No, you don’t hope. You make it happen. When the system doesn’t give you justice, you take it with your own hands. As those who crippled ACORn did.

Obama will accelerate the process. The more he tries to rein in free speech – to better win the message-of-the-day contest – the faster it will occur.

Today, the Boston Globe (!!!) reported that cash for clunkers is a bust. As was warned by the smart economists, once the program ended, sales would dramatically slump, and by the end of the year, the total picture would be flat – at BEST. All this is coming true; and the taxpayers have footed the bill for the rebates as well, swelling our national debt. Well done, bright boy Obama!

He will spin and obscure, and the MSM will assist. But those dealership owners will be talking to people. And the workers who work there will be talking to people. And the TRUTH will simmer away in the background, despite our Great Chosen One’s best efforts at deceit.

And that is just one example. After weeks of saying there would be no public takeover of health care, Obama’s team today announced “The Public Option is Back On!” Ha. We always knew that the liars’ club couldn’t help lying. Proven true once again. Actually, this is a desperate attempt to shore up his weakening base. I hope the muddled middle are watching as Obama prepares to screw them over yet again.

In the end, the truth will win out. You gotta hope.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/fcc-backs-googlesoros-net-neutrality

Basically, carriers of Internet traffic would sometimes like to discriminate based on source of the packets, for at least two reasons:

1)Bandwidth…the cost of carrying a high-bandwidth service like video is higher than a low-bandwidth service like text e-mail.

2)Competition with their own product mix…if you’re a carrier that handles both voice and Internet, you are making a LOT more $$$ per megabit of bandwidth for the voice…so you aren’t thrilled having people like Skype using your resources to sell stuff that undercuts your own high-margin voice business.

The bandwidth issue can be dealt with by simply charging customers more for increased bandwidth use, and I don’t think there’s anything in the net neutrality proposal that would prohibit that…I think the real issue with the carriers is the second point.

He was a homeless desert bandit, pure slob, and someone the peasants regarded as a peasant – and dangerously ill, to boot.

“Lord?” It is to laugh.

From the Heritage Foundation Regulation watch blog:

That same danger was raised last year by Adam Thierer, who argued in a Progress and Freedom Foundation paper that net neutrality regulation was in fact “a fairness doctrine for the Internet.” As Adam explained:
“It’s a brilliant tactic by the Left. Why exert all your energy attempting to reimpose “fairness” mandates on broadcasters alone when you can capture them, and much more, by regulating the entire Internet? After all, in a world of media convergence and abundance, bright lines dividing distinct media sectors or their products have vanished. Everything from TV shows to text messages run on multiple networks, making the old, broadcast-oriented Fairness Doctrine a less effective means of reestablishing a liberal media monopoly. So the liberals got smart and came up with the perfect solution: use net neutrality as a backdoor way to impose the Fairness Doctrine on the entire media marketplace.”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/regulation/BlogEntry.cfm?PrettyID=7766&Prev=0

I trust what the Heritage Foundation has to say.

Sorry if that offends the Perpetually Offended. They have my permission to be offended as much as they want. They do not have my permission—ever—to stop me from speaking the Qu’ran’s own truth about their “perfect man.”