It’s beyond scary when you start connecting the Obama administration’s censorship dots. Thanks to John Fund’s column, the Obama administration’s dots can be connected. Here’s the first dot in the puzzle:

There’s little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.

Yet President Obama, long an ardent backer of net neutrality, is ignoring both Congress and adverse court rulings, especially by a federal appeals court in April that the agency doesn’t have the power to enforce net neutrality. He is seeking to impose his will on the Internet through the executive branch. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former law school friend of Mr. Obama, has worked closely with the White House on the issue. Official visitor logs show he’s had at least 11 personal meetings with the president.

In other words, Genachowski and Obama have worked closely for months on end and in the past. This censorship vision didn’t start recently. They’ve thought about this for ages. Now let’s connect another dot with that dot:

The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney’s agenda? “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

The net neutrality movement started with a capitalist-hating socialist friend of President Obama. His radical opinions are expressed here:

A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that “any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.” Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been “taken out of context.” He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was “hesitant to say I’m not a Marxist.”

This is what the Obama administration’s central planning plan looks like. They’ve been exposed as the gang who wanted to manipulate/control everything. Health care. Banks. Media. Financial institutions. Student loans. Car manufacturers.

They’re the bunch that can’t control enough things. What’s the Bond movie title? The world is not enough?

Sadly, that fits.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Beyond Scary: Connecting the Censorship Dots”

  • The disinformation and hysteria on the right over Net Neutrality is really quite shocking. In fact, Net Neutrality is the quintessence of free speech. It’s a simple regulation that says that Internet Service Providers may not discriminate based on content — they must treat all content the same.

    Not only is that not problematic, it’s laudable, and completely necessary. Net Neutrality has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship or government control, and I think you know it. In fact, there isn’t even a weak connection. People like Fund are just making stuff up.

  • Gary Gross says:

    You’re either a liar or an idiot. At the moment, I don’t know which. The notion that the government, especially this administration, will regulate & protect liberty isn’t just laughable. It borders on the insane.

    This administration is nothing if not about the seizing of authority.

    BTW, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to make these rulings without Congress giving it that authority. Those pesky damn judges just keep getting in this administration’s way. Don’t they know their place? Don’t they know that they’re supposed to genuflect before their messiah???

  • I notice you haven’t responded with a single fact. Your “proof” of your claims seems to be your irrational fury that there’s a Democratic administration.

    It’s probably about time you dealt with that.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Why didn’t you deal with the issue of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals says that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to impose these regulations??? Don’t you think that a unanimous court ruling saying the FCC doesn’t have the authority has merit?

    PS- That’s the only argument I have to make. The rest is irrelevant.

Leave a Reply