Obama’s “Net Neutrality Regulations” Have The Fingerprints Of Leftist Activists All Over Them…

ObamaDearLeader(Story Via Daily Caller) The Obama White House has worked directly with online activists to pressure the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the internet. The Commission is expected to vote on the president’s “net neutrality” policy on Thursday.

According to White House visitor logs, on September 23, 2014, Obama senior internet advisor David Edelman met with 30 netroots activists and executives from Spitfire Strategies.

Spitfire is a public relations firm that received over $2 million from the Ford Foundation since 2009 to create PR and media strategy relating to net neutrality.

During the hour-long meeting, the Obama White House appears to have collaborated with the netroots activists and PR media professionals to create the notion that the public truly wants Title II regulation applied to the internet. The activists have even celebrated President Obama’s loyalty to their cause in emails to their factions of supporters.

According to the White House visitors logs, participants at the meeting included representatives from the Free Press, Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, Daily Kos, Public Knowledge and several others. Individual meeting attendees also included PR, media and campaign strategists Michael Khoo, Karley Kranich and Cheryl Leanza from Spitfire Strategies and A Learned Hand, as well as Martha Allen with The Women’s Institute for Freedom of the Press.

Six weeks later in November, Obama announced his Title II internet regulation proposal in a video statement. The president’s video used an ample amount of the activists’ messaging, including a fake “buffering” gag that showed viewers the well-known “site loading” circular animation. (read more)

Obama with Valerie Jarrettvalerie-jarrett-obama good boy

This entry was posted in A New America, Conspiracy ?, Dear Leader - Creepy POTUS Worship, History, media bias, Notorious Liars, Obama Research/Discovery, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Obama’s “Net Neutrality Regulations” Have The Fingerprints Of Leftist Activists All Over Them…

  1. beaujest says:

    Rudy is right ! Who will be the next prominent person to speak out ?


  2. waltherppk says:

    Obama has been busy astro turfing internet regulation as another brilliant utopianist idea that goes over like a lead balloon


  3. Jim says:

    Never let a crisis go to waste. This is a faux crisis begging for someone to step in and use network neutrality to impose a fairness doctrine on the internet to shut up all you right wing extremists. And you know who you are, you Second and Tenth and Fourth Amendment advocate. Damn extremists, you will see prison time if the leftists have anything to do with it. Because McCarthyism.

    Liked by 1 person

    • whippet1 says:

      You are right Jim. This is all about silencing the right.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dixie Darling says:

      Does it occur to you that you will have lost your freedom of speech too?

      Liked by 2 people

      • John VI says:

        The left doesn’t believe they can lose their freedom of speech because they think that they say all the correct things. They only want to limit incorrect thinking. Of course, being the history buffs that they are, they tend to forget that the left/democrats history is filled with a whole lot of incorrect thinking. THAT worm always turns… but the useful idiots on the left don’t see it that way. They happily build the walls of the prison for their enemies, never realizing that the guys leading the charge are NOT planning on sharing the power at the top after those walls are built. The leftists will have no one to complain to as they get herded inside, they just happen to be last in the line. Some privilege that turned out to be.


    • TKim says:

      Well at least they had the good form to label us “domestic terrorists” first. That way when they grab all of our rights, silence our voices and come after our guns they can shrug and say,”We had to. Terrorists.”

      BTW did anyone see on the news the montage of political moments from Oscar’s past ? When Marlon Brando sent the Indian woman (in a Hollywood get up) to protest for Native Americans, and the year an idiot read a message from the Viet Cong, the year Vanessa Redgrave used the term “Zionist hoodlums” as well as the year Michael Moore called President Bush a usurper? These types show their tails for attention, but what lies beneath the stunts and PR simply terrifies me.

      So when I hear that the simpleton in chief wants more “fairness” –as when I hear the elite screech like parrots for “more everything!” for gays, blacks, illegals et al, my first thought is,”Terrific. Now I have even more of other people and/or their rights to carry on my back.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • smiley says:

      its also about neutralizing free market enterprise in business where experimentation & competition have to be allowed to exist & flourish.
      dictating & control.
      more leveling the playing field, anti-capitalist, anti-free speech….the prog’s useful roadmap to utopia.


  4. Col.(R) Ken says:

    We are about to be silenced. You will still have the internet, only if you can afford the speed.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. taqiyyologist says:

    Q: Does CTH take longer to load for most folks (sometimes more than 3 minutes until “done”) than just about any other site?

    For me it does. I look at that bar at the bottom left and it just says “looking up” “looked up” “loading this” “loading that”.

    Most sites just load.

    I quit Badblue. I’ve never had adware, malware, or viruses, in 7 years. “One weird trick”!

    All of the sudden I have to spend 8 hours cleaning all that crap out.

    “They” are not going to destroy the internet. It’s already being done.

    Even by those on the “right”.


  6. texan59 says:

    Watch out what you wish for libtards. 👿


    • michellc says:

      They’re too stupid to realize it.
      But then I believe we will all pay the price first before it’s their turn.

      Maybe folks should have taken me up on what to do with all of them a long time ago, the environmentalists, animal rights activist, gun grabbers, atheists, all of the different fringe groups of liberals and sent them to a deserted island, with nothing but a gun and one bullet each.


  7. ThankYou,Treepers says:

    Certainly the petrol dollars of jihad have been flowing in through islam’s army of DC lobbyists, foreign wolves in western business suits or treasonous native prostitutes for hire as they may be, to fund this leftist effort to chill free speech on the net.

    Google, Facebook and most of the high tech giants driven by the cyber brilliance of the youthfully naive have already been self imposing sharia law restrictions banning negative portrayals of the cult of islam, seeing no redemptive value in the truth of the negativity.

    Just as an earlier post today features the leftist fantasy of movies without white male stars, all leftism is based on jealousy motivated hatred of the white Christian family man for his ability to nurture and provide for his children as the result of his morals founded in the teachings of Jesus the Christ.

    Leftism is a satanic attack on the work of Jesus. They seek to destroy His moral law.

    Watch how everything they try to restrict will relate to His mandates as God and the Son of God.

    Liked by 2 people

    • czarowniczy says:

      I’ll go a wee bit farther and say that ‘leftism’ is an attack on divine and earthly morality as civilized peoples know it. The Left preaches the ‘if it feels good do it’ line, they fear or foresee no repercussions for evil as their definition of evil is simply anything that impedes their amorality. Evil is the result of restraint and moral codes – drugs, excessive alcohol, free sex with no age/gender/species limits, to them it’s all good. When the Left is proven wrong by their utopia collapsing under the weight of its own failure they blame the right for undermining their efforts to ‘free the human spirit’. Sort of like perpetual 10-year olds, thinking of themselves and their personal wants first, foremost and exclusively. I might be prejudiced (come on, depends upon whom you ask) but t I believe there’s a reason they should be ‘left’ and we’re called’ right’. I don’t have a problem with being right.


      • smiley says:

        there’s a huge void in the psyche when G-d is rejected and denied..when that happens, evil steps in to fill it.
        evil means separation from G-d.
        and it disguises itself as “light”.
        they actually see themselves as “the enlightened”, in their arrogance.
        they are deluded by a belief system based on deceit.
        to admit that would require acknowledging The Lie.
        none of them seems able to ever to do that( short of Divine Intervention.)


        • czarowniczy says:

          I don’t think evil gets sucked into the void left when G-d’s rejected, I think evil has to be invited in just as G-d was asked to leave. I believe you can have an amoral void in which you are more animalistic in your morality than human, that continual fight to reject the human’s natural/animal state being a large component of morality. When I look at the Good Samaritan I see people walking by the injured man – that wasn’t necessarily evil, to me it was more of an act of self preservation as the passers-by didn’t know if he were a threat to them. To me the evil would have been the physical act of going over, robbing and even further injuring him. The moral act was going against that little voice of self-preservation and caution and voluntarily helping him, putting the helper’s self in danger in a pre-911 and ‘urgent care’ scenario. I believe that what makes evil particularly evil is it’s a conscious choice to (a) reject moral standards and (b) actively and voluntarily invite evil in.


          • smiley says:

            I agree w/ you that its a choice each person makes.
            if, unfortunately, its a choice to deny G-d then that leaves the person with at least 3 vulnerabilities.
            (a) s/he lacks discernment, and (b) s/he also lacks G-d’s Protection (from the inevitable spiritual warfare).
            “..deliver us from evil…” are not just idle words.
            the “void” will be exploited by..evil…in various deceitful forms that lure & tempt the person into a false belief disguised as some sort of benevolent “just cause” or “the good fight” etc.
            which replaces the belief in the One (and The Only) True G-d, and necessarily keeps that person from knowing Yeshua and His Salvation from eternal condemnation…and that’s the 3rd and the worst vulnerability.
            I think the Parable of The Good Samaritan was Yeshua’s way of demonstrating to the Jew that a “neighbor” does not have to be limited to only “our own”.
            2 Jews passed the other fallen Jew, and one was a Rabbi.
            Yet it was a Samaritan, the enemy of the Jew, who helped him survive..he went the extra mile with it, too.
            the evil in that Parable (imo) is the evil of hypocrisy…and human pride (arrogance).
            it sometimes comes down to : what we stand for when standing is the most difficult thing to do.


    • TheLastDemocrat says:

      ThankYou, Treepers sez: “Watch how everything they try to restrict will relate to His mandates as God and the Son of God.”
      ^ This exactly. All of this communism is exactly the same as the Tower of Babel: man trying to play God.

      I could go on and on. God told Adam to name the animals. Then some scientist, Linnaeus, came along and…told us what to name the animals.
      God made the languages. Then the Esperanto group came along and told us what single language we should speak.
      God made marriage,
      God guided us in what foods to eat. And so the communists…
      God said be fruitful and multiply, and so we are forcing families everywhere to control their fertility, and the Beckhams, as rich as they are, were scorned for having fourth child.
      God decides life and death. And so these atheist progressives have invented “dignicide,” abortion, the Groningen Protocol, and the death panel.
      God says don’t take a census.
      Etc. Etc.


  8. Paul H. Lemmen says:

    Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.


  9. czarowniczy says:

    The 362.874 kilo go-rilla in the room is that the Feds have controlled the net since Day One. It’s the degree of control that’s at stake, that little bit left that the Constitution still has a toe into. The EU has been after the US to give up sole control for well over a decade, they want an ‘impartial internatUNal (guess who?) organization to oversee it and the US government wants to keep a strangle hold on it for strategic reasons. Even with the US controlling and basically owning it the internet’s a zoo – imagine if the ‘Let’s stab something with a pointed stick and eat it’ crowd get’s their unwashed-after-using-the-restroom hands on it. (Am I too hard on the UN?)
    This ‘freedom of speech’ issue’s been a sore spot with the Europeans, Chinese, Russians and damn near anyone else that doesn’t have it guaranteed in their articles of incorporation. It was designed to make despots nervous and it is – ours – so they’re constantly looking for ways to squash it without making it looked squashed. If the petty oligarchs that infect DC grab control and establish unaccountable agencies (as they have with nearly everything else) they can impose draconian regulations on it and do the ‘I wash my hands’ thing with the loss of freedoms as they have with the EPA, OSHA, etc etc etc. Think getting those lost freedoms will be easy? I refer you back to the EPA, OSHA and ‘etcs’ who’ve made stifling decisions that the Congress says they don’t like but just can’t quite seem to undo.
    I see DemocRATS bowing to EU pressure on ‘hate speech’ and killing a number of sites that say uncomfortable things. ‘Not our fault’, says gutless and self-serving Congress, “the internet is global and we must meet standards and not offend people,” How ’bout those folks who rely on the internet for real and free news? Lotta people in both parties and Congress itself who have a hankerin’ for massaged news. Truth about government pork (more like Federal theft)? Well, those charges can”t be flung about willy-nilly without solid backing, that’s libel..or slander…or something that makes us elected porkers uncomfortable. “Speaking of ‘porkers’ y’all just play your little on-line games and – oh, while you’re at it – pick up that soap for me there will ya?” say some 500+ Congressjerks.


  10. Aslan's Girl says:

    Congress must stop this. We should flood their offices with phone calls and emails.


  11. Well, as a shareholder in AT&T (T), I am against the regulation. First of all, I feel that it is not fair that a company such as T should be forced to allow other companies to use their poles so that they can just set up a new service. My father was one of the guys who put those poles into the ground. He erected poles on a line crew almost 70 years ago. Men worked back then. No bucket trucks. They climbed. T has spent lots of money over the years building the system, and now, the government wants to allow even more regulation over their use. Ma Bell was broken up in the 80’s because it was a considered a monopoly.

    Now, the government is stepping in again. Where is the free enterprise system now?
    If Google wants to set up an internet service, let it pay the “price” to rent the space or build one for itself. Why should every business be required to give their services or their product away? If the government regulates the Internet completely, the publicly traded companies that have built the Internet will have a noose around their necks. New companies will be able to just set up shop without having to put their necks on the line by building expensive infrastructure and spending tons of money on labor to do so. The government is going to just allow anyone who can run a line to set up shop on the existing poles and charge a cut rate price to get the business away from the company that is forced to allow them to use their equipment.

    The argument is that the poles are there anyway, and it is just another wire. Well, that would be like saying that Ford spent billions tooling the machines and jigs for the new F150, but that any company should be able to use the machines because they want to build trucks too. Hey, trucks are a communications tool as I see it, so why not?

    In my mind, a company like T should be able to make money and supply services and develop new tech while making money doing so. They broke the company into many pieces in order to stop them from doing g just that. That did not seem to be good enough. MA Bell was once the largest company in the world, and if it had not been broken up, it still would be the largest. The government keeps tearing at it in whatever iteration that it becomes. T is a publicly traded company that is being choked to death by the government.

    The government ought to regulate all companies if they are going to regulate them. The Internet is an information source, not a telephone source. It is not a utility. FCC can use all the semantics it wants, but it is just that- semantics. The US is supposed to be where free enterprise and hard work is allowed. With net neutrality, it will allow cling ons to walk on the backs of all the hard working men and women who built the infrastructure. Sounds like socialism to me-Far from democratic in my opinion.

    Liked by 1 person

    • smiley says:

      like this
      good comment


    • manickernel says:

      Cable companies and internet backbone providers are seeing very large proportion of bandwidth taken by Amazon, Google… and NETFLIX!. Cable (Comcast, ATT, Charter, Knology, etc.) really are having Netflix compete directly against them. Without NetNeut these companies will charge big bandwidth sources like Netflix for usage, but users should already be paying as end subscriber for rate plan. Without NetNeut the cost that Amazon and Netflix incur will get passed along as additional charges to end users. There is an argument on both sided. Personally I only use Netflix and Amazon, got off of cable TV a long time ago. Without NetNeut even Last Refuge may see a rate increase depending on usage, or a greater rate increase than already in effect.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I watched the CEO of Tumblr try to attempt an argument on CNBC yesterday. Becky asked him if he was willing to build out an infrastructure and “pipe” to get his info to the consumers. To that question, he had absolutely nothing to say. I might be somewhat biased in my thoughts, but either way, I would be charging both the broadcaster as well as the receiver because my service is not just a service- it is a


      • Machine that has many parts as well as a huge labor force and shareholders who are looking to profit from the investment. Netflix should not be able to just load as much in as they want just because the pipe is there. Same for the consumer. Somebody has to pay for the pipes. Let the government foot the bill if they want to get involved. Look how good the Healthcare system turned out. Some win and some lose, but it is no better, and probably worse, in most cases.

        Keep cranking,

        Robert the DividendDreamer


  12. manickernel says:

    Question comes down to whether you want the providers (Netflix, Google) to pay or the consumers (Us- we already are). The cable/backbone companies want to suck it at both ends. Sorry, I am with Obama on this one.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s