Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘FOX News’

Clinton Cheerleader & Democratic Pollster Just DUMPED Hillary On Live TV


waving flagPublished on October 31, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/10/clinton-cheerleader-democratic-pollster-just-dumped-hillary-live-tv-watch/

This is what someone who puts his love of country ahead of personal politics looks like. He’s been a friend of the Clintons since 1994. But his integrity will not permit him to vote for her now.

This partial transcript is courtesy of Real Clear Politics:

DOUG SCHOEN: As you know, I have been a supporter of Secretary Clinton… But given that this investigation is going to go on for many months after the election… But if the Secretary of State wins, we will have a president under criminal investigation, with Huma Abedin under criminal investigation, with the Secretary of State, the president-elect, should she win under investigation.

Harris, under these circumstances, I am actively reassessing my support. I’m not a Trump — 

HARRIS FAULKNER, FOX NEWS: Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. You are not going to vote for Hillary Clinton?

Never-Hillary-Egl-sm

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

SCHOEN: Harris, I’m deeply concerned that we’ll have a constitutional crisis if she’s elected.

FAULKNER: Wow!

SCHOEN: I want to learn more this week. See what we see. But as of today, I am not a supporter of the Secretary of State for the nation’s highest office.

FAULKNER: How long have you known the clintons.

SCHOEN: I’ve known the clintons since ’94.

FAULKNER: Wow! But their friend here has said he’s reconsidering.

SCHOEN: I have to, because of the impact on the governance of the country and our international situation.

FAULKNER: So the news in that is are there other people, I would imagine, like Doug Schoen.

A Democrat with integrity is making the call that he cannot pull the lever for Hillary. Good for him!

Why is this PARTICULAR guy jumping ship a big deal?

Here’s a little background on the man.

Schoen was on a panel with fellow Democrat pollster Pat Caddell and former Republican Congressman John LeBoutillier.

Schoen’s bio reads in part:

Douglas E. Schoen has been one of the most influential Democratic campaign consultants for over thirty years. A founding partner and principle strategist for Penn, Schoen & Berland, he is widely recognized as one of the co-inventors of overnight polling.

Schoen was named Pollster of the Year in 1996 by the American Association of Political Consultants for his contributions to the President Bill Clinton reelection campaign.

His political clients include New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Indiana Governor Evan Bayh, and his corporate clients include AOL Time Warner, Procter & Gamble and AT&T. Internationally, he has worked for the heads of states of over 15 countries, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and three Israeli Prime Ministers…” — Gateway Pundit

There are LOTS of Democrats out there … DECENT people, who pick their candidate actually thinking they will do good for the country … who should take a look at Shoen’s example. Many of them will want to follow it.or a liar

Report: Megyn Claims Fox News’ Ailes Sexually Harassed Her


waving flagTuesday, 19 Jul 2016

Image: Report: Megyn Claims Fox News’ Ailes Sexually Harassed Her (AP)

New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman reported Tuesday that Fox News star Megyn Kelly has accused the network’s chairman of sexual harassment.  The blockbuster report comes on the heels of Sherman’s Monday story, citing sources at Fox News’s parent company, indicating Roger Ailes was soon to be fired.

The decision to remove Ailes in the coming weeks was the result of misconduct discovered after a legal review of his actions in the wake of claims made by former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson.
Carlson has filed suit in New Jersey Superior Court claiming the Fox News chairman requested they sleep together for favorable treatment.

But it was unclear as to the immediate cause motivating Ailes pending dismissal, New York said, “until now.”

New York reported the bombshell revelation:

“According to two sources briefed on parent company 21st Century Fox’s outside probe of the Fox News executive, led by New York–based law firm Paul, Weiss, Kelly has told investigators that Ailes made unwanted sexual advances toward her about ten years ago when she was a young correspondent at Fox. Kelly, according to the sources, has described her harassment by Ailes in detail.”

21st Century Fox executives have told Ailes to quit by Aug. 1 or be fired, according to the report.

Ailes has hired lawyer Susan Estrich, Michael Dukakis’ former presidential campaign manager, to head up his defense strategy.

New York also claims Ailes has turned to Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani for advice on the widening scandal.

New York said Fox and its parent company, as well as Kelly, declined to comment for the story.

Since the Carlson suit filed in June, nine women have accused Ailes of sexual harassment during his five decades as a media and entertainment executive.

© 2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

fight Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Rubio Backs Closing Mosques: Shutter ‘Anyplace Where Radicals Are Being Inspired’


waving flagby John Nolte20 Nov 2015

During an interview on Fox News Thursday night, Rubio told Megyn Kelly that he is open to closing “anyplace where radicals are inspired.” This includes mosques:

It’s not about closing down mosques. It’s about closing down anyplace, whether it’s a cafe, a diner, an internet site — anyplace where radicals are being inspired. The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because we’ve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities.

So whatever facility is being used — it’s not just a mosque — any facility that’s being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at.

In service to Hillary Clinton, the DC Media has intentionally taken Trump’s statement on closing American mosques completely out of context. Here’s what he actually said:

Well, I would hate it do it but it’s something that you’re going to have to strongly consider because some of the ideas and some the hatred, the absolute hatred, is coming from these areas. You know, New York City as an example. We had a group of people from what I understand that really knew what they were doing, that were really studying the situation and they’re not doing that anymore under the new mayor. And I think that’s a mistake. It’s something that many people — not just me — are considering and many people are going to do.

Here are the phony headlines that perfectly reasonable, common sense statement generated. The good news is that instead of caving to the media’s lies, Rubio is correctly following Trump’s lead. Oh, and Trump is not assuming a position that’s any different from a number of left-wing leaders in socialist Europe.

Do you want America are you really paying attention Obama Muslim collection In God We Trust freedom combo 2

FBI reportedly recovers deleted emails from Clinton server


waving flagPublished September 23, 2015 / FoxNews.com

TeflonFederal investigators reportedly have recovered work-related and personal emails from Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state that the Democratic presidential front-runner claimed had been deleted from her personal server. The recovery of the emails was first reported by Bloomberg News late Tuesday. The initial report, which cited a source familiar with the FBI investigation into Clinton’s private email server, was corroborated by The New York Times, which cited two government officials. It was not immediately clear whether all 30,000 messages Clinton said she had deleted from the server had been recovered, but one official told the Times that it had not been difficult to recover the emails that had been found so far.

The FBI is investigating whether classified information that passed through Clinton’s so-called “homebrew” server during her time as secretary of state was mishandled. Clinton turned over approximately 30,000 copies of messages she deemed work-related to the State Department this past December. Clinton said earlier this year that the emails she deleted from the private server she kept at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home mostly pertained to personal matters such as her daughter Chelsea’s wedding and the secretary’s yoga routines.

Like I SaidAn intelligence source told Fox News earlier this month that investigators were “confident” they could recover the deleted records. The source said that whoever had been deputized to scrub the server must “not be a very good IT guy.  There are different standards to scrub when you do it for government versus commercial.”

It is not known when exactly Mrs. Clinton “wiped” her server, nor who was directed to do so. However, it seems the move came after October 2014,  when the State Department requested personal emails be returned as part of her business records.

The source also told Fox News an FBI “A-team” is leading the “extremely serious” investigation into Clinton’s server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. The section of the Espionage Act in question is known as 18 US Code 793.

When asked about the report, Clinton’s presidential campaign spokesman Nick Merrill told Fox News that Clinton’s team “will always cooperate with the FBI,” and that Clinton and her staff “simply don’t know what the FBI has, and doesn’t have” in regard to the ongoing investigation.

Clinton Democrat PartyFox News’ Ed Henry said Tuesday that should the report of the newly-recovered emails prove true, some of the emails recovered would already be in investigators’ hands.

A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign’s standard defense and that of Clinton is that she “never sent nor received any email that was marked classified” at the time.

It is not clear how the FBI team’s findings will impact the probe itself. But the details offer a window into what investigators are looking for — as the Clinton campaign itself downplays the controversy.

Fox News’ Ed Henry, Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne contributed to this report.

95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Dozens of intelligence analysts reportedly claim assessments of ISIS were altered


waving flagPublished September 10, 2015 FoxNews.com

URL of the original posting site: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/10/dozens-intelligence-analysts-reportedly-claim-reports-on-isis-were-altered/?intcmp=hpbt1

was

Dozens of intelligence analysts working at the U.S. military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) have complained that their reports on ISIS and the Nusra Front in Syria were inappropriately altered by senior officials, according to a published report.

The Daily Beast reported late Wednesday that more than 50 analysts had supported a complaint to the Pentagon that the reports had been changed to make the terror groups seem weaker than the analysts believe they really are. Fox News confirmed last month that the Defense Department’s inspector general was investigating the initial complaint, which the New York Times reported was made by a civilian employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

At a panel discussion Thursday moderated by Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, DIA Director Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart also confirmed the probe and said the DIA will let the investigation play out. He said the DIA “delivers the truth wherever the debate takes us.”

http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4470101404001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>&#8221; href=”http://http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4470101404001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>”&gt;http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4470101404001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript&gt; aligncenter wp-image-19298″ src=”https://mrb562.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/isis.jpg&#8221; alt=”isis” width=”795″ height=”571″ />

The Pentagon acknowledged the IG investigation as well.

“I think … the best thing for us to do is wait” for the IG investigation, spokesman Peter Cook said. He said Defense Secretary Ash Carter expects “candid assessments” from the intelligence teams. 

“Unvarnished, transparent intelligence is what this secretary expects on a daily basis,” he added.

The assessments in question are prepared for several U.S. policymakers, including President Obama.

The Daily Beast report, which cited 11 individuals, claimed that the complaint being investigated by the Defense Department was made in July. However, several analysts reportedly complained as early as this past October that their reports were being altered to suit a political narrative that ISIS was being weakened by U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria.

“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” the report quotes one defense official as saying.

According to the report, some analysts allege that reports deemed overly negative in their assessment of the Syria campaign were either blocked from reaching policymakers or sent back down the chain of command. Others claim that key elements of intelligence reports were removed, fundamentally altering their conclusions. Another claim is that senior leaders at CENTCOM created a work environment where giving a candid opinion on the progress of the anti-ISIS campaign was discouraged, with one analyst describing the tenor as “Stalinist.”

The report alleges that when the analysts’ complaints were initially aired, some of those who complained were urged to retire, and did so. Facing either resistance or indifference, other analysts self-censored their reports, the Daily Beast claims.

The defense official quoted by the Daily Beast said that some who spoke up did so out of guilt that they did not express doubts about former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s alleged chemical weapons program in the run-up to the Iraq. War. “They were frustrated because they didn’t do the right thing then,” the official said.

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been advised of the complaint that prompted the inspector general’s investigation, which is required if Pentagon officials find the claims credible.

Government rules state that intelligence assessments “must not be distorted” by agendas or policy views, but do allow for legitimate differences of opinion.

Central Command spokesman Col. Patrick S. Ryder said in a statement Wednesday that they welcome the IG’s “independent oversight.”

“While we cannot comment on ongoing investigations, we can speak to the process and about the valued contributions of the Intelligence Community (IC),” he said, adding that intelligence community members typically are able to comment on draft security assessments. “However,” he said, “it is ultimately up to the primary agency or organization whether or not they incorporate any recommended changes or additions. Further, the multi-source nature of our assessment process purposely guards against any single report or opinion unduly influencing leaders and decision-makers.”

Earlier this summer, on the eve of the anniversary of the launching of airstrikes against Iraq, the Associated Press reported that U.S intelligence had concluded that the airstrikes had helped stall ISIS after sweeping gains in the summer of 2014. However, the report also said the terror group remained a well-funded army that could easily replenish its numbers as quickly as fighters were eliminated.

95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Ann Coulter Letter; “Fox News Anchored In Stupidity on 14th Amendment


waving flagAnn Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/08/19/fox-news-anchored-in-stupidity-on-14th-amendment/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Fox News Anchored In Stupidity on 14th Amendment

Based on the hysterical flailing at Donald Trump — He’s a buffoon! He’s a clown! He calls people names! He’s too conservative! He’s not conservative enough! He won’t give details! His details won’t work! — I gather certain Republicans are determined to drive him from the race.

These same Republicans never object to other candidates who lack traditional presidential resumes — Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain, to name a few. I’m beginning to suspect it’s all about Trump’s opposition to mass immigration from the Third World.

Amid the hysteria, Trump is the only one speaking clearly and logically, while his detractors keep making utter asses of themselves.

By my count — so far — Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and the entire Fox News commentariat are unfamiliar with a period of the nation’s history known as “the Civil War.” They seem to believe that the post-Civil War amendments were designed to ensure that the children of illegal aliens would be citizens, “anchor babies,” who can then bring in the whole family. (You wouldn’t want to break up families, would you?)

As FNC’s Bill O’Reilly authoritatively informed Donald Trump on Tuesday night: “The 14th Amendment says if you’re born here, you’re an American!”

I cover anchor babies in about five pages of my book, Adios, America, but apparently Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the scholars on Fox News aren’t what we call “readers.”

Still, how could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids citizens.

Put differently: Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868. You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

You know what’s really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!

Damn straight they should!

We’ve got to codify that.

YOU MEAN IT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

No, it isn’t, but that amendment will pass like wildfire!

It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. (1) I didn’t; (2) WHY WOULD I DO THAT?

“Luckily,” as FNC’s Shannon Bream put it Monday night, Fox had an “expert” to explain the details: Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s senior judicial analyst.

Napolitano at least got the century right. He mentioned the Civil War — and then went on to inform Bream that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to — I quote — “make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them.”

Huh. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who — as you may have surmised by his name — was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.

The “main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the court explained — and not for the first or last time — “was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black … should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”

American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. Lo those 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Indians were not American citizens, despite the considered opinion of Judge Napolitano.

Of course it’s easy for legal experts to miss the welter of rulings on Indian citizenship inasmuch as they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”

Yeah, Trump’s the idiot. Or as Bream said to Napolitano after his completely insane analysis, “I feel smarter just having been in your presence.”

The only reason the 14th Amendment doesn’t just come out and say “black people” is that — despite our Constitution being the product of vicious racists, who were dedicated to promoting white privilege and keeping down the black man (Hat tip: Ta-Nehisi Coates) — the Constitution never, ever mentions race.

Nonetheless, until Fox News’ scholars weighed in, there was little confusion about the purpose of the 14th Amendment. It was to “correct” — as Jack Nicholson said in “The Shining” — the Democrats, who refused to acknowledge that they lost the Civil War and had to start treating black people like citizens.

On one hand, we have noted legal expert Bill O’Reilly haranguing Donald Trump: “YOU WANT ME TO QUOTE YOU THE AMENDMENT??? IF YOU’RE BORN HERE YOU’RE AN AMERICAN. PERIOD! PERIOD!” (No, Bill — there’s no period. More like: “comma,” to parents born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.”)

But on the other hand, we have Justice John Marshall Harlan II, who despite not being a Fox News legal expert, was no slouch. He wrote in the 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk, that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment feared that:

“Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the ‘courts have stumbled on the subject,’ it would be prudent to remove the ‘doubt thrown over’ it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen’s right of citizenship because of birth.”

It is true that in a divided 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. But that decision was so obviously wrong, even the Yale Law Journal ridiculed it.

The majority opinion relied on feudal law regarding citizenship in a monarchy, rather than the Roman law pertaining to a republic — the illogic of which should be immediately apparent to American history buffs, who will recall an incident in our nation’s history known as “the American Revolution.”

Citizenship in a monarchy was all about geography — as it is in countries bristling with lords and vassals, which should not be confused with this country. Thus, under the majority’s logic in Wong Kim Ark, children born to American parents traveling in England would not be American citizens, but British subjects.

As ridiculous as it was to grant citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants under the 14th Amendment (which was about what again? That’s right: slaves freed by the Civil War), that’s a whole order of business different from allowing illegal aliens to sneak across the border, drop a baby and say, Ha-ha! You didn’t catch me! My kid’s a citizen

– while Americans curse impotently under their breath.

As the Supreme Court said in Elk: “[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.”

The anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Fox News is treating Brennan’s crayon scratchings on the Constitution as part of our precious national inheritance.

Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America’s most-cited federal judge — and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”

In a statement so sane that Posner is NEVER going to be invited on Fox News, he wrote: “We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.”

Forget the intricate jurisprudential dispute between Fox News blowhards and the most-cited federal judge. How about basic common sense? Citizenship in our nation is not a game of Red Rover with the Border Patrol! The Constitution does not say otherwise.

Our history and our Constitution are being perverted for the sole purpose of dumping immigrants on the country to take American jobs. So far, only Donald Trump is defending black history on the issue of the 14th Amendment. Fox News is using black people as a false flag to keep cheap Third World labor flowing.

Drudge, Fox News could be censored under new federal rules, experts warn


waving flagBy Rudy Takala 8/13/15

FCC Monster

A Washington, D.C., appeals court is set to hear arguments later this year on new net neutrality rules, which critics say could lead to government regulators censoring websites such as the Drudge Report and Fox News. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments against the Federal Communications Commission’s rules on Dec. 4. A panoply of amicus briefs filed with the court last week offer a preview of the arguments.

In its February vote on net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission stated that broadband providers do not have a right to free speech. “Broadband providers are conduits, not speakers … the rules we adopt today are tailored to the important government interest in maintaining an open Internet as a platform for expression,” the majority held in its 3-2 vote. Free Speech Definition

The rules, which went into effect in June, require that broadband providers — such as Verizon or Comcast — offer access to all legal online content. It did not place such a requirement on “edge providers,” such as Netflix and Google. The FCC defines edge providers as “any individual or entity that provides any content, application, or service over the Internet, and any individual or entity that provides a device used for accessing any content, application, or service over the Internet.” 

Writing in separate briefs, former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth and the Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology argues that the rules violate the First Amendment right of Internet providers to display the speech they choose. “If rules such as these are not reviewed under the most rigorous scrutiny possible, government favoritism and censorship masquerading as ‘neutrality’ will soon cascade to other forms of mass communication,” the center argues.Tyranney Alert

Furchtgott-Roth argues that the differentiation between content providers and broadband providers is an unconstitutional division. “In addition to compelling speech, the order impermissibly singles out broadband providers without imposing similar requirements on the speech of other Internet entities who also act as gatekeepers,” his brief states. While the rules have yet to apply to such gatekeepers, observers have warned that may come if net neutrality is allowed to stand. “If the court upholds the FCC’s rules, the agency’s authority over the Internet would extend from one end to the other,” Fred Campbell, president of the Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology, told the Washington Examiner. “Because the same theories the FCC relied on to impose its new regulations on Internet service providers are also applicable to companies like Apple and Netflix, the FCC could extend its regulatory reach much further in the future.”

Specifically, Campbell said, the FCC will likely try to control political speech.

“This possibility raises the risk that Congress or the FCC could impose restrictions on Internet video and other services that have traditionally been imposed on over the air broadcasting and cable television, including the fairness doctrine that once put the government in charge of determining whether broadcasters were fairly representing both sides of an issue,” he explained.Picture2

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who voted against the net neutrality rules, has said such restrictions may be coming if net neutrality is allowed to stand, warning in March that online political content like the Drudge Report could face greater regulation. “It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse,” Pai said. “He doesn’t have to file anything with the [Federal Election Commission]. The FCC doesn’t have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that. Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance? That everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News … is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don’t think so,” Pai added.Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Other organizations that have filed lawsuits against the rules include the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, TechFreedom, the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, the International Center for Law and Economics, and others. Those lawsuits take aim at a range of issues, from the legal authority of the FCC to impose the regulations to the adverse economic impact that they will impose.

Proponents of net neutrality say the FCC needs to have power over the Internet precisely to ensure free speech is protected, and that the policy prevents Internet providers from blocking or throttling traffic to websites they don’t like. The attention being paid to this topic is proof of why the open and free exchange of information must be protected,” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said. “The Founding Fathers must be looking down and smiling at how the republic they created is practicing the ideals they established.”More Evidence

The court is expected to make a decision early next year.

burke Freedom is never free Demorates In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: