If it’s right for them to regulate content of TV and radio, then why not newspapers and blogs and the Internet in general?  Why are they different?

Governmental regulation of these has nothing to do with anything except controlling a mass medium of information dissemination.  They can shut down anything they need to when they need to when it comes down to it. Do you want them to have that same control over the Internet?  Too many people are looking at this in a shortsighted way.  They don’t want companies to be able to prioritize traffic, yet they don’t want the FCC or any other government agency to control any other part of the Internet.  You don’t get it both ways when dealing with the government.   Haven’t you learned that yet?  Apparently not.

It’s just like the Patriot Act.  You are willing to give up your freedom for some sense of security, and you are willing to give up the free and open internet for some sense that you have some control over mass media companies like Google and Verizon.  Either way you won’t have the control you want but the government will.  It’s simply a very bad idea.

Last month, 35 Tea Party groups came out against net neutrality in a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The letter accused the FCC of “relentlessly pursuing a massive regulatory regime” that would stifle the growth of the Internet.

The FCC is considering a move to boost its authority over broadband providers through a controversial process known as reclassification. The process could give federal regulators the power to impose net-neutrality rules, which would prevent Internet access providers from favoring some content and applications over others.

via Net-neutrality group challenged by ties to MoveOn.Org, ACORN – The Hill’s Hillicon Valley.

Think about our society as it is today in America.  Of course it’s diverse and I’m looking at in my own small section of America, but how did we get to be where we are? Why are we so far ahead of other parts of the world with a much longer history?  How have we advanced so far while many in the world have essentially stood still in many ways for a hundred years?

I don’t know the answer but I have some thoughts on possible answers.  Maybe it’s from freedom to build yourself up through a capitalist society.  Maybe it comes from the mindset of personal responsibility within a nation that allows you to benefit from your own efforts (though both are quickly vanishing under liberal governmental control).

Looking at countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and so many others in the region, I really appreciate how far ahead in so many ways we are than those nations.  Even in Central and South America the accepted standard of living and the way of life is so different from ours that it’s amazing.  Europe is better than many of these countries in many ways, but still not quite up to par with America in a lot of aspects of life, even in the more advanced nations like France.

I can’t imagine raising my children somewhere that I don’t feel safe within my own home.  In a lot of these places around the world, home might be a clay shack or lean-to of some sort that don’t offer any kind of security.  Though even where I live there is no guarantee of security, I am free to defend myself, my family, and my property.  There is little danger to my sitting on my front or back porch during any time of the day or night.  In many of these other regions of the world, something this simple just would not be safe.

With this knowledge, why is it that so many within our own nation vilify this very standard of living that we’ve become accustomed to?  It was earned not by us, but by our founding fathers and those who have made wise choices over the years to keep America free.  On the outside our government appears to still function in a manner that allows our freedoms. In reality the Constitution limits not the rights of the people but the power of government though liberals don’t see it that way.  On the inside I think that most people know that our government has overstepped its limits by a long shot and most within government are unfortunately corrupt to some degree.  Where in the powers granted to the government does it allow Americans to be forced to buy anything, much less insurance selected by the government?

The complacency of Americans gets disturbed every so often as it has since the liberal takeover in 2008.  I think this keeps just enough balance to allow us to remain relatively free and relatively safe from the tyranny experienced elsewhere.  If we wish to continue to have these freedoms, we have to be willing to fight for them when they are threatened.  Much as Japan awakened the sleeping giant by an attack upon our people, we need this attack on our freedom to awaken the spirit upon which our nation was founded within us before it’s too late.

Throughout our history individuals and groups within government, corporations, and outside interests have done their best to destroy our way of life and our progress.  Thus far enough freedom loving Americans have stepped forward to rescue “the great experiment” from those who would harm it yet each attack seems to grow stronger and more effective.  The destruction from within is always the greatest danger and for generations we’ve been attacked more fiercely from within than from without.  Far too many people either want more power for themselves or have ideals that are threatened by what America is built upon.  This has always been the most serious threat to our way of life.

From my point of view, it’s hard to see how anyone could not appreciate what we have here.  I suppose that some could argue as liberals do that it isn’t fair for us to be able to enjoy this life when everyone can’t.  My answer is that America wasn’t given this without earning it.  This generation was handed a great country by our ancestors and it’s our responsibility to carry on the American tradition by handing it over to our children in better shape than when we received it.  I’m afraid that thanks to these liberals trying to give away what we’ve tried to keep up, we won’t be able to give it to them in better shape than when we received it.  Of course as their hero Karl Marx said, inheritance is something that must be done away with to achieve their goals.  Even if it’s freedom that’s being taken away.

America has earned its freedom and lifestyle through the blood of its sons on the battlefield.  The rest of the world has long looked to America as that shining city on the hill.  The goal to be reached, not the tower to be toppled.  People throughout the world strive to achieve the freedom that Americans have today by birth, yet many within our own communities work to destroy what has cost so much.

In the end, I guess that it’s still a mystery to me as to why.

Isn’t it interesting that the ACLU and other socialist organizations spend so much money trying to intimidate communities who try to simply enforce the law?  Their motives are obvious, yet we still allow them waste valuable resources by having to defend against them in court.  Make them pay the expense of defending against them when they lose and it will bankrupt them.

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” Obama told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

via FOXNews.com – Obama Comes Out in Favor of Allowing Mosque Near Ground Zero.

I used to just roll my eyes at those who said that Obama was a muslim.  After everything that he’s done to kiss muslim ass since day 1 of his horrible presidency, I’m beginning to believe that he probably is a closet muslim just like he was a closet socialist.  He had his big coming out party right after the election and went through his confirmation son after he actually took office.

He talks about this as if it has nothing to do with anything except freedom of religion.  Make no mistake, muslims want to take over this country.  If you look at how they do things, you’ll note that they like to put up their mosques where ever they have a conquest.  They certainly had a big on by destroying the twin towers and now they want to put up a monument to their success in this conquest and president mohammad wants to oblige them.

Will the Web get faster, or just more expensive? That’s the issue at the heart of the “net neutrality” debate.

Content providers and creators are teaming up to optimize the delivery of certain types of information, notably bandwidth heavy video files. This may ease demand on over-taxed service providers, but could lead to a tiered Internet, where consumers pay more for certain types of content.

And Google and Verizon

may be working to make it happen.

The companies are close to finalizing a proposal for network

neutrality rules, which would dictate how broadband providers treat Internet traffic flowing over their lines, according to a story in the New York Times.

A deal could be announced within days, said a person familiar with the deal, who did not want to be identified because negotiations are still ongoing.

A Google spokesman promptly refuted the story, however.

“The New York Times is quite simply wrong,” wrote Mistique Cano in an e-mail to Computerworld. “We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet.”

via FOXNews.com – Google, Verizon Near Plan to Created Tiered Internet.

Besides raising the retirement age for full Social Security benefits to 70 for people now 50 or younger, Mr. Boehner suggested curbing benefit growth by tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than growth in wages, and providing benefits only to those who need them.

“If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we’re broke?” he said. “We just need to be honest with people.”

via Both parties mull raising retirement age – Washington Times.

First the “we are broke” argument doesn’t cut it.  We are broke because they stole money from Social Security to buy votes by spending it on other things unrelated to SS.  In any corporation if you did this you would be put in jail, yet our government has been doing it for years and calling it legal!  BS!

The second argument of not paying people just because they planned better than other people is just as bogus!   Why should anyone be required to pay an insurance premium only to be told upon maturity that they planned too well outside the plan so they aren’t eligible?  It’s ridiculous!

How do these people still have jobs?  Oh wait, they are using this money to buy votes, I almost forgot.

We can’t afford to continue to let this go on.  We have to take back Washington.  We need more Jim DeMint style senators and representatives who aren’t willing to trade their morals for money or political victories.  We can’t continue to send the likes of Hoyer, Boehner, and the rest back up there to spend without regard for our future and the future of our kids.  If you want to do something about it then do it.  Vote them out!

The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That’s why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don’t want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.

Hide your money!  They’re going to get every penny of it they can find come January 2011!

This is just the kind of thing that makes people despise politicians.  They do sneaky stuff like this trying to get their last hurrah before they get their asses kicked out.  If you want real reform, make any legislation passed by lame duck sessions be taken up and voted on without changes by the incoming congress.

You can also look at the sickening presidential pardons like those committed by Clinton as evidence of their lack of respect for the American people they are supposedly representing.

Hezbollah’s spokesman Ibrahim Moussawi says CNN’s decision amounts to “intellectual terrorism” and reflects the West’s “double standards” in dealing with the Mideast.

He said in a statement issued on Friday that the decision to fire Nasr – a Lebanese who worked for CNN for two decades – exposes America’s false claims regarding freedom of expression.

IM doesn’t understand what freedom of expression means. It doesn’t mean freedom from repercussions for your expression.  He would fit right in with progressives in America, me thinks.  They also think that they can say whatever they want without repercussions, but reality often bites for them.  Of course, then they whine about it.

A WIN FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! FINALLY!

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution’s Second Amendment restrains government’s ability to significantly limit “the right to keep and bear arms,” advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”