Set on the Net

While attention has been drawn elsewhere with the selection of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court, the Obama administration has been steadily moving to control a medium that was for the most part was credited with his election win in 2008. Blackberry Barry Satoro, his name before he became Barack Obama and president who wouldn’t surrender his blackberry, now claims he knows nothing about the Internet or it devices except that they have become interference for the American people.

While he was only joking about not knowing how to work iPods and iPads, he wasn’t about his point that too much information is becoming a distraction and a diversion. Yes, the 24/7 media environment bombards Americans “with all kinds of content, all kinds of arguments” some Obama deems don’t rank high on the truth meter. Many would say the same about him.

Obama then lamented how all this information was putting pressure on Americans, pressure on the country, our democracy and his poll numbers. Well, he didn’t say that last part, but he certainly meant it. It explains his obsession and relentless attacks on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

It also explains his statement fondly remembering the good old days of the good old limited liberal news. Obama, the One, remarked, “Whereas most of America used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows.” Somehow, one gets the eerie feeling that Obama would like to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear.

It would definitely be a lot easier for the government to control the flow of info especially since these networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) already willingly obey their master, Obama, without even a hint of a governmental crackdown threat. It’s really all about money for when a supposed “news” network just reports verbatim the DNC talking points without questioning them just think of the savings it gets from not having to do any expensive investigative reporting.

One of the little noticed stories that the DNC media didn’t report was the Obama administration arbitrarily changed a law so that they could regulate the Internet using arcane rules written in the 1930s for outdated telephone lines.

Up until this point, the Internet was deemed an informational media, and as such a federal appeals court recently ruled “that under current law the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has absolutely no legal authority to impose stifling and unnecessary regulations.”

But, never willing to accept no for an answer, the Obama regime has coined an Orwellian term “Net Neutrality” to fool the people into believing that his infringement on liberty is really just a benign attempt to make “democracy” work better. It would help if Obama understood what a democracy was and that America was never a democracy but a republic or that many founders described democracy as the vilest form of government ever created.

Obama’s former Regulation Czar and now Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) administrator Cass Sunstein, who advocates removing a person’s organs without explicit consent, supports a “Net Neutrality” where Internet sites will be strongly suggested and then forced if necessary to offer links to competing websites. Notice how suggestion becomes force when the desired results are not achieved.

No doubt Sunstein and Obama will make Internet regulation such that no site could afford to offer any political content as with the “Fairness Doctrine” another Orwellian term that removed all political discussion from radio. Oh, it didn’t specifically ban political content. No, it just deemed that it had to be properly countered with opposing views.

However, what it really accomplished was a radio station that put on any political commentary knew it would have to battle major legal litigation when its license renewal time arrived. AM radio almost went out of existence but when President Reagan removed the “Fairness Doctrine” AM radio blossomed with conservative commentators like that wonderful fuzz ball Rush.

All of which brings back the subject of Elena Kagan, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. She has argued that the government should redistribute speech specifically “that government can restrict speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm.” But, that requirement could mean restricting anyone that government disagrees with.

Just listen to the arguments that pro-regressives make against Rush. They practically blame him for every act of violence that a member of the tea party does. And even though no tea partier has ever committed violence, they get accused of contemplating violence. Kagan’s beliefs would virtually eviscerate the First Amendment and as such she’s not qualified to serve on this nation’s highest court.