Stop the Federal Internet Takeover

oped: I can relate to this... getting screwed so many times over ...the FCC is a joke at best...they are by no means there to support 'We the People'...they serve Big Business and the political whims of so called elected officials...who serve Big Business...what is that called in old Mexico' ?...oh yeah 'Mordia'..back door kick backs *bribes* for services rendered! Bend over America we are going to get the Royal Shaft once again ( taxation without representation...hmm seems to be what started our first revolution eh'?)...by Mullah Barry Barack Obama and our weak kneed Congress  <~ ...who seem to be taking bribes also! I mean how else can one enter a elected office being financially average then become millionaires overnight?

Dear Friends,

Obamacare, the VA scandal, the IRS scandal--these are just a few examples of what happens when we give government huge power without oversight.

It's about to happen again--the Obama Administration is fighting for a government takeover of the Internet and the Federal Communications Commission is going to vote on it February 26th. That's why I am writing you today--I need your help to stop this.

President Obama came out a few weeks ago urging the FCC to vote to regulate the Internet the same way that it regulates public utilities under Title II. What this means is that, for the first time, billions of dollars in fees will be attached to Internet service just like they are to telephone service.

You see, under Title II if someone wants to own a telephone company, there are fees baked into the law--fees companies pass on to customers.

Now, under this new regulatory regime, Internet service providers will be subject to these fees as well, and then pass them on to you, the consumer.

This is essentially a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.

The Internet is built on speed and dynamism, it’s always changing, there are always new and better ideas that are exploding onto the scene, and part of the reason for that is that innovators are not having to go ask Washington, DC for permission every time they want to do something new.

What this really comes down to is a fundamental question:

Who do you want in charge of the direction of the Internet: people at dot-com startups that brought us game changing companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and Uber; or nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats in our nation’s capital?

There is another aspect of this that gets overlooked: the Internet is an incredibly important force for freedom, for liberty, and the rights of free speech that we hold dear. It is an existential threat to tyrants in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia who seek to keep information from their people.

We must preserve the high ground for the United States to stand up to these countries and tell them to keep the Internet free and preserve free speech on the Internet throughout the world. We cannot do that if we are regulating the Internet in a similar manner ourselves.

I am not accusing anyone of sinister motives here, but I am deeply concerned about the idea of any government bureaucrat having the power to tell companies what they can and cannot do. In the long term, this could have a chilling effect on political speech, in ways that today we could not even begin to imagine.

We do not have much time left to stop this gigantic government takeover of the Internet. The FCC is voting on February 26th and the Left is mobilizing to support their effort to do so. We cannot let the conversation be totally one-sided. The FCC needs to hear from us today--not tomorrow or next week or next month. Today.

Please join me and go sign the petition to keep the Internet free. We must stand for liberty and preserve the Internet free of government interference.

Thank you for standing for Internet freedom.

Sincerely,

Senator Mike Lee
Republican-Utah

Barack Obama Won't "quibble" over ISIS being "Islamists"

                                                                            [Yup! bottom line a Trojan (ass) Horse ]

by Frank Camp 

The President says he doesn’t want to “quibble with labels” by calling ISIS “radical Islamists”

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” – Ayn Rand

The refusal of the Obama administration to label radical Islamic extremism “radical Islamic extremism” has become one of the most fascinatingly dumb episodes to watch unfold. There has always been trepidation on the part of liberals—specifically Obama—to call out Islamic extremism, but over the last several weeks, it has become laughable.

This avoidance has been getting more and more absurd as the days pass by. Last week, when a reporter asked White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki an easy question, Psaki dodged:
Reporter: “The Taliban has taken credit for murdering three American civil contractors at the Kabul airport…We’re those murders an act of terrorism?”

Psaki: Well one, I think the department of defense has spoken to this…we’ve seen reports that the Taliban have claimed responsibility…obviously, any attack that kills contractors, that kills individuals who are working there in harm’s way is horrific, and a tragedy, but I’m not gonna put new labels on it today.
Here’s what Psaki should have said. Get ready. Here we go. She should have said: “Yes. Next question.” So difficult.

Obama is no less dodgetastic. Appearing Sunday on CNN, Obama said the following:

I think that the way to understand this is, there is an element growing out of Muslim communities, in certain parts of the world, that have perverted the religion, have embraced an a nihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam. And they’re doing damage in a lot of countries around the world. But it is absolutely true that I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war, because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don’t even recognize it as being Islam. And I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge is very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9% of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we’re looking for — order, peace, prosperity, and so I don’t quibble with labels. I think we all recognize that this is a particular problem that has roots in Muslim communities, but I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology. 

I’ll distill what Obama said in my own words: “There are radicals Islamists, who are backward in their faith, and who want us dead. But this is not a religious war, because more muslims than not are non-violent. So we should side with the good Muslims. This problem does come from Islam, but, once again, since the majority of Muslims are nice people, it’s not a religious war.”
What?!
Good job, Mr. President. In your absolute desperation to avoid some kind of offense, but also realizing the truth of the matter, you’ve made yourself a nice little word soup there. In a single paragraph, you’ve contradicted yourself egregiously.
If there is a faction of Muslims—quite a large faction, even if it’s not the majority—and they interpret the Koran—a religious book—in such a way as to promulgate their evil, how is that not a religious war? Their entire mission is to establish a Muslim caliphate. Once again, a MUSLIM CALIPHATE!They even say it themselves! They may not be the majority, but that is entirely irrelevant to the argument. Many Muslims do reject that interpretation of Islam, but that doesn’t mean that the interpretation of ISIS is any less “religious.” It’s still Islamic. I can guarantee that if radical Catholics began to tear the world apart, it would be labeled a religious war within the first five minutes of the first bombing.

The President also implies that by acknowledging the truth that our war with ISIS is indeed a religious war, we are also lumping all Muslims together, regardless of their nature. That’s wildly disingenuous, and—to put it plainly—just plain stupid. Most Americans have the intellectual capacity to recognize the difference between men who wear plastique as an accessory, and our neighbors Frank, and Linda Hussein.
Mr. Obama, you call this a “scourge” that has roots in Islam. You say it has grown out of an old, “medieval” Islam, and yet you refuse to “quibble with labels?” Your manipulation of the English language needs some work. And honestly, after six years in office, I thought you’d be better at mastering the Clintonian art of word-games.
“It’s a religious war against Islamic extremists. It is not a war against all Muslims.” Wow, that was easy.
Mr. President, you are an absolute coward, and a disappointment to any position, let alone the office of the President of the United States. To know that you are mentioned in the same breath as George Washington, Ronald Reagan, and JFK is vomit-inducing.
If we don’t recognize the religious nature of ISIS, we will never, ever defeat them.

London Mayor says ISIS is Full of Porn-Addicted Losers!

by Onan Coca 

Infamous London Mayor, Boris Johnson, owes his popularity to his irascible and straightforward manner. Johnson proved once again why his supporters love him so, when he recently discussed the members of ISIS as porn-addled losers! 

A London politician said British men who join ISIS are just porn-obsessed losers looking for an ego boost.
The “tortured” men turn to jihad because they lack purpose and self-esteem, and can’t get a girlfriend, London Mayor Boris Johnson told the Sun in a recent interview. “They are just young men in desperate need of self-esteem who do not have a particular mission in life, who feel that they are losers and this thing makes them feel strong – like winners.”
“They are not making it with girls and so they turn to other forms of spiritual comfort, which of course is no comfort,” he added. Johnson, who is a leading candidate to be the next Tory leader, referenced an MI5 profile on jihadis as evidence for his claims.
“If you look at all the psychological profiling about bombers, they typically will look at porn,” he said. “They are literally wankers. Severe onanists.”
He said the best way to ensure more British men don’t volunteer to be martyred for Islam is to give them a job.

Prime Minister David Cameron’s spokesperson told The Guardian Johnson has an “ever lovely turn of phrase,” but declined to say whether Cameron agrees with Johnson’s comments.
“The whole thing is ludicrous,” Charlie Winter told The Guardian on behalf of the Quilliam Foundation, an organization started by ex-Islamists to counter extremism. “To imply that they don’t have social skills is again a generalization … that has no evidence behind it. They are integrated, many of them are very well educated.”

Johnson told Sky News Friday his comments were not “remotely controversial.”
The crucial thing is that these are young men, principally young men who are growing up without much sense of success in their lives, without a feeling that the world holds much for them,” he said. “And … their problems need addressing in all sorts of ways.”
He also took heat in August for the way he disparaged the ISIS member who killed American journalist James Foley. “I suspect most of us don’t give a monkey’s what happens to this prat in heaven, whether he meets virgins or raisins,” he wrote in a column for The Daily Telegraph. “We just want someone to come along with a bunker buster and effect an introduction as fast as possible.”

Source