JOHN MCCAIN WANTS TO BLOCK FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY RULES

This is my reply to http://disq.us/27r8s on "John McCain Wants to Block FCC's Net Neutrality Rules" (Stumble It or not)

John McCain being older has nothing to do with it. The real point is that John fairly recently admitted knowing next to nothing about the Internet. What he did was listen to those who got him there - whose deep pockets paved the way to his Senate seat.

Do you know his past? I was an adult living in Arizona when he showed up there after his people calculated the best place for him to go, where his chances of being elected would be the greatest and quickest. It was Goldwater Country, and Goldwater's career could only last so much longer. I also looked into John's past and his connections with organized crime in Arizona and Canada via his wife's family. Check out Kemper Marley (Mafia), Don Bolles (murdered investigative journalist), and Jim Hensley (John McCain's wife's father). I did that so I'd know "where he's coming from" with his various talk.

I also remember firsthand the rules about giving up information to the "enemy" being conveniently and radically relaxed primarily on account of John's POW-experience in Vietnam. He is the son of a son...the Admiral's boy of the Admiral's boy, now U.S. Senator, married to a well-connected, very wealthy heiress whose money resulted from what?

He's fabulously rich now. He didn't get that way by caring about the little people.

He's a major, if not the major, military imperialist in the U.S. He wanted to be Teddy Roosevelt with a bigger stick.

Now, if you want to let that mind, John's mind, decide the who, what, where, when, and why of the gate-valves on the Internet, then you'll get the superrich, military imperialists, who love to clamp down against all dissenting voices, being the ones controlling the valves and where and when they decide simply because they are rich and bought your mind and soul and vote. They are rich because they are selfish and they bribe you to turn to that mentality too. So, why sell out?

If you think that, that will get you innovation, then why does Bill Gates hate open-source programming so much? Why does he think it's wicked communism? Why does he work against it if not for selfish, anti-you reasons, unless you're working for him and bought and paid for.

If competition is so great, why is it so great only when it's done with purely self-centered motives? Why is capitalism always so paranoid to go head-to-head with the non-profit cooperative that should be the people's government?

Yes, we have crony capitalism in the United States. John McCain is a prime example of that. So the telecoms will be sure to have people paid to troll the main sites where they can leave telecom/imperial propaganda when those same telecoms have had no problem working secretly and illegally with the NSA that was definitely spying domestically on domestic calls by U.S. natural-born citizens to U.S. natural-born citizens whether or not those individuals had done anything truly suspicious.

They listened in on your most private and personal conversations that were none of their business and on which they should not have been eavesdropping.

They are not capable of being God. They get nearly everything wrong to create a lively terror (just as Winston Churchill liked it). They persecute. They oppress without cause. They imprison and torture the innocent right along with the guilty. Then they say, "Just move on."

The only CEO (QWEST) who fought it, per the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, ended up in prison. Every CEO who went along with it and everyone right on down the chain-of-command who went along with it and the same on the NSA side should have had to face the music. John McCain was instrumental in seeing to it that that didn't happen. He received big political funding for doing that too. Yet you want his backers and him making the rules for which voices get the exposure on the Internet. In my book, that's extremely gullible, naive, and foolish.

Now, there's a huge battle of the so-called Libertarian Capitalists, mostly on the part of little-fry dupes doing the bidding of those who fund that movement, against those who are more open-source minded (sort of where the first libertarian/anarchists on the Internet started before they were further corrupted). Also, it was the people's government that started the Internet (DARPA) albeit for military reasons.

If you look at where the big money comes from for the think tanks (such as the Cato Institute for one) that plant the "libertarian" seeds that the famous talking heads, such as Glenn Beck for one (who isn't really a purist but has tons of neocon in him), then cause to go viral, you will find ultra-rich plutocrats who have a long history of fighting tooth and nail against everything that's best for the little people. You'll find Big Oil such as Koch Industries for instance. Follow the money.

They (the plutocrats) hated the truth coming out about tobacco smoking. They hated every effort to stop their ability to bury 55-gallon drums loaded with highly toxic waste that then rusted and leaked into your water tables. They hated catalytic converters being put on vehicles so that the old and weak and you could breathe cleaner air. They hated unleaded gas. They hated anti-dumping legislation. They hated child labor laws and even managed to get them repealed for a little while. They hated the 40-hour week. They hated OSHA. They hated Social Security. They hated unemployment compensation. They hated worker's compensation. They hated being held liable for Love Canal. They hated unions. They hated anything that took back from them to spread amongst those from whom they derived it in the first place. They hated and still largely hate anything that cramps their luxurious and obscene lifestyles while those who work for them are reduced to food stamps and Hoovervilles and being canon fodder or robotic mass-murderers on the other side of the planet or now from air-conditioned offices in the U.S. where they can play with their joy sticks and laugh and give each other hi-fives about which innocent "Hajji" or "rag-head" child's head they blew off: demonic.

It's amazing how the Libertarian Capitalists complain against the people's publicly controlled regulators, but at the same time those Libertarian Capitalists, such as those at the cowardly Ludwig von Mises Institute (that censored my submitted comments there), complain about the major bankers and the Federal Reserve (who supposedly are privately self-regulating and who fund themselves and the corporations off your hard-earned taxes with usury due them, the banksters, for having done absolutely nothing but arbitrarily picking the amount of money they want to create) who are working the hardest to bring in the anti-public regulation New World Order that the Libertarians love to hate. It is amazing that the telecoms are right in bed with exactly what those Libertarians hate but then defend right here. It's confusion! It's hypocrisy! It's inherent in capitalism as a worldview.

Let me put it this way. The Libertarian/Objectivist Capitalist, Ayn Rand utopia is just that and always will be: nowhere. That's because you can never arrive at what is truly best via a selfish starting place. The answer isn't in everyone realizing the best individually selfish thing to do. The answer is in everyone serving each other not with dreams of selfish rewards but rather with dreams of how much better off everyone whom everyone loves will be. That's not when serving something greater than self starts, a la the neocon John McCain. That's when self starts becoming the whole, a la Christ.

Libertarian Capitalism is anti-coercion until it comes time to be coercive against those who want an equal vote. The telecoms by-and-large are extremely anti-democratic if you care about democracy.

As for not wanting the government in my business, it depends upon the circumstances and not whether or not there is a check attached. Do you drop a coin in a meter as you pull your car out of your driveway if you can still afford a driveway and a car (no thanks to the predatory Wall Street bankers unless you work for the likes of Goldman Sachs with its biggest bonuses in its history during this economic depression)? Do you remember Henry Paulson, George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary, who threatened mass riots if his cronies weren't bailed out on the public's dime? Do you remember the bait and switch where we were all told how it would get lending started again and then suddenly it became bank consolidation: big fish swallowing even healthier little fish?

Does that coin (chip debit) you'd have to drop in at the end of your driveway go to the private corporation that constructed the road? Do you want that privatized system everywhere you try to go and with everything you try to do or would you rather pay your share as you are able and still be allowed to drive on the freeway (hence its name "free way" - more akin to "free dom" is "toll road") in the fast lane even if you're temporarily out of work and otherwise broke and even if you need to cross the whole country? You might need to get to that job interview in a hurry afterall.

Do you hate the public, toll-free, generally tax-funded superhighway system where the rich and poor can both travel versus a network of private toll roads where the poor won't be able to use the road? If you do, then you love magnifying slavery.

Perhaps though, you think the rich aren't rich enough with the middle class and poor not yet having been reduced enough to make the rich even richer in relative terms. How long do think that can go on? The superrich think they'll end up with advanced enough science and intentionally super-expensive technology that they won't need the downtrodden worker-bees anymore, not even the middle class or even the upper-middle class. All will be expendable. In fact, they will be eliminated so that the superrich can enjoy more of the planet without the riffraff uglying up things. That's the long-term vision they have. It's sociopathy and anti-God.

If you create that system of private tolls at every turn (and it is the inevitable result of libertarian capitalism), you will have zero say. You don't vote in the shareholders meetings or boardrooms if you don't have the filthy lucre to do it; and if the people's government (ostensibly designed against sole sovereignty in the top plutocrat, monarch) is reduced to having no say, then only the biggest money will speak and be heard. You can though go to the public polls to vote for your representatives, not that that's been good enough, far from it.

If everything goes capitalist-private, you will not be allowed publicly to voice any thoughts not pre-approved by the private corporations controlled by the superrich (the new royalty). Then you'll have the same New World Order in any case.

I'm already heavily censored. They are trying to buy the government too to censor everywhere the kinds of things I'm saying. We already have much of that, but do you want so much of it that it ends up being total mind-control?

The people's government is the mundane instrument for leveling the playing field. Are you against a level playing field? Are you for feudalism? Are you for despotism?

I haven't given my full view here, so don't assume that I subscribe to coercive pure democracy. I don't.

Lastly, I don't disagree with everything the Pope says about sex. He does though owe it to everyone to look into all sides of the various issues and to do his best to give a Christian-only answer. However, he hobnobs in his huge palace. He's far from with the people. He has his fudging, Distributive, political-economic-religious answer at best. His church was never anti-elitist. Just look at what it's done about the fascist coup in Honduras. Jesus was though.

Peace

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.