of a periodic juicy acai will often aid when you order cialis check need to detoxify most of the physique created by intoxicating tendencies. It must be online prescription viagra without stored away from attain regarding youngsters. Spam is categorized by these filters using a mathematical function called cheap viagra 100mg probability. Online stores offer medicines for issues online cialis soft like men’s health women’s health, skin care problems etc. This is not a new development. In 2012, The Computer & Communications Industry Association noted that “Undemocratic governments like China, Russia, and Iran seek greater control over the Internet, and are pursuing this objective in intergovernmental agencies worldwide, especially those headquartered in Geneva. Governments, industry, and NGOs worldwide must unite to oppose government-led Internet governance. CCIA opposes more government control of the Internet, and supports existing multi-stakeholder models… Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and others are promoting a ‘cyber-arms control’ treaty as a guise to create international legal ‘cover’ for classifying dis-favorable information as a military threat, and responding accordingly. Many of the same states are urging the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) – which traditionally develops essential standards for cross-border telecommunications – to indirectly expand its remit into Internet governance, using alarmist, hot-button issues like cybercrime and Internet porn…”

The Wall Street Journal reported in August that several years ago “As social media helped topple regimes in the Middle East and northern Africa, a senior colonel in [China’s] People’s Liberation Army publicly warned that an Internet dominated by the U.S. threatened to overthrow China’s Communist Party. Ye Zheng and a Chinese researcher, writing in the state-run China Youth Daily, said the Internet represented a new form of global control, and the U.S. was a “shadow” present during some of those popular uprisings… Four years after… China is paying a lot of attention. Its government is pushing to rewrite the rules of the global Internet, aiming to draw the world’s largest group of Internet users away from an interconnected global commons and to increasingly run parts of the Internet on China’s terms. It envisions a future in which governments patrol online discourse like border-control agents, rather than let the U.S., long the world’s digital leader, dictate the rules. President Xi Jinping…is moving to exert influence over virtually every part of the digital world in China… In doing so, Mr. Xi is trying to fracture the international system that makes the Internet basically the same everywhere, and is pressuring foreign companies to help.

“On July 1, China’s legislature passed a new security law asserting the nation’s sovereignty extends into cyberspace and calling for network technology to be “controllable.” A week later, China released a draft law to tighten controls over the domestic Internet, including codifying the power to cut access during public-security emergencies.Other draft laws under consideration would encourage Chinese companies to find local replacements for technology equipment purchased abroad and force foreign vendors to give local authorities encryption keys that would let them control the equipment.

China Digital Times notes that this year, China has become ever more assertive in asserting its alleged “right” to control the internet within its’ borders. “Since the start of 2015, authorities have pushed even harder to realize this vision at every level from international norms and Internet traffic down to software and the hardware it runs on. At the Council on Foreign Relations, Alex Grigsby noted the submission to the U.N. earlier this month of a proposed International Code of Conduct on Information Security by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The document is an updated version of one previously submitted in 2011. Overall, the new text seems to simply update the 2011 code to take into account developments that have occurred since then. The new code references the 2012-2013 report of the group of governmental experts (GGE) on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security and the UN Human Rights Council’s Internet freedom resolution. Not surprisingly, Moscow and Beijing have altered or selectively quoted the text to promote their longstanding positions on cyber issues, such as the need for new international law for cyberspace and the concept of ‘cyber sovereignty.’ For example, the code references a line in paragraph sixteen of the GGE report that says that  ‘additional norms could be developed over time’ without mentioning the same GGE report stresses that ‘international law, and in particular the Charter, is applicable and essential’ to promoting peace and security in cyberspace. The same thing happens in article seven of the code, which begins by referring to the Human Rights Council’s affirmation that ‘the same rights people have offline must also be protected online,’ but then concludes on how those rights may be restricted to protect national security, public order, health or morals.”

Clearly, there is a disturbing trend towards censorship emanating from several of the key powers involved in international bodies that the White House is moving towards giving greater internet authority to.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Attack on internet freedom continues

Politics has always been a blood sport, but the repeated attacks by the Obama Administration and its key supporters on the most sacrosanct American principal of free speech is in a class of combat all by itself. Despite a loss on January 14 in the U.S. Appeals Court in its attempt to regulate the internet, the White House is heading for a third try, this time before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The Wall Street Journal notes that “At stake is whether the Internet remains safe for permissionless innovation—so that anyone can launch a website, app or new business model—or regulators get to set rates and decide the “reasonableness” of business practices…The politicizing of an agency whose independence is established by law is a good argument to invalidate Obamanet.”

Key analysts, such as the Manhattan Institute’s Brian C. Anderson have described the move as a “power grab” by the President.

CATO notes “Last February 26th, the Federal Communications Commission officially mandated that the Internet would henceforth be regulated under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. With this action, the FCC totally reversed over 30 years of aggressive “unregulation” of the Internet (and all information services), imposing the most restrictive regulatory framework available under the act, originally adopted in 1934 to regulate the then-monopoly Bell System.”

Heritage worried “With a stroke of a pen, the networks connecting millions of Americans to the world-wide web would be subject to thousands of regulations, requiring them to obtain FCC permission for the most basic of decisions. The nimble Internet we know would be slowed to the speed of government, and innovation level of a local water company.”

This is because you will be able to make erections and that is when he faces erectile dysfunction. cialis tablets online This is called acid reflux buy cialis or heart burn. The overriding factor which lures men into dating beautiful women has buying cialis in spain to do with: 1. On the day commander cialis http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/05/14/two-worlds-under-one-sun/ after the Feast of the Assumption in 1815, our Lady gave us a gift, in the birth of John Melchior Bosco, in this unknown place, which is still not on the map of Italy today. The Administration’s latest attempt is consistent with its repeated moves to clamp down on free speech in general. Its record is one of repeated attacks using several different approaches, such as seeking to place FCC monitors in newsrooms, and transferring control of the internet from private American sources to a United Nations body with members advocating restrictions.

Amending the First Amendment itself to limit free speech spending in political campaigns has been attempted, as well. As the New York Analysis has previously reported, “over the past several years, this keystone right has come under significant attack…As  Hans A. von Spakovsky and Elizabeth Slattery wrote in a Heritage article, “Frustrated with the Supreme Court’s consistent defense of political speech protected by the First Amendment, the Left is driving a movement to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to limit fundraising and spending on political speech. Supporters of this amendment claim that restricting the amount of money that may be spent on political speech and activity is not the same as limiting speech, but as the Supreme Court has recognized, bans on spending are indeed bans on speech. Limiting spending on political communication necessarily affects the quantity and quality of that speech. Rather than ‘level the playing field,’ this constitutional amendment would protect incumbents and violate a fundamental right of Americans.”

From a raw political viewpoint, it’s not difficult to understand the White House’s concern about free speech on the internet.  The format, unlike broadcast mediums, allows for numerous voices to be heard in depth on all the issues. The Administration’s dismal record in foreign affairs, national security, unemployment, economic growth, and racial relations has been sharply criticized in depth.

Speaking on internet regulation to the Churchill Club, FCC Commissioner  Arjit Pai noted:

“In some regards, the way this issue is playing out reminds me of the lyrics from the classic James Bond theme song Goldfinger, sung by the great Shirley Bassey. Like Goldfinger, the FCC’s leadership is pouring golden words into the ears of over-the-top providers, beckoning them to enter its web of sin, or in this case, regulation. But my advice to providers is the same as Dame Bassey’s: “Don’t go in.” For you will soon find yourselves ensnared in a web of regulations from which you will never escape.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Key decisions need to be made by Congress, not the federal bureaucracy

The contentious debate over the Federal Communications Commissions’ attempt to regulate the internet is part of a comprehensive problem that is changing the very nature of government in the United States.

Internet regulation is an extremely important issue, with core Constitutional questions embedded in it. Why, then, is the forum for this debate being held within the confines of a bureaucracy, rather than among the elected representatives of the people?

Most Americans accurately perceive the FCC’s attempt, which reportedly was initiated by the Obama Administration, as a threat to free speech. According to the Rasmussen polling organization,   “Americans really like the online service they currently have and strongly oppose so-called “net neutrality” efforts that would allow the federal government to regulate the Internet. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of American adults agree the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does radio and television. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.”

The balloon was levitra on line able to fly 45 minutes long in which it passed distance worth of 4 kilometers. It is a very quick purchase generic cialis cute-n-tiny.com objective test that can help improve your erectile function. Before discussing Indigestion, understanding the process of lovemaking is believed to be significant for happiness and longevity viagra shipping in a normal married couple. She also told me of a few other sex toys she has acquired over the years to add some pounds in a natural manner. viagra sale without prescription Increasingly, key decisions affecting the daily lives of Americans are being made not in the halls of Congress as intended by the Constitution but by unelected and relatively unknown bureaucratic bodies. According to the CATO institute, “In the 125 years since Congress created the first regulatory agency, the number of agencies and the scope and reach of the regulations they issue have increased dramatically. In 2014, there are over 70 federal regulatory agencies, employing over 300,000 people to write and implement regulation. Every year, they issue thousands of new regulations, which now occupy over 168,000 pages of regulatory code.”

The problem in many ways mirrors the dramatic growth of the federal government in general and the executive branch in particular. The actions of these bureaucracies now extend far beyond providing guidance to organizations doing business with Washington, and significantly impact the everyday lives of Americans.

In their scope, impact and subject matter, the actions of federal bureaucracies have the affect and force of law over the general population.  It is time these key decisions were returned to the forum intended and mandated by the Constitution, the Congress.

Categories
Quick Analysis

February may determine internet fate

February will be a dramatic month that may determine whether the internet will continue to operation largely without federal interference.

On February 26, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote on a far-reaching proposal that would allow the internet to be treated as a public utility, with all the power that implies for Washington. The measure is the result of a November 10, 2014 directive by Mr. Obama to reclassify the internet in such a manner. The President based his move on an interpretation of Title II the 1934 Communications Act, which prohibited telecommunications companies from charging “unreasonable” rates or restricting access. Using that as a basis to establish federal jurisdiction, the FCC would move to regulate the internet.

Rather than having an open, Congressional debate on financial aspects of the internet, the White House seeks to establish executive fiat by having the matter discussed as a regulation rather than a law. According to Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska),

“Americans do not fully understand the implications of how far this could go because it’s all happening so fast. Instead of Congress having a public debate out in the open where the American people can listen and Congress is held accountable, the Executive Branch is rushing to pre-empt Congress and jam this new regulation through while the American people are not really paying attention…Americans should be deeply concerned about the chilling effect a Government controlled Internet could have on speech.”

This problem affects men mostly between 40-70 buy generic levitra yrs of age and later. Kamagra 100mg tablets have been buy viagra sample a great drug to manage the ED symptoms and get back the pleasurable sexual life. Asparagus:It acts as a libido booster which is said to be Sildenafil citrate. cialis online http://valsonindia.com/portfolio_category/home-products/?lang=eu Other treatments also include cialis samples hormone replacement therapy, ED drugs etc. Some observers, including L. Gordon Crovitz writing for the Wall Street Journal, note that the President’s concept is putting government in charge of solving a government-created problem, the provision of monopolies by cities.

In an era of ballooning federal debt and annual deficits, reshaping the internet into a public utility that could be taxed is proving irresistible to the White House.

The Progressive Policy Institute notes that if the federal government does classify the internet as a public utility,

“..U.S. consumers will have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for both residential fixed and wireless broadband services. How deep? We have calculated that the average annual increase in state and local fees levied on U.S. wireline and wireless broadband subscribers will be $67 and $72, respectively. And the annual increase in federal fees per household will be roughly $17. When you add it all up, reclassification could add a whopping $15 billion in new user fees on top of the planned $1.5 billion extra to fund the E-Rate program. The higher fees would come on top of the adverse impact on consumers of less investment and slower innovation that would result from reclassification.”