Suicidally Stupid Left-Wing Brits Choose Marxist Nutjob As Their New Labour Party Leader

Cheers! Teetotal Jeremy Corbyn Heads To The Pub For A Rousing Rendition Of The Socialist Anthem ‘The Red Flag’ After Being Elected Labour Leader In Landslide Victory With A Crushing 59.5% Of The Vote – Daily Mail


Jeremy Corbyn this afternoon headed straight to a pub with his supporters after storming to victory in the Labour leadership contest, winning almost 60 per cent of the vote in the first round.

In the most extraordinary result in modern political history, the 66-year-old Marxist throwback who has never run anything in his life will now take charge of the party of Keir Hardie, Clement Atlee and Tony Blair.

There were cheers at the QEII Conference Centre in central London as it was confirmed that the unassuming Islington MP had defied all expectations – including his own – to become leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition.

After thanking the unions, attacking the media, and accusing the Conservatives of ‘social cleansing’, Mr Corbyn took his supporters to the Sanctuary pub in Westminster for a victory drink where they hailed former socialist firebrand Tony Benn and sang the socialist Red Flag anthem.

Earlier, supporters wept and punched the air, chanting ‘Jez we did, Jez we did’, after it emerged Mr Corbyn had taken 59.5 per cent of the vote – 251,417 of the 422,664 votes cast – against 19 per cent for Andy Burnham, 17 per cent for Yvette Cooper and just 4.5 per cent for Liz Kendall.

But winning could be the easy part: While he was still addressing the leadership conference, the first resignations from the frontbench emerged as his critics warned he would be a ‘f***ing disaster’.

Following Mr Corbyn’s stunning victory, the new Labour leader sneaked out of the special conference building opposite Westminster Abbey to go to the pub. Jubilant supporters sang The Red Flag word perfect as bemused tourists, including one American family, looked on.

He was joined by campaign manager John McDonnell and hard-left Unite general secretary Len McCluskey. Mr McDonnell said it was the ‘‎greatest victory for the left in possibly decades’. ‘I just wish Tony Benn had been here,’ he said.

He said it was an end to the ‘dark years’ where there had been ‘no discussion of socialism’, but through which Mr Corbyn had ‘kept the flame alive’.

When the result was announced, ‘the earth moved’. ‘Another world is possible,’ Mr McDonnell added. ‎’We want to bring this government down. We want to install in Number 10 one of the best socialists.’

Standing up, Mr Corbyn apologised to an American family whose pub lunch his supporters were interrupting – causing the crowd to chant ‘USA, USA.’

Mr Corbyn said liberties had not been ‘handed down by the rich and powerful and royalty’ but had come thanks to the efforts of ‘ordinary people’.

After 32 years as a backbench MP, during which he has voted against Labour more than 500 times, Mr Corbyn must now try to piece together a frontbench team and demand loyalty from the parliamentary party.

He will face big tests in the coming days and weeks on Tory plans to curb unions, cut benefits and join airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. Conservative Defence Secretary Michael Fallon warned Labour was now a ‘serious risk to national security’.

In a rambling but uncompromising victory speech, Mr Corbyn repeatedly attacked the Tories but gave little sign he is willing to tone down his extreme socialist views to win broad public support.

To cheers from his supports, Mr Corbyn said: ‘The Tories have used the economic crisis of 2008 to impose a terrible burden on the poorest people in this country.

‘Those that have seen their wages frozen or cut, those that can’t afford to even to sustain themselves properly, those that rely on foodbanks to get by. It is not right, it’s not necessary and it’s got to change.’

Offering his backing to Sadiq Khan, Labour’s candidate for the London Mayoral elections, warning: ‘I am fed up with the social cleansing of London by this Tory government and its policies.’

Four months after Britain rejected Mr Miliband for being too left-wing and not looking like a Prime Minister, Labour is now led by the most radical leader of a mainstream party the country has ever seen.

Punters were quick to place bets against Corbyn surviving as leader until the next general election, with thousands of pounds rushing in to bookmakers within an hour of his victory.

One Paddy Power customer put £2,000 on the new leader being deposed by 2020 at odds of 5/2, with a number of other gamblers placing bids of £100 against Corbyn lasting that long.

But privately senior Labour MPs branded the result a ‘f***ing disaster’ and warned he would not survive a year.

Another MP said it was ‘absolutely disastrous’ for the party. He said Mr Corbyn would be ‘vicious’ and move to deselect rebel MPs by flooding the party with the new supporters.

A senior backbencher added: ‘I will give him 12 months. I can’t see him lasting any longer than that.’

David Blunkett, meanwhile, said he was ‘deeply fearful’ of the direction Mr Corbyn might take the party, and said there was a danger that Labour will be in ‘perpetual opposition’ unless he dramatically changes tack.

Warning of the dangers of a party split, he urged New Labour supporters not to desert the party, saying: ‘Do not allow the people who lost us elections from 1983 onwards to be the ones who run the show.’

The former Home Secretary said someone in the conference hall had shouted to him: ‘Corbyn in, Blairites out’.

‘If that is the attitude, we’re on a road to nowhere,’ he said. ‘The message has to be clear – we need consensus, we need the enthusiasm, but above all we need policies that mean something and are relevant to people out there.’

He added: ‘I’m deeply fearful of the direction in which we might go. All of us will be giving Jeremy our best wishes in the weeks and months ahead.

Many senior Labour MPs will quick to refuse to serve under him as party staffers are braced for a ‘purge’ of non-Corbyn supporters from the Brewer’s Green headquarters.

Ahead of the announcement, one staffer told MailOnline: ‘The mood is not great. I’m getting made redundant on Monday. It’s the Corbyn purge isn’t it.’

Defeated leadership contender Yvette Cooper immediately announced that she would quit as shadow home secretary and return to the backbenches.

Shadow public health minister Liz Kendall, who secured just 4.5 per cent of the vote in the contest, is also expected to quit.

Shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt and shadow health minister Jamie Reed were also quick to confirm they would refuse to play any part in the new leadership team.

Mr Hunt said: ‘It is important to be honest about it – I have substantial political differences with Jeremy’.

Asked if he thought Mr Corbyn would find sufficient numbers of MPs willing to be part of his front bench, he said: ‘That’s for his team to discover. I imagine they are working on that.’

Mr Reed – whose Copeland constituency includes the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site – condemned Mr Corbyn’s anti-nuclear policies as ‘poorly informed and fundamentally wrong’.

And Mr Reed warned: ‘No amount of well-meaning protest will protect the NHS, drive up standards, recruit more medical professionals or improve the accessibility of world-class healthcare to the British people. Only an elected Labour government will do this.’

Emma Reynolds, who has been an outspoken critic of Mr Corbyn’s wavering support for the EU, quit as shadow communities secretary. Writing on Twitter she said: ‘Congratulations to Jeremy – he needs to space to build his own team. I will serve our party and my constituents from backbenches.’

Others expected to refuse to serve in his team are current shadow chancellor Chris Leslie, shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker, shadow transport secretary Michael Dugher, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Shabana Mahmood, shadow international development secretary Mary Creagh and shadow Cabinet Office minister Lucy Powell.

During the campaign, Ms Cooper and Ms Kendall both refused to work with Mr Corbyn team, while Mr Burnham insisted the party should always come first and was prepare to work with anyone.

However, shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna – a senior centrist who withdrew from the contest after a matter of days – issued a plea for the party to ‘come together’ behind its new leader.

In a post on Facebook, Mr Umunna said: ‘Now the contest is over, we must respect the result, come together and focus on providing the most credible and effective opposition to the Tories.’

Mr Corbyn is expected to promote Angela Eagle and Owen Smith to more high profile roles, and his close friend and leftwing firebrand John McDonnell is in line for a top job.

Corbyn supporter Clive Lewis, who entered Parliament as MP for Norwich South in May, said: ‘One of the things that Jeremy is about is about opening up the party, being more inclusive. Rather than the top-down ‘Here is the policy’, it’s going to be from the bottom up and everyone will have an input into it.’

At the height of Corbynmania the party was deluged with members, swelled by new 113,000 registered supporters who paid just £3 to get a vote, along with an extra 148,182 affiliated supporters and 105,973 full members who have signed up since May.

It led to allegations of ‘entryism’ by extreme left-wingers and Trotskyites seeking to hijack the contest in favour of Mr Corbyn. There were also claims that many people did not receive their ballot papers in time to vote, leading to calls for the result to be delayed for three days.

But in his speech, Mr Corbyn said: ‘During these amazing three months, our party has changed. We have grown enormously, because of the hopes of so many ordinary people for a different Britain, a better Britain, a more equal Britain, a more decent Britain.

‘They are fed up with the inequality, the injustice, the unnecessary poverty. All those issues have brought people in in a spirit of hope and optimism.

‘I say to the new members of the party, or those who have joined as registered or affiliated supporters – welcome. Welcome to our party, welcome to our movement. Can I say to those returning to the party who were in it before and felt disillusioned and went away. Welcome back, welcome back to your party, welcome home.’

He said his campaign had given the lie to claims that young Britons are apathetic about politics, showing instead that they are ‘a very political generation that were turned off by the way in which politics was being conducted’. He said: ‘We have to and must change that.’

Mr Corbyn said: ‘The fightback now of our party gathers speed and gathers pace.’

Iain McNicol, Labour’s general secretary, earlier insisted that the party had ‘weeded out’ people who had tried to ‘subvert our democracy’.

Addressing the leadership conference, He added: ‘We have run a free and fair election.’

Mr McNicol added: ‘In the leader we place our trust and on their shoulders they carry the hopes of millions in Britain and beyond our borders. It is not to be taken lightly or without a due sense of responsibility.

‘Friends, this Labour Party is bigger than any of us.’

In a thinly-veiled swipe at Mr Corbyn, he warned the new leader: ‘Our leaders have come and gone through the decades.’

He also aimed a dig at the thousands of £3 supporters behind Mr Corbyn’s surge. He said: ‘I look forward to seeing them on the doorstep.’ Mr McNichol said he wanted them to do more than ‘click a button’ to vote in the leadership contest.

Economist Richard Murphy, whose ‘people’s quantitative easing’ plan has been adopted by Corbyn, told the BBC: ‘I’m going to be very pleased that ideas I’ve promoted for a long time are now, I guess, going to be part of Labour Party policy, and I will be delighted about that.’

Mr Corbyn only scraped on to the ballot paper after gaining the nominations of Labour MPs who did not want him to win and was installed with odds of 200/1.

Andy Burnham, the northern shadow health secretary who had shifted to the left, was seen as the frontrunner while shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper presented the strongest threat from the centre.

After strong Blairite candidates including Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt pulled out of the race, it was left to Liz Kendall to fly the flag for moderates in the party – with little success.

Union barons who backed Mr Corbyn over his rivals could not contain their delight at his victory.

Len McCluskey, general secretary of the UK’s biggest union Unite, said: ‘Voters can now look at Labour and see, unquestionably, that it stands for fairness, justice, peace and strong communities. It is the party of hope, ready to take on a Government hell-bent on making life worse for ordinary people.

‘The task now for all of us who support Labour is to back the leadership team, to unite, to turn to face the Tories and hold them to account. It is what the voters expect, it is the way back to power and it is the duty of those at all levels of the party to deliver.’

UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis said: ‘Today people for the first time in a decade are hearing a message of hope. ‘A clarion call that there is another way, an alternative message that it doesn’t need to be like this.

‘People see in Jeremy a politician who has created a wave, a vision of a better, kinder world that works for everyone, not just a self-serving few‎. ‘‎Jeremy has ignited a spark of hope, a spark that had been dampened for decades. This is a chance to claim back the heart and the soul of the party and make it our Labour Party once more‎.’

Outgoing acting leader Harriet Harman today issued a plea for unity, urging people across the party to take roles on the frontbench.

She told The Times: ‘You’ve got a commitment to the party whoever is the leader.

‘I’ve served under Michael Foot to Tony Blair, my first boss was Michael Meacher.

‘The point is, it’s a broad team and you don’t decide you’ve got abilities and energy and commitment by virtue of who the leader is.’

Former mayor of London Ken Livingstone – tipped for a job under a Corbyn leadership – insisted he a is a ‘consensual’ politician who wants to have proper discussions about the direction of the party on key issues.

‘It will work if Jeremy starts to connect with people,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

‘He is nice and that connects with people. Don’t forget, a big factor in John Major’s surprise win in 92 was the fact that people thought John Major was nice.’

The ex-MP said he has ‘never seen him lose his temper or even be rude to anyone’.

‘And he has an economic strategy to modernise our economy, create a better range of jobs and build homes to rent.’

Shadow Scotland secretary Ian Murray told BBC News: ‘Whoever is crowned winner, we will unite behind him. That’s what the Labour Party and the Labour movement does.’

Mr Murray said that the almost 600,000 people signed up to vote in the election amounted to around one in 100 of the entire UK population, adding: ‘The Labour Party should be very proud of the way it’s been able to engage communities in this and the number of people who’ve turned out to vote and registered to vote.’

Yesterday the Labour party announced Sadiq Khan, the son of a bus driver and former human rights lawyer, would be the party’s candidate in the London Mayoral election.

His victory over Tessa Jowell, a Cabinet minister under Tony Blair, was seen as further proof of the party’s lurch to the left.

Mr Khan was one of the MPs responsible for securing Mr Corbyn a place on the ballot paper only to ensure a wider debate, despite backing actually Mr Burnham as leader.

As well as appointing a new frontbench, the new leader will have to prepare to appear on BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show tomorrow morning and the first confrontation with David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday.

The Conservatives have timed key votes on controversial anti-strike laws for this week to pile pressure on Labour’s links to the unions.

Having resisted the temptation to comment on the contest for months, the Tories are preparing to take the gloves off.

Mr Cameron yesterday warned victory for Mr Corbyn would be bad for the country as it would break a consensus between the main parties on issues such as nationalisation, nuclear weapons, taxation and union laws

‘The country is stronger when you have shared objectives rather than when you’ve got someone who wants to take us back to the days of Michael Foot and Arthur Scargill,’ he said.

The contest showed that Labour had ‘completely vacated the intellectual playing field and no longer, in my view, represents working people’, he said.



President Asshat Resurrects Marxist “Net Neutrality” Scheme

Obama Urges FCC To Seize Sweeping New Internet Powers To Save Net Neutrality – National Journal


President Obama leapt directly into the net neutrality fight Monday, urging the Federal Communications Commission to claim expansive new powers over the Internet to enact the “strongest possible” regulations.

“‘Net neutrality’ has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation – but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted,” Obama said in a video posted on the White House website. “We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.”

Under his plan, the FCC would classify broadband Internet as a “telecommunications service” under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, a provision the agency already uses to regulate telephone companies. His statement is a huge win for Internet activists, who have been warning the future of the Internet could be at stake unless the FCC invokes stronger authority to prevent abuses by Internet providers.

But broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon have been lobbying fiercely against applying the provision to the Internet, warning it would strangle their industry with utility-style regulations. Shares of major broadband providers sank early Monday following the announcement. Verizon issued a statement saying it supports an “open Internet,” but warned that Obama’s plan would face “strong legal challenges.”

It’s also a confrontational move against congressional Republicans, who just won control of the Senate last week. They consider Title II an archaic provision designed for a time when a single monopoly controlled all telephone service. They warn that using the provision on the Internet would destory jobs and mean slower Internet for everyone. The new GOP Congress will be sure to try to repeal any net neutrality rules the FCC enacts.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, tweeted Monday that net neutrality is the the “Obamacare of the Internet” and that the “Internet should not operate at the speed of government.” But Democrats, including Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Anna Eshoo, praised Obama’s statement and urged the FCC to enact the stronger rules.

In his statement, Obama noted that the FCC is an independent agency and that the ultimate decision will be up to Chairman Tom Wheeler and the four other commissioners. But his statement puts tremendous pressure on the Democratic appointees to seize the controversial new powers.

Wheeler thanked Obama for his input Monday, but didn’t explicitly say he would follow the president’s directions. The various net neutrality proposals raise “substantive legal questions,” Wheeler said, and he’ll need more time to develop rules that can hold up in court. The FCC chief had previously said he wanted new rules on the books by the end of the year.

Under Obama’s plan, the FCC would ban Internet providers from blocking websites, throttling Internet service, or creating any special Internet “fast lanes” for websites that pay more. The rules would apply equally to a home Internet connection and mobile devices.

He also said the FCC should consider applying regulations to the interconnection points on the backend of the Internet, which would help Netflix and other companies deliver large video files without having to pay Internet providers for better connections. Traditionally, net neutrality has only covered how Internet providers must handle traffic once its on their networks.

Title II would give the FCC a slew of new powers over the Internet, including the ability to control prices and determine which customers a company has to serve. Obama said the FCC should waive the rate regulation requirements and “other provisions less relevant to broadband services.”

Net neutrality advocates argue that Title II is the only way to enact rules that can survive in court. The FCC first enacted net neutrality regulations in 2010, but a federal court struck them down earlier this year.

Wheeler proposed new rules in May that wouldn’t invoke Title II and would allow for Internet “fast lanes” in some cases, but his proposal prompted a massive backlash and more than 3.7 million people filed comments with the FCC.

Although Obama has long supported the concept of net neutrality, Monday is the first time he outlined which specific legal authority the FCC should use.


Related articles:

There’s Nothing Neutral About Net Neutrality – Jeffrey Eisenach

Despite what you may have heard, net neutrality is not about protecting consumers from rapacious Internet Service Providers (ISPs). It would not make broadband more available in rural America, or lower prices for small businesses. And it has nothing to do with protecting free speech or dissenting voices. Net neutrality is crony capitalism pure and simple – an effort by one group of private interests to enrich itself at the expense of another group by using the power of the state.

For all the arcane talk about “Title II” and “common carriage,” this is not complicated. The rules favored by net neutrality advocates would ban or restrict payments from one type of business – “edge providers” – to another type of business – broadband ISPs – while placing no limits on what ISPs charge consumers. It is easy to see why edge providers like Netflix would lobby for such rules, but difficult to understand how they would benefit consumers or serve the public interest.

Indeed, the arguments advanced by net neutrality advocates don’t withstand even momentary scrutiny. Do broadband providers enjoy too much market power – are they “monopolists”? Not according to the Federal Communication Commission, which waxes eloquent about the strong performance of the broadband marketplace, citing the billions of dollars invested each year and the rapid increase in speeds and performance. And while much is made of consumers’ limited choices, the broadband market is actually less concentrated than the markets for search engines, social networks, and over-the-top video services: discriminatory regulation of ISPs cannot be justified on the basis of market power.

Other arguments for regulation are just as flawed. For example, net neutrality advocates say that without new regulations, ISPs would discriminate against Internet start-ups. But such discriminatory pricing hasn’t occurred so far, and no one can explain why ISPs would want to impede the ongoing explosion of innovative content and applications that makes their services valuable in the first place – especially since such companies pose no competitive threat to the ISPs. Nor can anyone cite an example of an American (as opposed to Chinese or Russian) ISP muzzling a dissenting voice or limiting free speech. In fact, to the extent that any firms in the Internet ecosystem have issues with free speech, it is the content providers like YouTube and Yahoo, who are under constant pressure (which they mostly, and laudably, resist) to take down “offensive” material.

Finally, there’s the argument about fast lanes and slow lanes, or, in regulatory jargon, “paid prioritization.” The simple reality is that edge providers like Netflix require prioritization for their services to work. It’s just the “paid” part they don’t like.

The key to understanding net neutrality lies in the fact that broadband ISPs operate in what economists call a “two-sided market.” One side consists of consumers, who value access to content and applications; the other side consists of content and application providers, who value using the network to reach the customers. Such markets are not unusual: newspapers, for example, serve both advertisers and subscribers. The challenge for such firms is to set prices for each customer group in such a way as to attract the optimal mix: newspapers need enough advertisers to keep subscription prices low, but they don’t want too many ads because it would drive away readers.

The FCC’s primary theory of net neutrality regulation is that the edge providers generate so much innovation and other “external” benefits that they should be subsidized by the other side (that is, by consumers) through a rule that forces consumers to pay 100 percent of the costs of the network while edge providers pay zero. This is a fine theory – but there is not a scintilla of empirical evidence to support it. Indeed, academic research suggests the external benefits generated by ISP’s investments in broadband infrastructure are likely at least as large as the benefits from innovation at the edge.

At the end of the day, the one unarguable fact about net neutrality regulation is that edge providers, big and small, and those who fund them and profit from their success, have a powerful economic interest in getting the FCC to guarantee free access to the ISPs’ networks.

Many net neutrality supporters are no doubt sincere in believing regulation is needed to “protect the open Internet,” and there is nothing illegal or even immoral about wealthy and well-connected private companies seeking to advance their interests through the use of state power. But the results can prove highly damaging. In the case of net neutrality, the danger is that the dynamic, pragmatic, business-and-engineering-driven approach that has made the Internet such a remarkable success will be replaced by an inevitably static, bureaucratic, politicized regulatory regime, not unlike the one that oversees the U.S. Postal Service.

On the global front, a decision by the U.S. to embrace economic and political control of the Internet would legitimize the efforts of tyrants everywhere to impose far more repressive forms of statist intervention.

From a consumer perspective, net neutrality regulation is just one more government-mandated rip-off – another few bucks out of our pockets to subsidize a politically influential interest group. So, the next time you hear an over-the-top video provider arguing for net neutrality, keep this in mind: there’s nothing neutral about it.


Net Neutrality Is A Bad Idea That’s Run Its Course – Richard Bennett

When the FCC isn’t protecting us from bad language, it concerns itself with markets created by and for communication networks. It allocates the airwaves used by old-school television, talk radio, mobile phones and Wi-Fi; it oversees mergers and acquisitions among communications companies such as NBC Universal, Comcast, AT&T, and Sprint; and in the current century it has expended considerable resources on micro-managing the technical operations and business models of broadband Internet Service Providers.

While the agency would seem to be plenty busy carrying out its statutory responsibilities with respect to spectrum and mergers, it has chosen to become embroiled in an extra-curricular affair of its own making, the “net neutrality” controversy. This kerfuffle dates back to philosophical meditations on regulation and innovation before the turn of the current century.

It got real in 2007 when self-styled public interest groups filed a complaint with the FCC alleging that Comcast was picking on piracy-oriented BitTorrent networks to protect its TV business. Although Comcast was actually protecting voice competitor Vonage, it stopped using the offending system as soon as it had a higher-quality alternative. The FCC rapped Comcast’s knuckles anyway, which led the company to give the FCC a shellacking in court. This in turn caused the agency to devise a new set of Internet regulations in 2010, only to have them vacated by the court this January.

Somewhere along the way, most net neutrality wonks stopped caring whether it was good policy for innovators or even what the term means: now it’s all about winning. The FCC has decided it can’t passively accept the status quo and has issued 100 pages of questions on various approaches it might take to satisfy the warring clans in the Internet economy’s Game of Thrones, none of which is broadly popular.

At the heart of the conflict lies a misconception about how the Internet works; this naturally leads to a series of counter-productive prescriptions. The very first of the net neutrality papers, “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination” by then-Virginia law professor Tim Wu, imagined a magical Black Box connecting ISPs with the Internet. Wu realized that the Internet is rife with “discrimination”, content and services offered at various prices with widely divergent levels of quality and utility. He also recognized that neighborhood broadband networks do a number of different things that depend on discrimination: in addition to connecting to the Internet, they supply cable TV and furnish telephone service.

Wu feared ISPs had incentives to degrade competitors, especially video and voice services that went toe-to-toe with core elements of their business model. So he took the unusual step of granting an effective monopoly to the ISPs for voice and video by making the Black Box favor web surfing over other uses. Wu may have sought to design a system that would make ISPs structurally incapable of bad behavior, but he ended up favoring the Web over emerging Internet applications. Banishing the devils has a way of eliminating the angels as well.

Given that it’s committed to making new rules for the Internet, the FCC has a choice between basing its authority on a terse direction in the law allowing it to promote investment in advanced networks (Section 706) or on another portion pertaining to the traditional telephone network, Title II of the Telecom Act. In either case, the agency seems convinced that the Black Box is a winner, at least at the ballot box.

Networks that can’t discriminate are incapable of supporting the wide range of uses that more agile networks can handle. A Black Box network must necessarily be tuned to a single, dominant application instead of being responsive to a diverse pool of uses. Whatever else we know about the future, it’s certain that the Internet will be expected to do more things for more people ten years from now as it was ten years ago.

If we’re going to have a robust and growing market for network applications in the future that improve quality of life and grow the economy, we’re going to need networks that can move information quickly or cheaply, reliably or pervasively, securely or accurately and in several other modes as well.

Consequently, the locus of concern for regulatory policy must shift from preventing the bad to promoting the good. The FCC can do this by drafting rules consistent with the desire to promote meaningful competition, network investment, and service diversity.

Most of the content we get from the Internet comes to us through a kind of fast lane known as a Content Delivery Network that accelerates our access by placing duplicate copies of the content around the web. It’s a law of engineering that short distances can always be crossed more quickly than long ones. It’s also the case that sensitivity to the fundamental elements of network service quality – information loss and delay – depends on the application in use. Backing up a hard drive is less time sensitive, more loss averse, and more data volume-intensive than making a phone call. Network systems such as Wi-Fi, Ethernet, and 4G/LTE wireless recognize this fact with built-in mechanisms to match network service to application needs.

The Black Box rules these adaptations out of bounds, effectively forcing applications to adapt to the whims of policy makers and an arbitrary network. This approach compromises innovation and economic growth, and ultimately erodes quality of life.

The business practices of network industries need the same sort of anti-trust scrutiny that every industry faces, but they do not need precautionary prescriptions that throw the baby out with the bath water. Twenty years of experience with the commercial Internet has proved that fast-lane services like CDNs are beneficial, so we should be looking for ways to grow the Internet economy by creating more services like them.

Network neutrality is simply a bad idea that has run its course.


Related videos:








……………………….Click on image above to watch video.



……………………….Click on image above to watch video.


Marxist Irresponsibility Update: Obama’s HHS Set To Blow $1 Trillion In 2015

HHS Set To Blow $1 Trillion In 2015 As Health-Care Costs Grow By Leaps And Bounds – Daily Caller

The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to spend over one trillion dollars in 2015 – but HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has never once testified before the Senate’s Budget Committee on either Obamacare’s costs or the president’s budget at large.


“The Department of Health and Human Services is projected to spend over $1 trillion in FY2015 under the president’s budget, and health care costs – which today comprise nearly 30 percent of all federal spending – are growing more rapidly than other areas of the budget, especially over the long-term. It would be good for members of the Committee to discuss these matters with Secretary Sebelius,” Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions said on Monday, according to The Hill.

Sessions, a ranking member on the Budget Committee, has stridently criticized President Barack Obama’s health-care law and the high costs it imposes on Americans. Back in 2012, Sessions blasted a $17 trillion funding gap that came to light during a grilling session between Supreme Court justices and the law’s supporters. Long-term promises written into the law will squeeze $17 trillion out of taxpayers – not counting the existing shortfalls from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending, which brings the total to an eye-popping $99 trillion.

The U.S. produces only $15 trillion worth of goods and services each year.

“The bill has to be removed from the books because we don’t have the money,” Sessions said.

Exploding health care costs may impose restrictions on Obama’s second term wish list, which includes a top-down rewrite of U.S. immigration laws. Republicans, while expressing support for allowing 11 million illegal immigrations to become voting citizens, are reluctant to back bipartisan immigration reform because they don’t trust Obama to enforce existing laws.

Last March, Sessions worried that frontloading Obamacare with millions of foreign enrollees might tank entitlement programs and send costs spiraling out of control.

“The core legal and economic principle of immigration is that those seeking admission to a new country must be self-sufficient and contribute to the economic health of the nation,” Sessions said in a statement as the Senate voted down an amendment that would prohibit newly-legalized immigrants who broke immigration laws from receiving health-care benefits. “But, for years, the federal government has failed to enforce this law. This principle is even more urgent when dealing with those who have illegally entered the country.”

Meanwhile, health-care costs imposed by Obamacare continue to mount as the administration fails to track enrollees and unilaterally suspends requirements until after the 2014 midterm elections, which endanger the party’s hold on Congress.

Sebelius admitted that Obamacare premiums will increase in 2015 on Wednesday – but had no idea how many Obamacare enrollees had actually paid their premiums or previously had insurance.

“I think premiums are likely to go up, but go up at a slower pace,” Sebelius claimed at the House Ways and Means Committee hearing.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


It is time for The Useful Idiot of the Month

So head over to Conservative Hideout and vote!

Wow, where did April go?  Seems just yesterday that we were nominating useful idiots for March.  Well, time warp or not, it’s time to nominate the useful idiots that will appear on this month’s poll.  What’s a useful idiot, you ask? Welll, a useful idiot is person that assists on promoting Marxism in a target country,  They are used to wreck the target country to the point the Communists can take over.  Then, ironically, the Marxists that come to power then usual eliminate the useful idiots.  In other words, your standard leftist, who is usually a misguided Occupod, will help destabilize the US.  Then, when the Communists come to power, they will kill the useful idiots.  Why?  They know too much.  And, when the get to see what social justice looks like in actual practice, they will revolt again their new masters.

Anyway, this is what we do.  The last two days  of the month, we have a poll to see who contributed the most to the Marxist cause.  However, we need nominees to populate the poll. That is where you come in.  It is up to you to select the useful idiots!  So, if you have a fitting nominee, drop it in the comment section.


Your Marxist Moron of the Day

Cupcakes are good, peace is good. Those that think baking cupcakes will stop war, or violence, or criminals are Morons! Morons who are used by Marxists, thus, we have Marxist Morons serving Communist Cupcakes all to stop “gun”violence, because, Comrades, getting stabbed or beaten by thugs is better than getting shot by thugs somehow.



Evil, Marxist Witch Calls For Banning More Than 150 Types Of Firearms

Feinstein Calls For Banning More Than 150 Types Of Firearms During Dramatic Press Conference – Daily Caller

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein staged a dramatic press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill with 10 weapons at her side and unveiled legislation instituting a government ban on more than 150 types of firearms, including rifles, pistols and shotguns.

Flanked by other anti-gun liberal lawmakers, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, Feinstein announced the introduction of the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”

The legislation being pushed by Feinstein – who has long history of calling for gun bans – would prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of certain firearms.

During the press event at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Democrats described these firearms as “dangerous military-style assault weapons.” The bill would also ban high-capacity ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Feinstein said the country’s “weak” gun laws allow massacres like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occur.

“Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that – but it’s a battle worth having,” Feinstein said in literature handed to reporters at the Thursday event.

Others who joined the Democrats for the press conference included Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and Washington National Cathedral dean Gary R. Hall.

This sort of stunt from Feinstein – displaying weapons for dramatic effect while discussing new gun laws – is hardly new. Joe Morrissey, a Democratic delegate in Virginia, caught some colleagues by surprise last week by bringing an AK-47 onto the floor of the House of Delegates while calling for gun control.

And David Gregory, the moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” found himself in hot water for displaying a high-capacity gun magazine during an interview with a leader of the National Rifle Association in December. NBC studios are in Washington D.C., where having possession of such magazines is illegal. While DC police investigated the incident, no charges were filed.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Obama’s Sickening, Marxist War On Women: Ann Romney Edition (Video)

Classy Obama Campaign Attacks Ann Romney For Being Stay At Home Mother – Gateway Pundit

The Obama Campaign decided to open their assault on Mitt Romney by attacking his wife Ann.

It’s a war on women, folks.

Top Obama adviser Hilary Rosen attacked Ann Romney yesterday for being a stay at home mother of 5 children.

Rosen was on CNN last night, via Common Cents:


ABC reported:

Ann Romney’s debut on Twitter couldn’t have come at a more opportune time.

Ann’s first tweet came just moments after Democratic strategist and DNC adviser Hilary Rosen lobbed an insult at Ann Romney, suggesting that the 64-year-old mother of five and grandmother of 16 had never held a job.

“Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” said Rosen, who was being interviewed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the “war on women.”

And then, just like that, a familiar name popped up on Twitter: @AnnDRomney.

“I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work,” Ann tweeted.

The Romney campaign confirmed to ABC News that the account belongs to Ann Romney.

The tweet came just as husband Mitt wrapped up a second day of campaigning that all but entirely focused on the “war against women,” packing events with female business leaders and accusing the Obama administration’s economic policies of hurting women.

“I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a tweet.

From her Twitter page:

Of course, this is the same administration that pays women 18% less than men so it really is not so surprising that they would attack Ann Romney too.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Obama’s Sickening, Marxist War On Women Continues (Video)

Oh My: Obama White House Paying Women Employees Less Than Men? – Hot Air

Look on the bright side, David Axelrod. This Beacon story might finally distract people from that instantly infamous photo of the all-white staff at Hopenchange HQ.


Why does our president hate women?

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits…

It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.

Follow the link for Beacon reporter Andrew Stiles having fun revisiting The One’s various other slights to women over the years, from his all-male golf outings to former communications director Anita Dunn describing attitudes in the White House as fitting “all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” Some of the things O’s taken heat for in this vein are overblown – this one pops to mind – but I’m keen to hear them explain why there’s an income disparity among their own staff. In some industries there may be a nondiscriminatory reason for a gender gap in pay, e.g., men may be overrepresented in jobs that require lots of strength or dangerous duties, which in turn may pay better because of the risk. But that’s surely not the case in the cubicle utopia of the West Wing. The most obvious explanation in an office setting is that men tend to earn more because there are more of them in senior positions. Is that true, champ? If so, how come?


Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Is a race and class war the true aim of the Left?

A thought-provoking piece at Sword-at-the-Ready

The key tactic in every Marxist/Socialist revolution towards the establishment of totalitarian regimes and dictatorships, is to capitalize on or create economic misery and desperation among their constituencies in order to use them as a weapon against their political opposition.  When the pain becomes prevalent and demagoguery has sufficiently painted the targets of blame they want their constituencies to attack – they will instigate violence and upheaval by proxy against those they want eliminated.

Mussolini had his Blackshirts, Hitler used his Brownshirts and Mao had his devoted Red Guard as the tools used to stoke street violence.  They were devoted groups that incited larger mob actions that opportunists were all-too-happy to join in to inflict death and damage upon the targets these tools directed their rage. Bloodshed and violence then becomes the catalyst for enough of the populace to surrender what little liberty they have left for an iron-fisted political savior to brutally put down the chaos and restore “normalcy”.

This is the template that is taught and always followed by Marxists and the Fabian Socialists who are working tirelessly to ‘transform the world’ into their twisted utopian dream.  This blueprint is never deviated from – only enhanced and modified to bring about more subtle approaches so as to deceive the masses of where the Left intends to take them.  For example, they no longer have to wait for the perfect conditions to arise, for an opportune moment to establish totalitarian rule as in times past.  Today, they can create the actual conditions that are causing the economic collapse that they will capitalize on.

Cause the problem.  Spread the misery.  Blame your targets for the misery.  Incite chaos and violence.   Brutally put down those they have blamed for the chaos, criminalize them, execute them. Establish absolute power from within.   It’s that simple.  It’s that devious.  Satan is not too original, he sticks to what works.

Usually by the time the majority wake up to recognize what has been done to them, it is too late to stop the tyrants from achieving their goals upon the people they seek to destroy. Eventually the useful idiots themselves are dispatched in the same manner by the regime they put into power once total control has been accomplished.

Lots more at the link, like I said it will make you think, go have a peek, see what you think

*VIDEO* Black Chamber Of Commerce CEO Blasts “Marxist,” “Brownshirt” Obama

Meet the New Marxists, Same as the Old Marxists

I have long-held that the Democratic Party, having become overwhelmingly a liberal party, is now become increasingly Leftist. The “fringe” of the Democratic Party, the self-styled Progressives, is actually driving the Democrats ideological bus in many cases, and Progressive is just another word for Communist.

For those who disagree that progressive=communist, consider the stated aims of Progressives.

State run health care, no private insurers, no options, no choices.

Massive redistribution of wealth, to fund more entitlement programs, and more dependence on government

Environmental, and economic policies that crush businesses, property rights, and personal freedoms in the name of being “green”.

Ideals that sacrifice individual rights on the altar of “Social Justice”. Progressives seek more collectivism, and individualism, is the enemy of their beloved collectivist utopian dreams.

Bob Belvedere writes of another commonality between the old and new Marxists. The tactic of demonizing, and questioning the sanity of those who dare oppose the Progressives aims.

Having lived through the last thirty years of the Cold War and having begun a serious study of Soviet Russia during the last fifteen years of it, I can see the possibility that the Left in America may be adopting one of the main tactics employed against the dissidents during the Brezhnev Era: declaring those who oppose The State to be mentally ill.*  A good number of these innocent people were put in the Psikhushka, the name for Soviet psychiatric hospitals [for a very good, short history of this evil practice, please click here] where they were subjected to ‘various forms of restraint, electric shocks, electromagnetic torture, radiation torture, entrapment, servitude, a range of drugs (such as narcotics, tranquilizers, and insulin) that cause long lasting side effects, and sometimes involved beatings… inhumane uses of medical procedures such as lumbar punctures’.  Others were stripped of their offices and privileges and, in a sense, declared unfit for anything but manual labor.  Some were sent to the Gulags.

Granted, unlike in the old USSR, the American Bolshes have been, so far, more subtle about it, but, still, it seems to be happening.

Case in point: the comments made yesterday by NPR CEO Vivian Schiller, as related by Mark Memmott, writer at the NPR blog, The Two-Way [tip of the fedora to Memeorandum][emphasis mine]:

Fired NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and “his psychiatrist or his publicist,” the network’s CEO told an audience at the Atlanta Press Club earlier today.

Bob gives more examples, and surely we can recognize that the Progressives have been doing this for years. Just try to think of any Conservative voice that has not been attacked as loony, nutty, crazy, dangerous, potentially violent, or a threat by the Progressives. Tea Partiers, bloggers, columnists, politicians, etc. have all been accused of horrible things, simply for opposing the Left’s aims. They use intimidation, threats, and character assassination to silence us, let us say no more!

The New Marxists, are no different than the old Marxists really. They just do not hold the power that Stalin or Lennin or Mao did, not yet. See, the Constitution checks them, but they have been assaulting that for decades now, andwill continue to do so, unless we, the People, do our job on November 2nd!

Everything you could possibly ever need, or want to know about the 10-2 Moonbat Orgy of Stupidity

It was a march comprised of various Leftists, terror sympathizers, anti-Semites, union thugs, whiners, far left activists, Marxists, Communists, Socialists, miscreants, malcontents, and worst of all Ed Schulz. here are some links to help you peruse the LeftFest!


Robert of American and Proud compares and contrasts Moonbats and Real Americans

Donald Douglas looks at the media’s coverage of the Moonbatpalooza. Bias anyone?

BlackFive highlights the neatness of Moonbats

Bluegrass Pundit shows us that yes, this was a Marxist event

Cold Fury has two words, EPIC FAIL!

Common Cents looks at Progressives in DC

The Confederate Yankee notes how MSNBS tried Ed Schulz’s fat arse!

Da Tech Guy notes the vast gap between 9-12 and One Nation

Doug Powers has fun at the expense of the “Constitutional experts” at the rally

Doug Ross: Tolerance=Violence for Leftists!

Flopping Aces asks if Ed Schulz might be suffering from Cranial Rectum Syndrome

Gateway Pundit: SAD!

Government Mess weighs in

Ed Morrissey looks at the Left’s longing for “unity”

William Jacobson examines the NAACP’s Selective Outrage Syndrome

Michelle: Left-A-Palooza

Moonbattery: COMMIES!

Nice Deb nutshells it for us

William Teach has a nice take of whether size matters

Proof Positive has a laugh!

Mary Sue: Chock full of Nuts!

Saber: Progressive? My ass!