Category Archives: Internet attacks

FCC open internet rules exposed by commissioner Ajit Pai and Small Business Administration, Obama told us to do so, Unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, Higher broadband prices, slower speeds, less broadband deployment, less innovation, fewer options for consumer

FCC open internet rules exposed by commissioner Ajit Pai and Small Business Administration, Obama told us to do so, Unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, Higher broadband prices, slower speeds, less broadband deployment, less innovation, fewer options for consumer

“If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you.”…FCC commissioner Ajit Pia February 10, 2015

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

 

From FCC commissioner Ajit Pai February 26, 2015.

“ORAL DISSENTING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

Re: Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28.
Americans love the free and open Internet. We relish our freedom to speak, to post, to rally, to learn, to listen, to watch, and to connect online. The Internet has become a powerful force for freedom, both at home and abroad. So it is sad this morning to witness the FCC’s unprecedented attempt to replace
that freedom with government control.
It shouldn’t be this way. For twenty years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. A Republican Congress and a Democratic President enshrined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the Internet should be a “vibrant and competitive free market . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” And dating back to the Clinton Administration,
every FCC Chairman—Republican and Democrat—has let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation. The results speak for themselves.
But today, the FCC abandons those policies. It reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, to direct where Internet service providers (ISPs) make their investments, and to determine what service plans will
be available to the American public. This is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan, marketoriented policies that have served us so well for the last two decades. It is also an about-face from the proposals the FCC made just last May.
So why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? Is it because we now have evidence that the Internet is broken? No. We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason alone. President Obama
told us to do so.
On November 10, President Obama asked the FCC to implement his plan for regulating the Internet, one that favors government regulation over marketplace competition. As has been widely reported in the press, the FCC has been scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that.
The courts will ultimately decide this Order’s fate. Litigants are already lawyering up to seek judicial review of these new rules. Given the Order’s many glaring legal flaws, they will have plenty of fodder.
But if this Order manages to survive judicial review, these will be the consequences: higher broadband prices, slower speeds, less broadband deployment, less innovation, and fewer options for American consumers. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet
isn’t the solution to a problem. His plan is the problem.
In short, because this Order imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have, I dissent.
I.
The Commission’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American
people, decide the future of the online world.
One facet of that control is rate regulation. For the first time, the FCC will regulate the rates that ISPs may charge and will set a price of zero for certain commercial agreements. And the Order goes out of its way to reject calls to forbear from section 201’s authorization of rate regulation and expressly
invites parties to file such complaints with the Commission. A government agency deciding whether a rate is lawful is the very definition of rate regulation.
2
Although the Order plainly regulates rates, the plan takes pains to claim that it is not imposing further “ex ante rate regulation.” Of course, that concedes that the new regulatory regime will involve ex post rate regulation. But even the agency’s suggestion that it today “cannot . . . envision” ex ante rate regulations “in this context” says nothing of what a future Commission—perhaps this very
Commission—could envision.
Just as pernicious is the FCC’s new “Internet conduct” standard, a standard that gives the FCC a roving mandate to review business models and upend pricing plans that benefit consumers. Usage-based pricing plans and sponsored data plans are the current targets. So if a company doesn’t want to offer an
expensive, unlimited data plan, it could find itself in the FCC’s cross hairs.
Our standard should be simple: If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you. Banning diverse service plans would just hurt consumers, especially the middle-class and low-income Americans who are the biggest beneficiaries of these plans.
In all, the FCC will have almost unfettered discretion to decide what business practices clear the bureaucratic bar, so these won’t be the last plans targeted by the agency. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote just this week: This open-ended rule will be “anything but clear” and “suggests that the
FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices.” And “a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.”
Then there is the temporary forbearance. Although the Order crows that its forbearance from some Title II rules yields a “‘light-touch’ regulatory framework,” in reality it isn’t light at all, coming as it does with the caveats that the public has come to expect from Washington, DC. In discussing additional
rate regulation, tariffs, last-mile unbundling, burdensome administrative filing requirements, accounting standards, and entry and exit regulation, the plan repeatedly states that it is only forbearing “at this time.”
For other rules, the FCC will refrain “for now.”
To be sure, with respect to some rules, the agency says that it “cannot envision” going further.
But as the history of this proceeding makes clear, assurances like these don’t tend to last very long. In other words, expect forbearance to fade and the regulations to ratchet up as time goes on.
A.
Consumers will be worse off under President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. Consumers should expect their bills to go up, and they should expect that broadband will be slower going forward.
This isn’t what anyone was promised, to say the least.
1. New broadband taxes.—One avenue for higher bills is the new taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband. Here’s the background. If you look at your phone bill, you’ll see a “Universal Service Fee,” or something like it. These fees—what most Americans would call taxes—are paid by Americans on their telephone service. They funnel about $9 billion each year through the FCC.
Consumers haven’t had to pay these taxes on their broadband bills because broadband has never before been a Title II service.
But now it is. And so the Order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes.
Indeed, it repeatedly states that it is only deferring a decision on new broadband taxes—not prohibiting them.
This is fig-leaf forbearance. Indeed, the FCC has already referred the question of assessing federal and state taxes on broadband to the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service and “has requested a recommended decision by April 7, 2015,” right before Tax Day. It’s no surprise that many view this referral as a question of how, not whether to tax broadband, and states have already begun
discussions on how they will spend the extra money.
3
And the agency’s preference is clear. The Order argues that taxing broadband “potentially could spread the base of contributions” and could add “to the stability of the universal service fund.” For those not familiar with this Beltway argot, let me translate: “Taxing broadband would make it easier to spend
more of your money with minimal public oversight.”
We’ve seen this game played before. During reform of the E-Rate program in July 2014, the FCC secretly told lobbyists that it would raise USF taxes after the election to pay for the promises it was making. Sure enough, in December 2014, the agency did just that—increasing E-Rate spending (and with it telephone taxes) by $1.5 billion per year.
Public reports indicate that the federal government is eager to tap this new revenue stream soon to spend more of consumers’ hard-earned dollars. So when it comes to broadband, read my lips: More new taxes are coming. It’s just a matter of when.
2. Slower broadband.—These Internet regulations will work another serious harm on consumers.
Their broadband speeds will be slower.
The record is replete with evidence that Title II regulations will slow investment and innovation in broadband networks. Remember: Broadband networks don’t have to be built. Capital doesn’t have to be invested here. Risks don’t have to be taken. The more difficult the FCC makes the business case for deployment, the less likely it is that broadband providers big and small will connect Americans with digital opportunities.
The Old World offers a cautionary tale here. Compare the broadband market in the United States to that in Europe, where broadband is generally regulated as a public utility. Today, 82% of Americans have access to 25 Mbps broadband speeds. In Europe, that figure is only 54%. Moreover, in the United States, average mobile broadband speeds are 30% faster than they are in Western Europe.
It’s no wonder that many Europeans are perplexed by what is taking place at the FCC. Just this week, the Secretary General of the European People’s Party, the largest party in the European Parliament, observed that the FCC, “at the behest” of President Obama, was about to impose the type of “[r]egulation
which . . . has led Europe to fall behind the US in levels of investment.”
Making it all worse is the fact that the FCC now welcomes litigation—from individual claims about the justness and reasonableness of ISP pricing to sprawling class actions for violations of the new Internet conduct rule—as an appropriate means of regulating the Internet economy. Judging from what
we’ve seen in the patent world, this will be a boon for trial lawyers.
And these are just the intended results of reclassification!
There are unintended consequences as well. The fees that broadband providers—from smalltown cable operators to new entrants like Google—must now pay to deploy broadband using things like utility poles will go up by an estimated $150–200 million per year. And reclassification will expose many small companies to higher state and local taxes. Here in Washington, for instance, companies will face an instant 11% increase in taxes on their gross receipts. That big bite will leave a welt on consumers’ wallets.
All of these new fees and costs add up. One estimate puts the total at $11 billion a year. And every dollar spent on fees and new costs like lawyers and accountants has to come from somewhere: either the pockets of the American consumer or projects to deploy faster broadband. And so these higher costs will lead to slower speeds and higher prices—in short, less value—for the American consumer.
B.
So do American consumers want slower speeds at higher prices? I don’t think so.
4
That’s certainly not what I heard when I hosted the Texas Forum on Internet Regulation in College Station, the FCC’s only field hearing on net neutrality where audience members were allowed to speak. There, Internet innovators, students, everyday people told me they wanted something else from
the FCC—something that I thought had a familiar ring to it. These consumers wanted competition, competition, competition.
And yet, literally nothing in this Order will promote competition among ISPs. To the contrary, reclassifying broadband will drive competitors out of business. Monopoly rules designed for the monopoly era will inevitably move us in the direction of a monopoly. President Obama’s plan to regulate
the Internet is nothing more than a Kingsbury Commitment for the digital age. If you liked the Ma Bell monopoly in the 20th century, you’ll love Pa Broadband in the 21st.
This isn’t just my view. The President’s own Small Business Administration—apparently acting independently—admonished the FCC that its proposed rules would unduly burden small businesses.
Following the President’s lead, the FCC ignores this admonition by applying heavy-handed Title II regulations to each and every small broadband provider as if it were an industrial giant.
Unsurprisingly, small Internet service providers are worried. I heard this for myself at the Texas Forum on Internet Regulation. One of the panelists, Joe Portman, runs Alamo Broadband, a wireless ISP, or WISP, that serves 700 people across 500 square miles south of San Antonio.
What does Joe think of Title II? He thinks it’s “pretty much a terrible idea.” His staff “is pretty busy just dealing with the loads we already carry. More staff to cover regulations means less funds to run the network and provide the very service our customers depend on.”
Other WISPs feel the same way. Just last week, 142 WISPs joined the chorus. These WISPs have deployed wireless broadband to customers who often have no alternatives. They often run on a shoestring budget with just a few people to run the business, install equipment, and handle service calls.
They have no incentive and no ability to take on commercial giants like Netflix. And they say the FCC’s new “regulatory intrusion into our businesses . . . would likely force us to raise prices, delay deployment expansion, or both.”
Or consider the views of 24 of the country’s smallest ISPs, each with fewer than 1,000 residential broadband customers. They wrote us that Title II “will badly strain our limited resources” because they “have no in-house attorneys and no budget line items for outside counsel.”
Or how about the 43 municipal broadband providers that flatly told the FCC that Title II “will trigger consequences beyond the Commission’s control and risk serious harm to our ability to fund and deploy broadband without bringing any concrete benefit for consumers or edge providers that the market is not already proving today without the aid of any additional regulation.”
There’s a special irony given that right before this vote, the FCC voted to preempt state laws regarding city-owned broadband projects. This is an initiative President Obama announced just last month in Cedar Falls, Iowa, and the FCC is dutifully implementing it. But Cedar Falls Utilities, the very municipal broadband provider the President promoted, tells us that Title II is a tremendous mistake.
So what does the Order tell Americans whose ISP isn’t a Comcast, an AT&T, a Google, or a Sprint? What does it tell those whose service will be more expensive as a direct result of reclassification?
What does it tell those who may lose their Internet service if their small operator goes out of business?
What does it tell those who worked for years to serve their community and build a business, one that’s finally in the black? There’s no explanation. There’s not even an acknowledgement. There’s just the smug assurance that it won’t be that bad.
5
C.
So the FCC is abandoning a 20-year-old, bipartisan framework for keeping the Internet free and open in favor of Great Depression-era legislation designed to regulate Ma Bell. But at least we’re getting something in return, right? Wrong. The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve.
That the Internet works—that Internet freedom works—should be obvious to anyone with an Apple iPhone or Microsoft Surface, a Samsung Smart TV or a Roku, a Nest Thermostat or a Fitbit. We live in a time where you can buy a movie from iTunes, watch a music video on YouTube, listen to a personalized playlist on Pandora, watch your favorite Philip K. Dick novel come to life on Amazon Streaming Video, help someone make potato salad on KickStarter, check out the latest comic at XKCD, see what Seinfeld’s been up to on Crackle, navigate bad traffic with Waze, and do literally hundreds of other things all with an online connection. At the start of the millennium, we didn’t have any of this
Internet innovation.
And no, the federal government didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
For all intents and purposes, the Internet didn’t exist until the private sector took it over in the 1990s, and it’s been the commercial Internet that has led to the innovation, the creativity, the engineering genius that we see today.
Nevertheless, the Order ominously claims that “[t]hreats to Internet openness remain today.” It argues that broadband providers “hold all the tools necessary to deceive consumers, degrade content or disfavor the content that they don’t like,” and it asserts that the FCC continues “to hear concerns about other broadband provider practices involving blocking or degrading third-party applications.”
The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it’s all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped BitTorrent traffic to ease upload congestion eight years ago. Apple introduced Facetime over Wi-Fi first, cellular networks later. Examples this picayune and stale aren’t enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. The bogeyman never had it so easy.
So what is there to fear? A sober reader might borrow from the father of Title II: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” But the FCC instead intones the nine scariest words for any friend of Internet freedom: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
To put it another way, Title II is not just a solution in search of a problem—it’s a government solution that creates a real-world problem. This is not what the Internet needs, and it’s not what the American people want.
D.
So—that’s substance. A few words on process. When the Commission launched this rulemaking, I said that we needed to “give the American people a full and fair opportunity to participate in this process.” Unfortunately, we have fallen woefully short of that standard.
Most importantly, the plan in front of us today was not forged in this building through a transparent notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Instead, The Wall Street Journal reports that it was developed through “an unusual, secretive effort inside the White House.” Indeed, White House officials, according to the Journal, functioned as a “parallel version of the FCC.” Their work led to the President’s announcement in November of his plan for Internet regulation, a plan which “blindsided” the FCC and “swept aside . . . months of work by [Chairman] Wheeler toward a compromise.”
Of course, a few insiders were clued in about what was transpiring. Here’s what a leader for the government-funded group Fight for the Future had to say: “We’ve been hearing for weeks from our allies in DC that the only thing that could stop FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler from moving ahead with his sham
6
proposal to gut net neutrality was if we could get the President to step in. So we did everything in our power to make that happen. We took the gloves off and played hard, and now we get to celebrate a sweet victory.”
What the press has called the “parallel FCC” at the White House opened its doors to a plethora of special-interest activists: Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, just to name a few. Indeed, even before activists were blocking Chairman Wheeler’s driveway late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials. But what about the rest of
the American people? They certainly couldn’t get White House meetings. They were shut out of the process. They were being played for fools.
And the situation didn’t improve once the White House announced President Obama’s plan and “ask[ed]” the FCC to “implement” it. The document in front of us today differs dramatically from the proposal that the FCC put out for comment last May. It differs so dramatically that even zealous net
neutrality advocates frantically rushed in recent days to make last-minute filings registering their concerns that the FCC might be going too far. Yet the American people to this day have not been allowed to see President Obama’s plan. It has remained hidden.
Especially given the unique importance of the Internet, Commissioner O’Rielly and I asked for
the plan to be released to the public. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune and House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton did the same. And according to a survey last week by a respected Democratic polling firm, 79% of the American people favored making the
document public. But still the FCC has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. We have to pass President Obama’s 317-page plan so that the American people can find out what is in it. This isn’t how the FCC should operate. We should be an independent agency making decisions in a transparent manner based on the law and the facts in the record. We shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for
political decisions made by the White House.
And we should have released this plan to the public, solicited their feedback, incorporated that input into the plan, and then proceeded to a vote. There was no need for us to resolve this matter today.
There is no immediate crisis in the Internet marketplace that demands immediate action.
The backers of the President’s plan know this. But they also know that the details of this plan cannot stand up to the light of day. They know that the more the American people learn about it, the less they will like it. That is why this plan was developed behind closed doors at the White House. And that is why the plan has remained hidden from public view.
II.
These are not my only concerns. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time. But rather than address them today, I will reserve them for my written statement.
* * *
At the beginning of this proceeding, I quoted Google’s former CEO, Eric Schmidt, who once said: “The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn’t understand.” This proceeding makes abundantly clear that the FCC still doesn’t get it.
But the American people clearly do. The threat to Internet freedom has awakened a sleeping giant. And I am optimistic that we will look back on today’s vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan path that has served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future Commission. But I do believe that its days are numbered.
For all of these reasons, I dissent.”

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-332260A5.pdf

 

Net neutrality lies exposed by Ajit Pai, FCC Feb 10, 2015 press conference, Obama plan to regulate internet, More Obama lies, Rate regulation, Like your plan keep your plan?, FCC broad and unprecedented power, New Taxes, Utility style regulation, Gift to trial lawyers

Net neutrality lies exposed by Ajit Pai, FCC Feb 10, 2015 press conference, Obama plan to regulate internet, More Obama lies, Rate regulation, Like your plan keep your plan?, FCC broad and unprecedented power, New Taxes, Utility style regulation, Gift to trial lawyers

“If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you.”…FCC commissioner Ajit Pia February 10, 2015

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

 

 

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai held a press conference on February 10, 2015.

Here is the transcript.

“February 10, 2015
Matthew Berry: (202) 418-2005
Email: Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov

PRESS STATEMENT OF FCC COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN TO REGULATE THE INTERNET

The American people are being misled about President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet.
Last week’s carefully stage-managed rollout was designed to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy and to shield many critical details from the public. Indeed, Chairman Wheeler has made it clear that he will not release the document to the public even though federal law authorizes him to
do so.
I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation. I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined. So today, I want to correct the record and explain key aspects of what President Obama’s plan will actually do.

First

, the claim that President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet does not include rate regulation is flat-out false. The plan clearly states that the FCC can regulate the rates that Internet service providers charge for broadband Internet access, for interconnection, for transit—in short, for the
core aspects of Internet services. To be sure, the plan says that the FCC will not engage in what it calls ex ante rate regulation. But this only means that the FCC won’t set rates ahead of time. The plan repeatedly states that the FCC will apply sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act, including their rate
regulation provisions, to determine whether the prices charged by broadband providers are “unjust or unreasonable.” The plan also repeatedly invites complaints about section 201 and 202 violations from end-users and edge providers alike. Thus, for the first time, the FCC would claim the power to declare broadband Internet rates and charges unreasonable after the fact. Indeed, the only limit on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are “just and reasonable,” which isn’t
much of a restriction at all.
Lest anyone take comfort in the notion that the FCC will allow the market to set prices through competition, the plan goes out of its way to reiterate its view that competition is limited. And it uses the FCC’s new 25 Mbps yardstick for broadband to claim that competition doesn’t exist for a majority of
Americans. To think that rate regulation and other utility-style regulation will not happen in the face of such findings is naïve.

Second

, President Obama’s plan targets pro-competitive broadband service offerings, both actual and potential, that benefit consumers. The plan expressly states that usage-based pricing, data allowances—really, any offers other than an unlimited, all-you-can-eat data plan—are now subject to
regulation. Indeed, the plan finds that these practices will be subject to case-by-case review under the plan’s new “Internet conduct” standard. That standard evaluates at least seven vaguely defined factors in
determining whether a practice is allowed. The plan makes clear that these practices are now on the chopping block, with those of mobile operators under special scrutiny. This means that consumers who use less data may end up subsidizing consumers who use more data. Moreover, the President’s plan goes  out of its way to say that sponsored-data plans and zero-rating programs, like T-Mobile’s Music Freedom offering, may violate the new standard for Internet conduct. Preventing companies from differentiating themselves from the competition by giving consumers a wide variety of options will mean less choice and less free data for consumers. If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you.

 

Third

, President Obama’s plan gives the FCC broad and unprecedented discretion to micromanage the Internet. The plan gives a Washington bureaucracy a blank check to decide how Internet service providers deploy and manage their networks, from the last mile all the way through the
Internet backbone. Take interconnection as just one example. The plan states that the FCC can determine when a broadband provider must establish physical interconnection points, where they must locate those points, how much they can charge for the provision of that infrastructure, and how they will route traffic
over those connections. That is anything but light touch regulation. And the plan extends the FCC’s interventionist gaze well beyond this part of the network. Small wonder that some pro-regulation activists are already deeming the FCC the “Department of the Internet.”

Fourth

, the President’s plan is a gift to trial lawyers. The plan allows class-action lawsuits—with attorneys’ fees—should any trial lawyer want to challenge an Internet service provider’s network management practices or rates. Indeed, the plan expressly declines to forbear from sections 206 and 207 of the Act, which authorize such private rights of action. And it adopts a theory of broadband subscriber access services—that is, services that broadband providers supply to edge providers—that would allow anyone online to file a complaint or go to court. The end result will be more litigation and less innovation.

Fifth

, the President’s plan makes clear that more utility-style regulation is coming. In discussing additional rate regulation, tariffs, last-mile unbundling, burdensome administrative filing requirements, accounting standards, and entry and exit regulation, the plan repeatedly states that it is only
forbearing at this time. The plan is quite clear about the limited duration of its forbearance determinations, stating that the FCC will revisit the forbearance determinations in the future and proceed in an incremental manner with respect to additional regulation. In other words, over time, expect regulation to ratchet up and forbearance to fade.

Sixth

, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. The plan repeatedly states that it is only deferring a decision on new broadband taxes (such as Universal Service Fund fees and Telecommunications Relay Service fees,
among others)—not prohibiting them. And it takes pains to make clear that nothing in the draft is intended to foreclose future state or federal tax increases. Indeed, the plan engages in the same two-step we saw last year with respect to the E-Rate program: Lay the groundwork to increase taxes in the first order, and then raise them in the second. One independent estimate puts the price tag of these and other fees at $11 billion.
In the end, when you compare what the American public is being told about President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet with the actual text of that plan, these and other discrepancies become apparent. That makes it all the more important for the FCC to let the American public see the plan before
the FCC makes it the law. We should be able to have an open, transparent debate about the President’s plan.”

http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-press-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

Listen here:

http://www.fcc.gov/events/press-conference-fcc-commissioner-ajit-pai

Attack Watch Obama thought police, Nazi Germany and 1984 revisited, Too scary to be funny

Attack Watch Obama thought police, Nazi Germany and 1984 revisited, Too scary to be funny

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”…Ecclesiastes 1:9

This is too scary to be funny.

The Citizen Wells blog has been warning about the close parallels between the Obama camp and Nazi Germany and “1984” by George Orwell since early 2008. If you didn’t believe it then, you certainly must believe it now.

Attack Watch Obama thought police, Nazi Germany and 1984 revisited.

George Orwell predicted this in his book, “1984.”
Nazi Germany, with their book burning and control of the press along
with the Stalinist Soviet Union, made this a harsh reality in the 20th century. The Obama regime has raised this to a level in the 21st century. The Obama Thought Police already controlled the mainstream media. With AttackWatch.com they are attempting to control all other shared thought and information. Welcome to the world of Big Brother.

Below are some quotes from “1984.” These quotes were used regularly on this site for over 3 years. Did the Obama camp use “1984” as a guidebook?

Substitute Glenn Beck, Rick Perry and anyone questioning Obama for Goldstein in the following:

“As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the people, had flashed onto the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandyhaired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counterrevolutionary activities , had been condemned to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared. The program of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters; perhaps even–so it was occasionally rumored–in some hiding place in Oceania itself.”
 

“Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party–an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing Big Brother, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought”

“Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room.”
“the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically.”
“He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia.”
“There were also whispered stories of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies”
“In it’s second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices”

Substitute a mainstream media outlet or pro Obama site for the Times  in the following:

“Winston dialed “back numbers” on the telescreen and called
for the appropriate issues of the Times, which slid out of
the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes’ delay.  The
messages he had received referred to articles or news items
which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to
alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify.  For
example, it appeared from the Times of the seventeenth of
March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day,
had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet
but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in
North Africa.  As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command
had launched its offensive in South India and left North
Africa alone.  It was therefore necessary to rewrite a
paragraph of Big Brother’s speech in such a way as to make
him predict the thing that had actually happened.”
“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”

“As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any partiucular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in it’s stead. This process of continuation alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs–to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to be correct; nor was any item of news, or expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to be on record.”

For anyone watching the internet being scrubbed or updated with revisionist history, the following will resonate:

“To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is
free, when men are different from one another and do not
live alone–to a time when truth exists and what is done
cannot be undone:

From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude,
from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink–
greetings!”
“If the party could thrust its hand into the past and say
of this and that event, it never happened–that, surely,
was more terrifying than mere torture and death.”

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had
actually been destroyed. For how could you establish, even
the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside
your own memory?”

AttackWatch.com

The Hitler youth were encouraged to turn in teachers and parents who did not conform to party ideology. Orwell wrote:

 
“With those children [Winston] thought, that wretched woman must lead a life of terror. Another year, two years, and they would be watching her night and day for symptoms of unorthodoxy. Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party.”
“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!””

No one paying attention will find this hard to believe:

“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”

Welcome to the age of Big Brother.

Trump questions Obama and gets attacked, Racist Orwellian attacks from Leonard Pitts and Whoopi Goldberg, Obama birth certificate eligibility

Trump questions Obama and gets attacked, Racist Orwellian attacks from Leonard Pitts and Whoopi Goldberg, Obama birth certificate eligibility

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“Why did Bill O’Reilly use birth announcements as evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii and mislead the American public?”…Citizen Wells

Before I respond to the racist and Owellian rants of people like Leonard Pitts and Whoppi Goldberg, it is fitting that I reprint an article from December 1, 2009 on Citizen Wells.

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

This is a two part article. The first part deals with engineered and unintentinal brainwashing coming from the Orwellian Obama Camp. The second part is in response to an article produced by the London Mail Online, in the home of my ancestors. History does, indeed, repeat. I write this as a descendant of British citizens who left the tyranny of Europe, who as Americans saw through the BS of British tryanny. Now I am compelled, as my ancestors were, to sift through more BS coming from the British Isles. I quote their native son George Orwell in this endeavor.

Part 1: Obama Camp Orwellian mind control

George Orwell watched as the mind control schemes of Nazi Germany played out to insure the German people were compliant with their plans for world domination. Orwell used these techniques from Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes as a basis for “1984.” For example, from Joeseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister:

 “Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”

Next, from “1984.”

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had
actually been destroyed. For how could you establish, even
the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside
your own memory?”

After watching the Obama camp early in 2008 control the Mainstream Media and attack people speaking out against Obama, including an orchestrated attack on this blog, it became apparent that we had entered the age of Big Brother written about by George Orwell. Many articles have been presented on this blog comparing the Obama camp and administration to the totalitarian regime of “1984.”

For the purpose of this article, I will concentrate on the eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama. This one issue exemplifies how the Obama camp has expended enormous resources to shape public thought and masterfully divert attention away from the critical issue of Obama being a usurper, in direct conflict with the US Constitution.

One thing is crystal clear. The Obama camp has controlled the Mainstream Media from the beginning. There are many reason for this. It is a fact. This has been the principle means they have used to not cover important issues and to select the buzzwords and slogans to be used. Birther, fringe and other words have been selected to discredit and demean those speaking out against Obama. Also, another technique straight out of Nazi Germany and “1984″ was employed. In Nazi Germany, the focus of hate was the Jews. In “1984″ the “two minute hates” were directed at Goldstein (correction), the supposed antagonist of Big Brother and the nation.

So we have the Obama camp continually broadcasting that anyone challenging Obama’s eligibility is a fringe birther, right wing extremist and as many of the so called elitists would portray as a sub human low intellect. That Orly Taitz is the leader of the birthers and that all court cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have been thrown out as having no merits. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most people questioning Obama’s eligibility are normal, hard working Americans who follow the US Constitution as their legal compass. They are people like me who are well educated, well read and non racially motivated. They are current or retired military and some high ranking officers. There are a few in the MSM, such as Lou Dobbs who asked the common sense question of why doesn’t Obama simply provide a legitimate birth certificate.

Now for the questions that transcends all of the psycho babble and mind control. I have placed it as number 1 on the Internet Billboard because it is so simple and self evident.

“1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.”

The answer is obvious.

Part 2: What motivated the Mail Online to create or repeat lies?

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”…Joseph Goebbels

First of all, I want to thank the British press for covering aspects of Barack Obama untouched by the American MSM. I am certain it did not harm your readership.

Next, what was your motivation for covering an important story about Obama’s eligibility issues and including so much misinformation and lies? Perhaps you are proving my point with the quotes from Orwell and Goebbels serving as a spotlight.

  • Is this the result of pressure or remuneration from the Obama Camp ot those controlling the puppet strings?
  • Are you repeating the lie that has become the “truth”?
  • Or is this simply crass commercialism?
  • Or possibly all three above?

I will next respond to selected exerpts from your article, “Did Barack Obama lie about his birth to become President?”.

“To most Americans, of course, the very idea that anyone could cheat their way into the world’s most powerful post by rewriting their personal history sounds preposterous.

They dismiss the Birthers as a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists and closet racists who still cannot accept a black leader, even though Obama won the election by some 10 million votes.
Yet the number of people who believe this apparently outlandish theory is extraordinarily high, particularly in the southern states, where old racial divisions endure.

According to one recent opinion poll, an astonishing 53 per cent of southerners are either convinced their President really is a covert foreigner, or at least feel unsure about the matter. In more integrated parts of the country, the doubters remain a small minority.”

Citizen Wells response:

Life is full of ironies. I write this, a child of the British Isles, as I suppose you are. My English ancestors left the tyranny of Europe and settled in NC. They embraced their new found freedoms and easily saw through the BS being imposed on them by the British Government. My ancestor, John Wells, was a signer of the Tryon Resolves.

“The unprecedented, barbarous and bloody actions committed by British troops on our American brethren near Boston, on 19th April and 20th of May last, together with the hostile operations and treacherous designs now carrying on, by the tools of ministerial vengeance, for the subjugation of all British America, suggest to us the painful necessity of having recourse to arms in defense of our National freedom and constitutional rights, against all invasions; and at the same time do solemnly engage to take up arms and risk our lives and our fortunes in maintaining the freedom of our country whenever the wisdom and counsel of the Continental Congress or our Provincial Convention shall declare it necessary;”

Here is my point. We have some large cities in the south. However, passed from generation to generation, we have retained the inclination and ability to see throgh modern day BS and tyranny. Those of you in Great Britain have had 250 years to learn this. Is this clear? Except for a small percentage of the population, this is not about skin color. It is about Tyranny. Clear?

“After reading about the Birthers, he met the fringe group’s self-anointed leader, Orly Taitz, 47, a one-woman phenomenon who emigrated to America from the former Soviet Union (via Israel), speaks five languages, and is a qualified dentist with two practices, as well as being an attorney.”

Citizen Wells response:

Here we go again, “fringe group.” Orly Taitz is one of many attorneys involved in lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility and she is not the leader. This is a grassroots, US Consitutional issue.

 ”Like every other such case, it was summarily dismissed on procedural grounds even before the evidence could be heard. However absurd such cases may be, Mr Sankey, who works for the group voluntarily and estimates having spent £40,000 of his own money following leads, is at pains to present himself as a level-headed former British bobby, motivated only by a determination to find the truth.”

Citizen Wells response:

Every case has not been dismissed.  “However absurd such cases may be,” leads one to believe that this article was influenced by the Obama camp.

“It is a sad irony, though, that so many Americans feel sufficiently dissatisfied by their first black President that they would rather put their trust in a British detective and his curious conspiracy theories.” 

Citizen Wells response:

The decline of the British Empire.

Times Online article:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1231542/Barack-Obama-British-detective-Neil-Sankey-claims-lied-birth-President.html

I will leave you with the following quote which perhaps conveys the message best:

“When you pick up your morning or evening newspaper and think
you are reading the news of the world, what you are reading
is a propaganda which has been selected, revised, and doctored
by some power which has a financial interest in you.” …Upton Sinclair

Brad Miller exploits tragedy, NC Congressman reveals agenda, Miller Obama camp hypocrite

 Brad Miller exploits tragedy, NC Congressman reveals agenda, Miller Obama camp hypocrite

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

****  Updated 7:23 PM  ****

From the Greensboro News & Record January 10, 2011.

“Congressional republicans spoke to rallies in which there were large banners showing pictures of human beings stacked like cord wood at Dachau,” Miller said, mentioning images showing President Barack Obama compared to Adolf Hitler.

“Sprinkled throughout the rallies were signs promoting violence,” Miller said. “And they said not word of criticism. Not a word of protest.”

Miller said he’s predicted violence for more than a year and a half, and that violence broke out at the Tucson, Ariz., public meeting where Giffords , a Democrat, was shot in the head.

“I think the American people need to hold their politicians accountable for embracing extremist, violence-prone fringe elements,” he said.

“Americans have in the past.”

Many conservatives say it’s just talk, and that any attempt to blame them for Gifford’s shooting is a cynical attempt to exploit a tragedy for political gain.”

I found no link on the internet.

Congressman Miller stated:

“I think the American people need to hold their politicians accountable for embracing extremist, violence-prone fringe elements,”

Yes, Brad Miller, we have been trying to hold the Obama camp accountable for years. Where were you?

Where were you when Jon Voight and his family were attacked for asking simple questions in 2008?

Did you demand an investigation when the New Black Panther Party, linked to Obama, threatened voters in Philadelphia?

Did you demand an investigation when Lou Dobb’s house was shot at in 2010?

Let’s not forget the game plan of Obama’s cousin Raila Odinga, who Obama campaigned for:

“Ethnic Tensions/Violence as a last Resort
To discourage voter participation in hostile areas”

“Use ODM agents on the ground to engineer ethnic tensions in target areas”

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/obama-community-organizer-obama-and-michelle-public-allies-raila-odinga-odm-party-michelles-boot-camps-for-radicals-investors-business-daily-glenn-beck-orwellian-social-change/

Oh, I almost forgot the beating of a black man by Obama SEIU thugs.

And who could forget this Obama quote “I want you argue with them and get in their face,”

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/obama-saul-alinsky-lucifer-community-organizer-ridicule-socialists-mccain-raila-odinga-odm-rules-for-radicals-alinsky-method-ridicule-older-people/

Brad Miller, did you not read about the army of paid bloggers of the Obama camp who spread misinformation and attacked those questioning Obama?

I began learning about the Nazi like tactics of the Obama camp early in 2008. My first question, “Where was Obama on November 4, 1999″ got unexpected results. That was my first experience of the backlash from questioning the messiah, Obama. The more questions that I asked, the more serious the attacks which evolved into multiple death threats. Just for asking simple questions.

I am a student of history and a big fan of George Orwell and his insightful book, “1984.” The parallels to Nazi Germany and the totalitarian mind controlling regime of Big Brother were clearly apparent by mid 2008.

Here are some Citizen Wells articles on why the Obama camp resembled Nazi Germany.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/tps-article-patdollardcom-something-monumentally-large-afoot-writer-tps-obama-camp-acorn-voter-fraud-nazi-germany-student-of-history-winston-churchill-warning/

Here are some Citizen Wells articles revealing the parallels to 1984.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/obama-administration-1984-regime-george-orwell-described-obama-camp-thought-police-anita-dunn-david-axelrod-rahm-emmanuel-revisionist-history-attacks-fox-news-citizen-wells-open-thread-octob/

Brad Miller, you are impuning the reputation of NC with your left wing hypocritical comments.

Brad Miller you had better by God shape up or we are going to ship you out.

****  Update  *****

An excellent source of Obama violent rhetoric.

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/06/12/a-history-of-obamas-violent-rhetoric/

Ron Wyden to block COICA, Oregon senator opposes Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, Citizen Wells open thread, November 21, 2010

Ron Wyden to block COICA, Oregon senator opposes Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

From PC World November 19, 2010.

“A U.S. senator has vowed to fight attempts to pass a controversial copyright protection bill that would allow the U.S. government to shut down websites suspected of hosting infringing materials.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said late Thursday that he would seek to block the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, or COICA, from passing through the full Senate, unless the legislation is changed. Earlier Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 19-0 to approve the bill and send it to the full Senate.

Wyden called the bill the “wrong medicine” for dealing with online copyright infringement. The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice to seek expedited court orders requiring U.S. domain-name registrars to shut down domestic websites suspected of hosting infringing materials. The bill would also allow the DOJ, through court orders, to order U.S. ISPs to redirect customer traffic away from infringing foreign websites.

“Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb, when what you need is a precision-guided missile,” Wyden said during a hearing on digital trade issues. “If you don’t think this thing through carefully, the collateral damage would be American innovation, American jobs, and a secure Internet.”

Wyden’s opposition means the bill is likely dead this year. Individual senators can place holds on legislation, and there are only a few working days left in the congressional session this year. Sponsors of the legislation, including fellow Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, would have to reintroduce the bill if it doesn’t pass this year.”

“COICA is an example of repeated efforts to fix long-time problems through Internet restrictions, said Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a tech trade group. The Judiciary Committee pushed through the bill without adequate hearings and input from the public, Black said.

“The significance and implications of the legislation I don’t think have been well thought through,” Black said during the hearing on digital trade. “Sadly, it’s an example of what not to do in an important, complicated digital ecosystem.””

Read  more:

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/211162/senator_threatens_to_block_online_copyright_bill.html

I agree with senator Ron Wyden and Ed Black. This bill gives the government too much power and was not well thought out.

For starters, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is the sponsor. That should be red flag enough. This is the same Senator Leahy of Vermont who did not reply to my voice message or email when I was in Burlington, VT when I got the video of the Senator Bernie Sanders speech and a brief interview.

And what about these Republican Senator cosponsors?

Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
James Inhofe [R-OK]
George Voinovich [R-OH]

More RINO’s? Or are they just not paying attention or listening to the public?

I am not certain if the full text of the bill is available yet. My first 2 attempts to get it failed.

From GovTrack, a summary.

“Congressional Research Service Summary

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

9/20/2010–Introduced.
Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act – Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General (AG) to commence an action for injunctive relief against a domain name used by an Internet site that is “dedicated to infringing activities,” even where such a domain name is not located in the United States. Defines an Internet site that “dedicated to infringing activities” as a site that is: (1) subject to civil forfeiture; (2) designed primarily to offer goods or services in violation of federal copyright law; or (3) selling counterfeit goods. Requires the AG to maintain a public listing of domain names that the Department of Justice (DOJ) determines are dedicated to infringing activities but for which the AG has not filed an action. Allows parties to petition the AG to remove such a domain name from the list and obtain judicial review of the final determination in a civil action.”

Read more:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804

Another source of information:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3804/show

Lakin court martial, Orwellian lies from media, Citizen Wells challenge, Open thread, September 19, 2010

 Lakin court martial, Orwellian lies from media, Citizen Wells challenge

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

***  Update Below ***

There is one theme that I have referred to constantly since early  2008. That is the scary analogy to the world of “1984” that we have been experiencing. It was clear then as now that the mainstream media of the US was doing the bidding of the Obama camp to spread lies and  misinformation. Recently Pravda, “The Truth”, began covering the LTC Terry Lakin court martial and Obama eligibility issues. What a strange world that we live in.

Part of the reason that this blog has succeeded, part of the reason that I have worked so hard was to counteract the mainstream media lies on such topics as Obama eligibility, Obama’s connection to Rezko and Chicago corruption, the real truth about Blagojevich and the US Justice Dept. protecting Obama and now the court martial of LTC Terry Lakin.

I spend much time searching the internet and subsequently I discover which of the Orwellian deceivers are getting first page on Google and other search engines. I knew months ago that The Huffington Post, a paid mouthpiece of the Obama camp, had gotten number one on Google for the following search:

Lakin court martial.

I did not forget this fact and was compelled once again to fight the smears coming from the Orwellian Obama camp.

We have watched in horror as internet scrubbing and revisionist history has taken place on the internet. Search engines have also been tweaked. Much money has been in play. My article on CitizenWells.com is intended to counteract misinformation and lies and to support LTC Terry Lakin, an American hero and patriot.

From CitizenWells.com, September 19, 2010.

A “Lakin court martial” search on the internet yielded the following results.

Lakin court martial story at Huffington Post, Orwellian Lie.
 
Lakin court martial story at NBC,  Orwellian Lie.

Lakin court martial story at CBS, Orwellian Lie.

The Huffington Post, a mouthpiece and recipient of money from the Obama camp, came in first in the search  and reported the following:

 
“NBC News reports that the Army will court martial Lt. Col. Terry Lakin because of his refusal to deploy to Afghanistan. Lakin is part of the discredited “birther” movement, and as such believes that orders from President Obama are “illegal.”””

“The Citizen Wells challenge to The Huffington Post, NBC, CBS other media as well as Glenn Beck is to answer the following question:

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

I challenge the above media and anyone else to a debate. If you have legitimate proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, present it. Otherwise correct your stories and shut the hell up. I challenge any of the above. If anything that I have written is incorrect, prove it.

Wells”

Read more:

http://citizenwells.com/2010/09/19/lakin-court-martial-terry-lakin-smeared-by-media-lies-ltc-lakin-patriot/

Who do you trust?

A distinguished patriotic military officer

Or the mainstream media.

*** Update September 19, 2010 11:08 AM ET  ***

This is amazing. I have been searching on Lakin Court Martial for several months on Google. Last night The Huffington Post was still first on the search. I just looked again, after posting both articles, and the Huffington Post does not even show up on the first page. CBS is number three.

A Dogpile search on” lakin court martial huffington post” yields:

Sponsored Ads For: The Huffington Post , Huffingtonpost com , Huffington Money , Arianna Huffington

Terry Lakin, ‘Birther’, To Be Court Martialed By US Army
Apr 14, 2010 … NBC News reports that the Army will court martial Lt. Col. Terry Lakin because of his refusal to deploy to Afghanistan. Lakin is part of the …
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/terry-lakin-birt… • Found on: Google, Bing, Yahoo! Search, Ask.com

The Blaze, TheBlaze.com, Lakin court martial, Glenn Beck V Arianna …
Sep 1, 2010 … Terry Lakin court martial and the recent announcement of support from a … http ://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/terry-lakin-birther-to- …
citizenwells.com/2010/09/01/the-blaze-theblaze-com… • Found on: Google, Yahoo! Search

The Blaze, Glenn Beck, Obama eligibility, Lakin court martial …
Sep 5, 2010 … I could find no mention of the Lt. Col Terry Lakin court martial, … Glenn Beck website, August 31, 2010, Huffington Post competition …
citizenwells.com/2010/09/05/the-blaze-glenn-beck-o… • Found on: Google, Yahoo! Search