Monday, November 9, 2009

Another Radical Czar Goes Bye Bye

Internet Czar Susan Crawford advocates gov't takeover of Internet and newspapers Watch the video of Susan Crawford the Internet Czar.

The Obama administration has faced a vocal and growing opposition to the radical so-called net neutrality advocated by folks like Crawford and FCC Chair Julius Genachowski. Bi-partisan opposition, I hasten to add. The radicals in the administration, whose views are shared by the President, in true czar fashion avoid honest debate on the issue at all costs. Even, it would seem, internally.

From The American Spectator:
“[Summers] and other senior Obama officials were unaware of how radical the draft Net Neutrality regulations were when they were initially internally circulated to Obama administration officials several weeks ago. ‘All of sudden Larry is getting calls from CEOs, Wall Street folks he talks to, Republicans and Democrats, asking him what the Administration is doing with the policies, and he isn’t sure what they’re talking about,’ says one White House aide. ‘He felt blind-sided, and Susan was one of those people who heard about it.’”
This looks to be classic scrambling for cover on the part of Summers. As Big Government notes:
Sources say that such ongoing concern and criticism regarding the push for net neutrality could further impact the thinking of key Obama advisers -including Summers and potentially Obama strategist David Axelrod -and ultimately result in the administration backing away from net neutrality entirely. The White House aide cited by the Spectator notes that radical figures within the administration “are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.”
That last line is a keeper. The full quote obtained by the American Spectator: “They haven’t done us any good on any level, and now they are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.” Yes, that’s in reference to the radical elements appointed all over the administration, not just the net neutrality extremists.
This won’t be the end of the net neutrality war. Nothing with the Obama administration ever seems to end. But it is one more radical leftist shown the door, and that’s a good thing on its own. It’s also yet another reminder of that Neil Steven’s refrain: Elections Have Consequences. Obama has had way too many radicals in his admin. because he himself is a radical.


  1. Chris, even most Republicans are for net neutrality. Do you even understand what it is, or do you just fall in line with your comrades in the American Taliban?

    Net neutrality is a good thing by pretty much anyone's standards, except the ISP's. They just want a way to make more money and control the flow of information.

  2. U-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e !!!

    I'm SO glad I am no longer in the military and I don't have to follow "orders" from this man..

  3. Net neutrality health care reform we want them just not the radical ones the Democrats want to unload on us. The Democrats aren't giving what the people want and that is causing a rift within those that voted for them. Bruce when you ran the blog in the Oakland Press we conservatives told you this would happen. I think the liberals need to review all my other posts so they can see the big radical picture of Obama and the Democrats.

  4. Trexpress, how do you think Obamas actions have changed the military? I don't see them getting much emotional suport or leadership.

  5. I have a lot of new readers and posters. The people that post make this blog great. Thank you. Please feel free to express your views. If anyone has any ideas or things they find important let me know. I will usualy post it on our blog. It seems that the left wing support of Obama is falling by the wayside. If there are any let wing liberals that want to debate the issues feel free to post.
    There are readers from the left and the right on this blog and the center is well shown in the posts. Thanks again and don't forget one thing. We are all Americans.

  6. If support is falling for President Obama, it's on the left, people like me that are disappointed he isn't paying enough attention the base and what we want.

    You are delusion, Chris.

    Net neutrality is good for everyone, except the ISP's. I can't believe you people attacking the President on EVERY issue.

    Do you even understand what net neutrality is, Chris? Do you want to be paying more to access some web sites than other and having the ISP's control which web sites are fast and which ones are slow?

    Are you completely out of your mind? Wait. I already know the answer to that question. I get it. You want the corporations controlling every aspect of your life, don't you and telling you how much you'll pay for everything. And you don't want any government regulations. The free market run amok is what got us in this mess in the first place.

  7. Bruce - You are an idiot. Do YOU even know WTF you are talking about?!?! NO, Republicans and conservatives are NOT for net neutrality. Where do you GET this shit from? Stop making things up you asshole! Every time you make this crap up, I will call you on it. I look good, you look even dumber, and around and around we go until you have one or two readers on your shitty little lame-assed blog (I'm assuming, based on what you had on the O.P.) and Chris has a great blog.

    We don't need government (especially a Democratic-controlled government) control of the internet. Can you a-holes keep your fat fingers out of ANYTHING?!?!

    The problem with the internet (for Democrats) is that Obama wants to control EVERYTHING. No thank you. Obama lives by the sword, he will die by the sword.

    Bruce, I would think that, being a Democrat and I'm assuming a big defender of free speech, you would support any damn thing that abridges it, just because it comes from the Democrats. Do you EVER think for yourself?!!? Another question you will never answer, but which is for the most part purely rhetorical because I know the answer already: NO, you do NOT.

    CAGW to FCC: Net Neutrality is a Bad Solution in Search of a Non-Existent Problem

    CAGW once again this month reiterated its strong opposition to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) intention to embark on a regulatory goose chase. On October 22, the FCC began its ill-conceived venture into drafting new rules and regulations to dictate how broadband companies must manage access to the Internet. “Contrary to the lingo, ‘net neutrality’ is anything but neutral,” stated CAGW President Tom Schatz. “The Internet has flourished with a minimum of political intervention. There is no pressing need for government involvement and no good will come from the government’s creating a phony role for itself. The Internet has been a wide-open playing field for a whole host of fierce competitors and has flourished because of government’s benign indifference. However, the new culture in Washington dictates that there is nothing anymore that is off-limits to the long arm of the feds…Taxpayers will rue the day that government regulation choked off innovation on the Internet…Any new federal regulatory role will necessitate a giant and expensive bureaucracy, whose employees will serve as the Internet police.”

  8. Bruce are you a Marxist? It sounds like you are.

  9. Now that capitalism and the free market has the internet humming along, Bruce and his merry band of socialists want to swoop in and take it over and hand out free internet to the world. Too bad there is no such thing as a free lunch. Also, Obama will decide what the "facts" are and prevent ANY dissenting opinion. It's the DemocRAT way. Net "neutrality" my ass. The next great "CRISIS", I'm sure we will be hearing soon.

  10. Here you go Chris. Obama was barely in office when his DofJ was getting information on readers of a liberal on-line news organization. I suppose it is fine with the libs that Obama and his Justice Department spy on Americans.
    White House declared war on Indymedia?

  11. Once again Bruce makes the mistake of equating liberals like dede scuzzabuzzalafullofit and lyndsy grahmnesty with conservatives.
    Most are not for the federal government getting involved in the internet.
    Why do we have to have a government solution where there is no problem?
    Just where do liberals like bruce draw the line on federal involvment?
    Do they actually believe the constitution limits federal power or do they believe that there should be no retraints?
    I think they believe in the latter

  12. I was thinking the same thing the other day Doug. The liberals want the federal government to run unchecked (as long as THEIR guy is in the White House, and they control the Congress!) Could you imagine if ANY Republican tried half the stuff Obama is trying. The scary thing is, the Democrats will open all these Pandora's boxes, and then Republicans will come into power and continue the abuses. But Fealk and the other idiots either don't see the danger, or they believe that the government is in place to look after every little person. Like our nanny's. Bruce, did you not have a mother growing up, so you are trying to fill that void with the government?

    Bruce, can you answer Doug's question? I think we would all like to know what, if any, constraints you think the Federal Government should have.

  13. Neutrality is like being a MODERATE. It stands for NOTHING!

    Government involvment in any Private Sector including the Internet is for one reason CONTROL. We already have STATE RUN MEDIA that could care less about TRUTH,only AGENDA. That is why the ATTACK dogs went after FOX but a funny thing happened. FOXES ratings are probablly better now. LIBS Hate and cannot FIGHT the TRUTH,only way they can fight it is to CONTROL IT!

  14. Couldn't have said it any better Al. Libs hate the truth like cats hate water. The only difference is that cats take care of their own feces. The Democrats poop out their legislation and then leave it up to the Republican's to clean up their messes.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.