Yesterday the FCC went through with what must be one of Obama’s top priorities– controlling the internet where those of us who are critical of him can speak freely almost completely unchecked.
Democrats love the new FCC rule
The Democratic Party of New Mexico (which supports the FCC’s new rules) has more:
Rules Will Preserve the Internet as a Platform for Innovation, Free Expression and Economic Growth
Ending lingering uncertainty about the future of the Open Internet, the Federal Communications Commission today set sustainable rules of the roads that will protect free expression and innovation on the Internet and promote investment in the nation’s broadband networks.
The FCC has long been committed to protecting and promoting an Internet that nurtures freedom of speech and expression, supports innovation and commerce, and incentivizes expansion and investment by America’s broadband providers. But the agency’s attempts to implement enforceable, sustainable rules to protect the Open Internet have been twice struck down by the courts.
Rush Limbaugh weighs in
‘Net neutrality’ is as honest a name for that as ‘the Affordable Care Act’ was for Obamacare. – Limbaugh
Where’s Congress? And where’s New Mexico’s Republican congressman?
Yesterday California Congressman Darrell Issa weighed in via Facebook:
We’ve heard these lines somewhere before. It is incredible to me that anybody would suggest with a straight face that turning the reins of the internet over to the government will somehow lead to increased freedom and flexibility.
“Net Neutrality” has all the hallmarks of an Obama policy: a lack of transparency throughout the process, a glossy public relations campaign that seeks to mask the reality of the proposal, and guarantees that, if successful, the government’s hand will reach ever-further into Americans’ lives.
But where is the rest of congress? Where is Congressman Steve Pearce who touts himself as conservative (the supposedly “liberty and freedom-loving” Otero County fans of his should be raising
hell havoc over this!).
I thought Steven Crowder explained “Net Neutrality” admirably in this video:
What will Net Neutrality mean for you and me?
Personally, I’m concerned about what this means for every-day people and small blog writers with blog’s like this. Why should government control the internet? And for that matter what gives government the “right”?
Many people, who know the issue much better and can speak on it in a much more element manner than what is shared here, feel that this “neutrality” is not all fun and games. They believe that beneath the peaceful name and politically correct facade there’s something that will give the Googles of the world more power, while crushing voices that push against the current.
Support this blog
It’s my intention to keep blogging through the legislative session with regular updates (hopefully daily!). Would you like to give me a boost? You can add your support by giving a donation to keep this blog going. Just visit PayPal here and use my email “email@example.com”.
This legislative session it is important to have a conservative political voice to counteract the far-Left radicals like the Santa Fe Reporter, ProgressNow New Mexico and the newly created NM Political Report. Any help you can give would be appreciated!
2 thoughts on ““Net Neutrality” means silencing the voice of the “little guy””
I expect that soon everyone will be required to use their real name on all their internet activity.
I don’t even want to think about more govt intrusion…