President Obama routinely floats ideas in the media to test the political waters. Many of these schemes have been enshrined into law through executive orders, such as amnesty for illegal aliens. That's why his latest brainchild, mandatory voting, should not be dismissed as idle provocation.
Obama's addiction of telegraphing his policy gambits suggests the president may be plotting to require everyone 18-years and older to vote in federal elections. He acknowledged his interest in the gimmick during a recent give-and-take with the media.
"In Australia and some other countries, there's mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everyone voted. That would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country," the president told reporters.
After there was an outcry over Obama's remarks, White House mouthpiece Josh Earnest tried to walk back the president's statement. "The president wasn't putting forth a specific proposal," Earnest told reporters in a lame attempt to smooth over Obama's impetuous remarks.
Despite Earnest's assurances, everyone would be advised to be wary because Obama's musings have a habit of becoming law over the objections of Congress and the American people. Remember, the president still has his infamous pen to rewrite American law.
In touting Australia's compulsory voting plan, the president deliberately chose an example of a country that uses strong enforcement to compel citizens to vote. In the 22 other countries with mandatory voting laws, less than half invoke sanctions or fines. In those nations, turnout is comparable to the U.S.
Australia levies fines of $20 to $50 for those who opt not to vote in country-wide elections. Failure to pay the fines may result in imprisonment. In spite of the stringent enforcement, 100 percent voter turnout is a myth in Australia.
Ten percent of Australians 18-years and older fail to register to vote. Six percent of Australians who vote in elections turn in a blank ballot as a way of protesting the law. Another six percent simply pay the fine and avoid the entire election hassle.
There are no guarantees that mandatory voting would have benefited Obama. The president was victorious in 2008 and 2012 with voter turnouts of 62.3 percent and 57.5 percent, respectively. However, he won by garnering the ballots of less than 33 percent of registered voters in those elections.
Obama didn't seem to mind that he was elected by less than a majority of registered voters. But after his Democrat Party was spanked in the recent mid-terms, Obama huffed that low voter turnout (36.4%) was responsible for the Republican election sweep.
Obama postulates that if every American voted, Democrats in general would benefit. There is absolutely no evidence to support his thesis. Left unchallenged, the president's message has gained traction with Democrats desperate to avoid another embarrassment at the polls.
Extensive research by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has produced some eyeopening justifications for staying home on election day. Those who don't vote or rarely participate in elections overwhelming admit they "know little about the candidates."
In addition, Pew found that non-voters believe participation in the election process does "not change things" and they believe the "issues in D.C. don't affect" them. Majorities of non-voters also confess there are "not interested in local politics" either.
Would disinterested, ill-informed and ambivalent citizens constructively contribute to American democracy by being forced to cast a ballot? That notion is foreign to most Americans who believe it is every citizen's civic responsibility and solemn duty to vote in local, state and federal elections.
Making voting compulsory won't ensure every citizen votes. Such action would, however, embolden the government to create a bureaucracy to enforce election participation, levy fines and punish those who violate the law. Elections would no longer be free but heavily regulated government fiats.
America would reassemble a banana republic rather than the democracy our forefathers envisioned in founding the country. Would the United States be better off if the nation adopted the forced election edicts of countries like Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia or Costa Rica? Of course not.
Mandatory voting is a lousy doctrine for a democracy and it invests power in the government not individuals, like so many solutions championed by this president. It deserves to be resoundingly rejected as antithetical to American ideals.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
Cancer: The Emperor of All Maladies
There are few things in life more dreaded than hearing a doctor's diagnosis of cancer. The mere mention of the word evokes emotions of fear, anxiety and panic. It is an invasive disease that not only ravages the body but saps the human will to live. Cancer can be a swift killer or it can linger for years.
Cancer's toll is not only physical. It also exacts a high financial cost from patients. Based on a report issued last year by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the price tag to treat cancer is expected to skyrocket 40 percent to $175 billion annually by 2020. The cost was $88.7 billion in 2011.
As costs spiral, the number of new cancer cases in the United States is expected to continue to rise. The American Cancer Society estimates that 1,658,370 new cases will be diagnosed this year. In its most recent report, the society forecasts 589,430 Americans will die from the disease in 2015.
Worldwide, cancer cases are exploding. By 2030, the society projects there will be 21.7 million new cases and more than 13 million cancer deaths. The growth and aging of the population are multipliers that will impact the numbers of new cases.
Cancer is the second most common cause of death in this nation, exceeded only by heart disease. Nearly one out of four deaths in the country will be attributed to cancer. The most common cancers are those that attack the digestive and respiratory systems as well as the breasts and prostate.
However, cancer no longer is a death sentence. The good news is that recent advances have increased the survival rates. The five-year survival rates for all cancers diagnosed from 2004 to 2010 was 68 percent, according to the American Cancer Society.
In its previous study, the survival rate was 49 percent, which suggests consistent progress. But while cancer deaths have decreased 12 percent since 1970, heart disease mortality rates have declined by 62 percent. The explanation for the difference in progress may be as simple as money.
A report by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, documented that cancer funding has stagnated. At a time when the opportunity exists for significant strides in improving cancer treatment, the funding has not kept up with the urgency for new research.
The report also identified other challenges including excessive and complex government oversight, long delays in the launch of clinical trials and the difficult recruitment of new scientists. In addition, the survey noted the need for more clinical researchers to conduct ground-breaking trials.
Those clinical trials represent the front lines of the cancer battle. A prime example is the nationally acclaimed Institute for Drug Development at the Cancer Therapy and Research Center (CTRC) in San Antonio, which has developed 20 new cancer drugs, revolutionizing patient treatments.
With public and private funding, centers such as the CTRC are able to conduct the scientific research with patients enrolled in new treatment studies. These clinical trials often pave the way for innovative treatments which improve outcomes for patients with cancer.
But money alone won't kill cancer. Americans also must do more. One study found that the steepest drop in cancer mortality rates were for those types where screening and prevention are readily available. Many insurance companies pay for these tests, but well-meaning people vacillate or resist screenings.
There are other measures people can take, including maintaining a healthy weight, avoiding smoking, increasing physical activity and adopting wholesome eating habits. These common sense remedies are too often ignored. Americans would rather gulp down a magic pill to prevent cancer. None exists.
But even if people embrace new habits, it won't stop cancer in its tracks. More funding is required to underwrite robust clinical trials that give birth to new treatments. The country owes it to every citizen to make cancer funding a top national priority.
If not now, when? How many deaths must occur before the nation acts?
Cancer must be wiped out, not just contained. Whatever the cost, it will not be too steep a price to pay.
Cancer's toll is not only physical. It also exacts a high financial cost from patients. Based on a report issued last year by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the price tag to treat cancer is expected to skyrocket 40 percent to $175 billion annually by 2020. The cost was $88.7 billion in 2011.
As costs spiral, the number of new cancer cases in the United States is expected to continue to rise. The American Cancer Society estimates that 1,658,370 new cases will be diagnosed this year. In its most recent report, the society forecasts 589,430 Americans will die from the disease in 2015.
Worldwide, cancer cases are exploding. By 2030, the society projects there will be 21.7 million new cases and more than 13 million cancer deaths. The growth and aging of the population are multipliers that will impact the numbers of new cases.
Cancer is the second most common cause of death in this nation, exceeded only by heart disease. Nearly one out of four deaths in the country will be attributed to cancer. The most common cancers are those that attack the digestive and respiratory systems as well as the breasts and prostate.
However, cancer no longer is a death sentence. The good news is that recent advances have increased the survival rates. The five-year survival rates for all cancers diagnosed from 2004 to 2010 was 68 percent, according to the American Cancer Society.
In its previous study, the survival rate was 49 percent, which suggests consistent progress. But while cancer deaths have decreased 12 percent since 1970, heart disease mortality rates have declined by 62 percent. The explanation for the difference in progress may be as simple as money.
A report by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, documented that cancer funding has stagnated. At a time when the opportunity exists for significant strides in improving cancer treatment, the funding has not kept up with the urgency for new research.
The report also identified other challenges including excessive and complex government oversight, long delays in the launch of clinical trials and the difficult recruitment of new scientists. In addition, the survey noted the need for more clinical researchers to conduct ground-breaking trials.
Those clinical trials represent the front lines of the cancer battle. A prime example is the nationally acclaimed Institute for Drug Development at the Cancer Therapy and Research Center (CTRC) in San Antonio, which has developed 20 new cancer drugs, revolutionizing patient treatments.
With public and private funding, centers such as the CTRC are able to conduct the scientific research with patients enrolled in new treatment studies. These clinical trials often pave the way for innovative treatments which improve outcomes for patients with cancer.
But money alone won't kill cancer. Americans also must do more. One study found that the steepest drop in cancer mortality rates were for those types where screening and prevention are readily available. Many insurance companies pay for these tests, but well-meaning people vacillate or resist screenings.
There are other measures people can take, including maintaining a healthy weight, avoiding smoking, increasing physical activity and adopting wholesome eating habits. These common sense remedies are too often ignored. Americans would rather gulp down a magic pill to prevent cancer. None exists.
But even if people embrace new habits, it won't stop cancer in its tracks. More funding is required to underwrite robust clinical trials that give birth to new treatments. The country owes it to every citizen to make cancer funding a top national priority.
If not now, when? How many deaths must occur before the nation acts?
Cancer must be wiped out, not just contained. Whatever the cost, it will not be too steep a price to pay.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Feds' Unemployment Figure Is A Big Lie
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued its February unemployment figures, the media, the White House and Wall Street celebrated with backflips, fist-bumps and chest-pounding. The cause for jubilation was a government report that showed the jobless rate had dipped to 5.5 percent.
Their joy was not dampened by the continuing softness in the economic recovery. In government circles, these numbers are evidence that the American economy is firing on all cylinders. Economic reality, however, is impossible to define with a single statistic.
The depressing truth is that the unemployment number doesn't accurately reflect the job situation in the United States. In fact, the chief executive officer of the nation's leading polling organization offered a harsh assessment of the federal unemployment figure earlier this year.
"There's no other way to say this," cautioned Jim Clifton after the December report. "The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie."
Clifton knows what he is talking about. His Gallup firm publishes reams of data on the country's job situation. Their figures are often cited by money management professionals and others because many believe the numbers are more accurate than the government statistics.
For the record, Gallup's latest 30-day rolling average pegs the current unemployment rate at 6.4 percent. The number of "underemployed" Americans is a staggering 15.7 percent of the workforce. These people are often working part-time because they can't get a full-time job.
In his appraisal of the current job environment, Clifton noted that as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or "severely" underemployed. "Trust me," Clifton said. "The vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast falling unemployment."
A cursory glance through the BLS data incontestably supports Clifton's viewpoint. For example, there are 30.4 million Americans who have been out of work for 27 weeks or longer. These so-called long-term unemployed are not counted in the government's official jobless percentage.
Burrowing in the data, the employment picture turns fuzzy when you discover that the number of part-time workers is growing. There are 20 million Americans in part-time jobs, an increase of more than a 400,000 workers from January's count.
Of those in part-time jobs, nearly 7 million (6.7 million) were forced into these circumstances because they were laid-off or their hours were reduced for a variety of reasons. These hard-working Americans want full-time work, but they cannot find it. They are not counted in the government's jobless rate.
Another disturbing trend is the disappearance of the 40-hour work week. In February, the average weekly hours worked in non-government jobs was 34.6 hours, the fifth straight month it has remained at this level. This helps explain why wages have stagnated as the economy has struggled.
If that isn't enough to depress you, then consider that the number of people not in the workforce has continued to climb. There are now 92.8 million Americans currently not in the labor force. The labor participation rate, 62.8 percent, is the lowest since March of 1978.
By way of explanation, the labor participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in the economy who are either employed or unemployed but looking for a job. Typically, "working-age persons" are defined as people between the ages of 16 and 64.
Why are the numbers of people in the labor force shrinking? Since the recession, more Americans are opting to return to school, to declare themselves disabled or to stay a home rather than work. Economists blame bleak job prospects for this trend.
The United States, once the world leader in labor participation, has fallen among the also-rans. Canada, Australia, Belgium and even Finland have rates higher than our country. In fact, since 2000, the U.S. labor participation rate has tumbled from 67.3 percent to the current 62.8.
Even worse, about 12.2 million Americans have left the workforce since President Obama assumed the Oval Office in January, 2009. You won't hear that number ever quoted in the mainstream media's reports about the state of the economy.
The number of workers euphemistically known as "marginally attached to the labor force" also increased. There were 2.2 million people who did not actively look for work in the last four weeks for reasons ranging from family responsibilities to ill health. They are not counted in the jobless rate.
These figures and others underscore the disconnect Americans feel when they hear the feds' unemployment statistic. The government number suggests the jobs outlook is improving, but for most Americans, there is little reason to cheer.
In his review of the current economic situation, Gallup's Clifton has called on "the talking heads at the White House and Wall Street to start reporting the truth" about jobs and employment in the country. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen until a new president is sworn into office in 2017.
As long as Barrack Obama occupies the White House, the myth of America's recovery will continue to be propagated by his acolytes in the media and echoed by the Wall Street titans eager to convince investors that the economy has never been better.
To quote Jim Clifton, it is all a Big Lie.
Their joy was not dampened by the continuing softness in the economic recovery. In government circles, these numbers are evidence that the American economy is firing on all cylinders. Economic reality, however, is impossible to define with a single statistic.
The depressing truth is that the unemployment number doesn't accurately reflect the job situation in the United States. In fact, the chief executive officer of the nation's leading polling organization offered a harsh assessment of the federal unemployment figure earlier this year.
"There's no other way to say this," cautioned Jim Clifton after the December report. "The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie."
Clifton knows what he is talking about. His Gallup firm publishes reams of data on the country's job situation. Their figures are often cited by money management professionals and others because many believe the numbers are more accurate than the government statistics.
For the record, Gallup's latest 30-day rolling average pegs the current unemployment rate at 6.4 percent. The number of "underemployed" Americans is a staggering 15.7 percent of the workforce. These people are often working part-time because they can't get a full-time job.
In his appraisal of the current job environment, Clifton noted that as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or "severely" underemployed. "Trust me," Clifton said. "The vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast falling unemployment."
A cursory glance through the BLS data incontestably supports Clifton's viewpoint. For example, there are 30.4 million Americans who have been out of work for 27 weeks or longer. These so-called long-term unemployed are not counted in the government's official jobless percentage.
Burrowing in the data, the employment picture turns fuzzy when you discover that the number of part-time workers is growing. There are 20 million Americans in part-time jobs, an increase of more than a 400,000 workers from January's count.
Of those in part-time jobs, nearly 7 million (6.7 million) were forced into these circumstances because they were laid-off or their hours were reduced for a variety of reasons. These hard-working Americans want full-time work, but they cannot find it. They are not counted in the government's jobless rate.
Another disturbing trend is the disappearance of the 40-hour work week. In February, the average weekly hours worked in non-government jobs was 34.6 hours, the fifth straight month it has remained at this level. This helps explain why wages have stagnated as the economy has struggled.
If that isn't enough to depress you, then consider that the number of people not in the workforce has continued to climb. There are now 92.8 million Americans currently not in the labor force. The labor participation rate, 62.8 percent, is the lowest since March of 1978.
By way of explanation, the labor participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in the economy who are either employed or unemployed but looking for a job. Typically, "working-age persons" are defined as people between the ages of 16 and 64.
Why are the numbers of people in the labor force shrinking? Since the recession, more Americans are opting to return to school, to declare themselves disabled or to stay a home rather than work. Economists blame bleak job prospects for this trend.
The United States, once the world leader in labor participation, has fallen among the also-rans. Canada, Australia, Belgium and even Finland have rates higher than our country. In fact, since 2000, the U.S. labor participation rate has tumbled from 67.3 percent to the current 62.8.
Even worse, about 12.2 million Americans have left the workforce since President Obama assumed the Oval Office in January, 2009. You won't hear that number ever quoted in the mainstream media's reports about the state of the economy.
The number of workers euphemistically known as "marginally attached to the labor force" also increased. There were 2.2 million people who did not actively look for work in the last four weeks for reasons ranging from family responsibilities to ill health. They are not counted in the jobless rate.
These figures and others underscore the disconnect Americans feel when they hear the feds' unemployment statistic. The government number suggests the jobs outlook is improving, but for most Americans, there is little reason to cheer.
In his review of the current economic situation, Gallup's Clifton has called on "the talking heads at the White House and Wall Street to start reporting the truth" about jobs and employment in the country. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen until a new president is sworn into office in 2017.
As long as Barrack Obama occupies the White House, the myth of America's recovery will continue to be propagated by his acolytes in the media and echoed by the Wall Street titans eager to convince investors that the economy has never been better.
To quote Jim Clifton, it is all a Big Lie.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Hillary Stumbles On Path to Presidency
Inevitable. Indomitable. Invincible. Those are were some of the words being used to describe the presumed presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She appears poised to announce a second run for the White House soon but one political pothole after another has cratered her once smooth path.
Clinton's political image, already sullied by gaffes during last year's book tour, has been tarnished by a series of unseemly revelations in recent months. While Clinton has never been pure as the driven snow, what makes these scandals different is the piling on by a usually servile media.
Normally reliable Clinton parasites such as The New York Times and The Washington Post have shone a spotlight on the ethically-challenged conduct of the former First Lady. This does not bode well for Clinton, who already has the highest negative ratings of any potential presidential candidate.
Her troubles began when details surfaced about foreign governments contributing hefty amounts to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary served as Secretary of State. This was in conflict with the Clintons agreement to forgo donations from most governments during her term as the nation's chief diplomat.
The arrangement with the Obama Administration was crafted to avoid the appearance of undue influence-peddling by the Secretary of State. However, the Clintons managed to circumvent the compact by sneaking in a giant loophole that allowed some governments to continue making donations.
This extraordinary exemption negotiated by the Clintons permitted foreign entities to remain donors to the foundation at the same levels they had contributed prior to 2008. Kuwait, Qatar and Oman, which all had issues pending before the U.S. government, slithered through this loophole.
Algeria, which was not on the exempt list, forked over $500,000 to the foundation after the agreement was concluded. At the time, Algeria was lobbying the State Department on human rights issues, according to The Washington Post. This constitutes a clear violation of the agreement.
In typical Clinton fashion, the presumptive candidate sent her minions to smear those making accusations against the foundation. Clinton flacks fired off insulting and demeaning emails to guilty reporters and editors. The Clintons circled the wagons, protecting the candidate in waiting.
Just when Hillary thought the issue had been safely defused, a fresh scandal cropped up when it was revealed she had set up a private email account during her four years as Secretary of State. This was a clear violation of the Obama Administration policy on transparency in communications.
Not only did Clinton have a private email account, but she also employed a private Internet domain on her own private server at her residence. That means she had complete control over which emails were saved or deleted. There was no one in the administration looking over her shoulder.
Under the policy instituted by President Obama, most federal employees are tethered to government-provided email addresses and their electronic communications are archived. Hillary thumbed her nose at this requirement. She presumed the rules did not apply to her. She always has.
Caught red-handed, Clinton made a lame attempt to sweep the issue under the rug by vowing to release 55,000 pages of emails. The numbers are meaningless. The public will never know how many emails have been erased, deleted or withheld because only Hillary has access to the data trove.
In fact, Rep. Trey Gowdy, head of the House committee investigating Benghazi, reviewed her emails and found gaps of "months and months and months." Clinton's emails were never turned over to past Benghazi's committees, a fact the media never reported until the current scandal erupted.
This kind of Clinton behavior is all too familiar to most Americans. Hillary and former President Bill Clinton have always operated on the theory that laws were meant for others. They privately snicker at the gullibility of those who have given the Clintons passes on ethical and moral indiscretions.
Behind closed doors, some Democrats are beginning to question a Hillary candidacy. They are concerned more scandals are looming. But don't expect this to derail a Clinton run. The same hubris that has defined the Clintons will persuade her to campaign for the nation's highest office.
Clinton's political image, already sullied by gaffes during last year's book tour, has been tarnished by a series of unseemly revelations in recent months. While Clinton has never been pure as the driven snow, what makes these scandals different is the piling on by a usually servile media.
Normally reliable Clinton parasites such as The New York Times and The Washington Post have shone a spotlight on the ethically-challenged conduct of the former First Lady. This does not bode well for Clinton, who already has the highest negative ratings of any potential presidential candidate.
Her troubles began when details surfaced about foreign governments contributing hefty amounts to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary served as Secretary of State. This was in conflict with the Clintons agreement to forgo donations from most governments during her term as the nation's chief diplomat.
The arrangement with the Obama Administration was crafted to avoid the appearance of undue influence-peddling by the Secretary of State. However, the Clintons managed to circumvent the compact by sneaking in a giant loophole that allowed some governments to continue making donations.
This extraordinary exemption negotiated by the Clintons permitted foreign entities to remain donors to the foundation at the same levels they had contributed prior to 2008. Kuwait, Qatar and Oman, which all had issues pending before the U.S. government, slithered through this loophole.
Algeria, which was not on the exempt list, forked over $500,000 to the foundation after the agreement was concluded. At the time, Algeria was lobbying the State Department on human rights issues, according to The Washington Post. This constitutes a clear violation of the agreement.
In typical Clinton fashion, the presumptive candidate sent her minions to smear those making accusations against the foundation. Clinton flacks fired off insulting and demeaning emails to guilty reporters and editors. The Clintons circled the wagons, protecting the candidate in waiting.
Just when Hillary thought the issue had been safely defused, a fresh scandal cropped up when it was revealed she had set up a private email account during her four years as Secretary of State. This was a clear violation of the Obama Administration policy on transparency in communications.
Not only did Clinton have a private email account, but she also employed a private Internet domain on her own private server at her residence. That means she had complete control over which emails were saved or deleted. There was no one in the administration looking over her shoulder.
Under the policy instituted by President Obama, most federal employees are tethered to government-provided email addresses and their electronic communications are archived. Hillary thumbed her nose at this requirement. She presumed the rules did not apply to her. She always has.
Caught red-handed, Clinton made a lame attempt to sweep the issue under the rug by vowing to release 55,000 pages of emails. The numbers are meaningless. The public will never know how many emails have been erased, deleted or withheld because only Hillary has access to the data trove.
In fact, Rep. Trey Gowdy, head of the House committee investigating Benghazi, reviewed her emails and found gaps of "months and months and months." Clinton's emails were never turned over to past Benghazi's committees, a fact the media never reported until the current scandal erupted.
This kind of Clinton behavior is all too familiar to most Americans. Hillary and former President Bill Clinton have always operated on the theory that laws were meant for others. They privately snicker at the gullibility of those who have given the Clintons passes on ethical and moral indiscretions.
Behind closed doors, some Democrats are beginning to question a Hillary candidacy. They are concerned more scandals are looming. But don't expect this to derail a Clinton run. The same hubris that has defined the Clintons will persuade her to campaign for the nation's highest office.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Obama Seizes Control of Internet
History will record February 26, 2015, as the date the federal government did what few thought possible. It commandeered control of the Internet, a technological marvel which grew from a small computer network into a global system with no centralized governance or policies.
From its humble beginnings in the 1980s, the Internet has transformed the way people and businesses communicate, work, purchase goods and share information. Spared from intrusive government interference, the Internet has surpassed even the most optimistic predictions about its potential.
Now that is about to change. The Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission bowed to pressure from President Obama and deep-pocketed lobbying organizations, in announcing 332 pages of regulations designed to achieve a dubious goal of "net neutrality."
Although the regulations remain cloaked in secrecy, it is clear the president wants the heavy hand of the federal government to hold the Internet reins. Despite FCC assurances to the contrary, regulators will have the power to tax, regulate content and curb commercial activities.
The president bullied the FCC into adopting his Internet agenda. Obama publicly demanded the regulatory maneuver, calling on repeated occasions for his three pawns on the five-member commission to reclassify broadband communications as a regulated public utility.
This regulatory approach is reminiscent of policies adopted in 1934 to deal with a monopoly phone system. It has no place in the competitive, high-tech Internet world. Once implemented, the new restrictions will have a chilling impact on Internet investment, innovation and technology.
The regulatory confiscation was an overzealous reaction to an imaginary problem. The Internet is not broken. But powerful forces, including business giants Netflix, Amazon and Goggle, marshaled public support for regulation under the guise of something called net neutrality.
These corporate behemoths benefit from the investment and networks of Internet service providers such as cable and broadband companies. Although the three giants generate nearly half of the Internet traffic, they want their content to flow to users without paying network costs.
The cabal coined the innocuous term "net neutrality" to mean treating all Internet traffic equally. But it was an effort to brainwash the public into believing video streaming would be faster and less costly if service providers were heavily regulated.
Behind the scenes, Obama's clandestine collaborators poured millions of dollars into lobbying and propaganda. The Open Society Foundation, created by ultra-liberal billionaire George Soros, and the Ford Foundation spent $196 million on the issue, according to Media Research Center.
Piles of cash were dispatched to organizations such as Free Press, a pro-regulation, non-profit with ties to Robert McChesney, an advocate for removing all vestiges of capitalism from the Internet. Other groups benefiting from the largess included the ACLU and the Center for American Progress.
Emails began flooding the FCC commission, providing its Chairman Tom Wheeler ample cover to change his mind and embrace Obama's position on Internet regulation. The orchestrated campaign involving the White House and its co-conspirators gave the appearance of universal public approval.
Meanwhile, the news media whipped up enthusiasm for the regulation by regurgitating the president's talking points. Their interests were served because traditional media has lost billions in advertising dollars to Internet firms. Big media hopes regulators will reduce advertising on the Internet.
Obama's sycophants are quick to promise the regulation will improve the Internet. Give it a chance to work, they plead. Those same pledges were made when the president directed the takeover of health care. His coup led to his name being affixed to the reform.
If you like ObamaCare with all its broken promises, you are bound to love ObamaNet.
From its humble beginnings in the 1980s, the Internet has transformed the way people and businesses communicate, work, purchase goods and share information. Spared from intrusive government interference, the Internet has surpassed even the most optimistic predictions about its potential.
Now that is about to change. The Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission bowed to pressure from President Obama and deep-pocketed lobbying organizations, in announcing 332 pages of regulations designed to achieve a dubious goal of "net neutrality."
Although the regulations remain cloaked in secrecy, it is clear the president wants the heavy hand of the federal government to hold the Internet reins. Despite FCC assurances to the contrary, regulators will have the power to tax, regulate content and curb commercial activities.
The president bullied the FCC into adopting his Internet agenda. Obama publicly demanded the regulatory maneuver, calling on repeated occasions for his three pawns on the five-member commission to reclassify broadband communications as a regulated public utility.
This regulatory approach is reminiscent of policies adopted in 1934 to deal with a monopoly phone system. It has no place in the competitive, high-tech Internet world. Once implemented, the new restrictions will have a chilling impact on Internet investment, innovation and technology.
The regulatory confiscation was an overzealous reaction to an imaginary problem. The Internet is not broken. But powerful forces, including business giants Netflix, Amazon and Goggle, marshaled public support for regulation under the guise of something called net neutrality.
These corporate behemoths benefit from the investment and networks of Internet service providers such as cable and broadband companies. Although the three giants generate nearly half of the Internet traffic, they want their content to flow to users without paying network costs.
The cabal coined the innocuous term "net neutrality" to mean treating all Internet traffic equally. But it was an effort to brainwash the public into believing video streaming would be faster and less costly if service providers were heavily regulated.
Behind the scenes, Obama's clandestine collaborators poured millions of dollars into lobbying and propaganda. The Open Society Foundation, created by ultra-liberal billionaire George Soros, and the Ford Foundation spent $196 million on the issue, according to Media Research Center.
Piles of cash were dispatched to organizations such as Free Press, a pro-regulation, non-profit with ties to Robert McChesney, an advocate for removing all vestiges of capitalism from the Internet. Other groups benefiting from the largess included the ACLU and the Center for American Progress.
Emails began flooding the FCC commission, providing its Chairman Tom Wheeler ample cover to change his mind and embrace Obama's position on Internet regulation. The orchestrated campaign involving the White House and its co-conspirators gave the appearance of universal public approval.
Meanwhile, the news media whipped up enthusiasm for the regulation by regurgitating the president's talking points. Their interests were served because traditional media has lost billions in advertising dollars to Internet firms. Big media hopes regulators will reduce advertising on the Internet.
Obama's sycophants are quick to promise the regulation will improve the Internet. Give it a chance to work, they plead. Those same pledges were made when the president directed the takeover of health care. His coup led to his name being affixed to the reform.
If you like ObamaCare with all its broken promises, you are bound to love ObamaNet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)