Neutral? Hardly.

The lame duck (with heavy emphasis on the "lame") Congress is trying to force through all manner of ill-conceived legislation.  Gays in the military.  The DREAM act.  The START treaty.

But that stuff is merely a distraction.  There's something more sinister afoot than any of that.  Matt Drudge is posting one, after another, after another, after another, link to stories that identify a threat far more dangerous to our freedoms than anything else in the news right now.

The Federal Communications Commission will vote on Dec. 21 on whether to adopt regulations that ban the blocking of lawful traffic but allow Internet service providers to ration Web traffic on their networks.

So? What's the big deal? This is.

The fixers here are pursuing something called "net neutrality," which will change the way certain Internet providers pay for privileged rights to the Web and charge their customers accordingly. "Net neutrality" sounds good to anyone not paying attention, but it must be accomplished by a seizure of authority to do so, a seizure not by Congress (which would be scary enough), but by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Here's the skinny. The Internet is currently the last bastion of freedom. It exists, for the most part, free from interference from government or regulators. It is the one place where an American citizen can still speak his or her mind unfiltered.

While the Internet is pooh-poohed as being frivolous and "experts" insist that it is not subject to the protections in place for Big Media (the BM for short), the fact is that a number of extremely important news stories, including Matt Drudge's breaking of the Monica Lewinsky story, have had as their mode of conveyance the "frivolous" Internet.

An authoritarian government seeks to restrict freedom of the press at all costs.  Ours is becoming increasingly authoritarian.  The BM is already working under the thumb of government regulation.  They are also tied to corporate masters whose survival hinges on government's selective picking of winners and losers.  The BM is no threat to the government.  The Internet is.

If you understand government, you'll understand that the FCC won't be content with setting "fairness" rules.  They'll also want to regulate content.  Politically charged speech would most surely be restricted ("We have to stamp out hate speech!").  The writings of this particular blogger, fond of referring to the past two Presidents as King George the Dim and Il Duce, would most certainly fall under their definition of hate speech.

But, hey.  You go right on sweating gays in the military, the DREAM act, and the START treaty.  Nothing to see here.  Move along now.

Banks, Automobiles,...the Internet?!?!?

Megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία; megalo-, meaning large, and mania) is a historical term for behavior characterized by an obsession or preoccupation with wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence - often generally termed as delusions of grandeur or grandiose delusions.
From Wikipedia.

---

Has there ever been an individual outside of Hitler, Stalin, or Bonaparte who fit the profile of megalomaniac as completely as Il Duce? Wait until you hear about this latest attempted power grab before you answer that questions.

CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

The passage of this bill, coupled with the FCC imposing the "Fairness Doctrine", would create an environment wherein the President could shut down the dissemination of any information he deems "threatening", which, no doubt, would include criticism of him and his administration.

One more thing. What exactly are the "cybersecurity professionals" going to be charged with? Will they be informers to the government as to who might be a potential "threat"?

Obama may not be the worst President we've ever had (give him time, he'll get there), but he's clearly the most dangerous.

Vulture Droppings - Amateur Hour

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

You may have noticed that Vulture Droppings has been more "semi" than "regular" lately. Mainly that's because there has been a dearth of the kind of seminal events that occasioned the creation of the feature in the first place -- things like political conventions, the 2008 election campaigns, etc. Hopefully, I'll be able to go to the 'droppings' well a little more often in the future. It is one of my favorite features.

---

President Obama - "King Obama, the Media's Anointed One" is too large a moniker for regular use - has now been president for one month. It's been a scream. I speculated in the days after the election as to what kind of president Obama would be. I broke it down into four archetypes, each personified by a past president: Carter, Clinton, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson. Silly me! I left out Gerald Ford! If Mr. Obama's first month on the job is any indication, his destiny seems more Ford than any of the other four.

The ruthlessness I saw during the election cycle (Wilson) seems a thing of the past. The imperiousness and openly Socialist Obama of the campaign (FDR) also seem to be missing. The rush to do great things at the risk of overstepping (Clinton) has been there, but mostly via passive-aggressive hints and stealth riders in the phony Stimulus bill. And the pious holier-than-thou attitude and hubris (Carter) have been beaten down by Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi, who seem to be poised to make Obama their bitch.

But Gerald Ford...ah, there's a match. So far the Anointed One has tried to exit a press conference through a window he thought was a door. He has banged his head getting into Marine One (Air Force One is the President's airplane, Marine One is his helicopter). I'm waiting for him to fall tuckus over teakettle down the stairs next, only to rise from the floor and proclaim, "Live from New York! It's Saturday Night!"

---

President Obama's first month has been enlightening. As I mentioned earlier, it appears that Senate Majority Leader (and planet's biggest flaming a-hole) Harry Reed and House Majority Leader (and single most imperious, hypocritical, and corrupt politician outside of Hugo Chavez) Nancy Pelosi have set out to make Obama their bitch. The two of them wrested control of the Stimulus bill from the President and made it apparent through their actions that he needed to sit down, shut up, and let the REAL politicians handle this.

Obama needs to put those two in their place -- and soon -- if he wants to have any chance at all at a successful presidency. It will be a long 4 years if he doesn't.

---

I am truly thankful that Obama has shown little of the Wilson-like ruthlessness I saw in him shortly after the election. That said, he and his Team Donkey cohorts seem bound and determined to ram a raft of socialist BS down our throats, recession/depression be damned!

There is also the little matter of the Fairness Doctrine. The Dems and the President seem to be taking baby steps -- mostly through veiled statements, hints, and posturing -- towards reimplementing this patently anti-First Amendment POS in order to shut out opposition voices. Will it happen? Sure! These people are not just ruthless, they're megalomaniacal. But -- and it's a big "but" -- I'm convinced that it won't survive a Court challenge...at least for now. If Obama can be patient and wait for one of the more conservative Justices to retire.........who knows? It's not like the Courts actually enforce the Constitution as written any more.

---

Political pundits make it a game to "grade" a President. "His grade for the first [n] days is...". I'm not going to go there...at least not in the traditional sense. I don't grade a President for "effectiveness", as Big Media (the BM for short) would. I grade a President on how his policies and leadership affect the lives and liberties of the American people.

For his first month in office, I give The Anointed One a D. His grade reflects the following negatives.

1. The feelers he's put out about the Fairness Doctrine
2. His (hijacked by Reed/Pelosi) phony Stimulus bill.
3. The new "Health Effectiveness Czar" position created in the Stimulus bill; it's the 'camel's nose' into the tent of socialized medicine.
4. His pre-selection of which White House reporters will be allowed to ask questions at press conferences.

He didn't get an F. Why? Because, as of the moment, he hasn't imposed any new enslaving burdens on the American people. It's something to hang your hat on, I suppose. He's ahead of King George the Dim, who gets an 8-year grade of F.

---

Look for His Holiness to be more aggressive in the next month or so, as the "Amateur Hour" effect starts to dissipate. Who knows? He may shed Jerry Ford and take on one of the other four presidential personalities by then. I hope not. Jerry Ford I can live with.

---