The biggest threats to liberty are people who
purport to look out after our interest.
These patricians of plebeians believe we’re too stupid to decipher
propaganda from reality.Barack Obama – our lord
and master – wants a “curator” to sort through websites to ensure your Facebook
page is federally approved.Here is an
excerpt from Brietbart:
He was critical of the current Wild
West online environment where people could say anything on social media or on
news websites.
“We are going to have to rebuild within this
wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people
agree to,” he said.
Throughout his
presidency, Obama has repeatedly complained about the existence of Fox News and
Rush Limbaugh, causing division amongst Americans and making his job difficult,
but he rarely offers a solution.
This time, Obama
floated the notion of a media test during at a speech at Carnegie Mellon
University in Pittsburgh on Thursday.
“There has to
be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that
passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard because
they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the
world,” he said.
Of course, this wouldn’t be considered censorship because Democrats look out for the “little people.”Thanks Big Brother.
The Obama administration is scheduled to handover
ICANN to the United Nations at the end of this month. This coincides with his plans to
fundamentally transform the United States from a sovereign nation to one under
global governance. There is no better
way to attack an American’s First Amendment right of free speech than to hand
the internet over to a body of authoritarians.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton predicted the
internet will be fundamentally transformed within ten years. Free speech on the world-wide web will
effectively be killed off.
What they’re talking about is succumbing to the demands of
foreign governments and foreign interests who say, in what is effectively a
global means of communication, it’s just wrong to have the United States in
charge of it.
But the fact is,
under American control, it’s had remarkable growth. It’s been kept free. It’s
been able to withstand a lot of pressure to try and set rules that favor one
side or another. And in an international environment, I can tell you from my
own experience, when you get all kinds of governments from all over the world
setting standards and making decisions, it will be far less free than it is
now.
And I don’t
think the particular kind of transfer we’re talking about now is the end of the
game. This is a black-and-white, binary choice: it’s either under American
control, or it’s not. And once we let go of it, we are never getting it back.
That’s the plan.
Democrats have been bitching about Tea Party activists and an
alternative media that exposes their corruption for over a decade. They want to control the narrative. There is no better way to circumvent the U.S.
Constitution than by having totalitarians in the United Nations do their
bidding. But that’s not the end of
it. Here is what John Bolton predicted
if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency.
That said, I believe that if Hillary Clinton wins, she will do
what I expected Obama to do, which is try to transfer more and more American
sovereignty into international organizations across the range of issues —
whether it’s climate change or the conduct of international affairs. I think
Obama didn’t do as much as I expected in that vein because he really just doesn’t
care about international affairs as much as he cares about ‘fundamentally
transforming’ our country.
I think Hillary
does have even grander ambitions, and so that’s why what we started off, the
end of ICANN or the effective control of ICANN over the Internet, is an
excellent example of global governance replacing American sovereignty in
effect. And I think she’ll be much more on that. I hope that’s something Trump
emphasizes in the upcoming debate.
Barack Obama said as much during his speech to the United
Nations last week.
Democrats can’t wait to hand the internet over to a
foreign body simply because they want censorship. These people don’t believe in freedom of
speech when it comes to their political foes.
Look at what they did to the Tea Party.
Senator Chuck E. Schumer and his comrades demanded the IRS crackdown on
citizens who dared to organize and speak out against the abuses of the federal government. I guess some people are more equal than
others.
The First Amendment is fundamentally American. For
Barack Obama to hand the internet over to a foreign body is equivalent to
Benedict Arnold handing over West Point to the British during the Revolutionary
War. Arnold committed treason over petty jealousies and for money; Obama just despises this country.
The internet has been the bane of the Democratic
Party since its inception. Conservatives
have used this vehicle to expose their lies and nefarious activities for
decades. Anchorman Dan Rather lost his
job because a website demonstrated that he and his team fraudulently manufactured
evidence in an attempt to damn President George W. Bush’s National Guard
service. Many a democrat has been
embarrassed by the free flow of information and they want it stopped.
The best way to censor free speech is to outsource
the internet to a league of authoritarians who will do the dirty work for the
Democratic Party. One only has to look
at how Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Microsoft have colluded with the
European Union and China to stifle free speech.
Believe me; the Democratic Party is just as authoritarian as these
regimes.
The internet is scheduled to be handed over to an
international organization on October 1st of this year. We can expect a crackdown on freedom of speech
shortly after. These tyrants will do the
hit-job Democrats want them to do.
Isn’t it odd that an FCC commissioner lauds the
internet in the United States as “the envy of the world,” while at the same
time demanding to control it with federal regulations? Does anyone find that odd?
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re:Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN
Docket No. 14-28.
Our Internet economy is the envy of the world. We
invented it. The applications economy began here—on our shores. The broadband
below us and the airwaves all around us deliver its collective might to our
homes and businesses in communities across the country. What produced this
dynamic engine of entrepreneurship and experimentation is a foundation of
openness. Sustaining what has made us innovative, fierce, and creative should
not be a choice—it should be an obligation.
We also have a duty—a duty to protect what has made
the Internet the most dynamic platform for free speech ever invented. It is our
printing press. It is our town square. It is our individual soapbox—and our
shared platform for opportunity. That is why open Internet policies matter.
That is why I support network neutrality.
The internet will no longer be open and “free” when
these government thugs takeover.
Leave it to a foreign company to succinctly
demonstrate the consequences of net neutrality and how the Obama administration
colluded with the FCC in this naked power grab of the internet.
Even millennials
should be able to comprehend a depiction of Barack Obama dressed in a C cup
gladiator suit sucking up U.S. dollars with a vacuum.
Do we have rogue regulatory agencies? The answer is an emphatic, yes! These bureaucracies thumb their noses at the
American people and our representatives.
They don't have to go through the legislative process and therefore are
unaccountable for passing rules and regulations that have the force of law. These agencies are making a mockery of our
federalist system and our constitutional process.
What is the latest outrage? The FEC has proposed new rules that would
punish political speech on the internet.
The Washington Examiner reported the following:
Claiming that thousands of public comments condemning “dark
money” in politics can’t be ignored, the Democrat-chaired Federal Election
Commission on Wednesday appeared ready to open the door to new regulations on
donors, bloggers and others who use the Internet to influence policy and
campaigns.
During abroad FEC hearingto discuss a recent Supreme Court
decision that eliminated some donor limits, proponents encouraged the agency to
draw up new funding disclosure rules and require even third-party
internet-based groups to reveal donors, a move that would extinguish a 2006
decision to keep the agency’s hands off the Internet.
So let’s get this straight.
The FEC can draw up rules without the consent of Congress and in direct
defiance of a Supreme Court ruling, not to mention violate the tenets of the
First Amendment. They can do this
because 32,000 liberal activists demanded the FEC do something about “dark money.”
Let’s face it. Liberals
want to silence conservative bloggers and news aggregators, and they don’t care
how it’s done.
