Saturday, February 28, 2015





Bobby Jindal

COMMON CORE CHALLENGE: A U.S. District Court Judge ruled that Gov. Bobby Jindal can proceed with his lawsuit against President Barack Obama's administration. The Obama administration had tried to get the lawsuit thrown out. (AP Photo/Jonathan Bachman)

Bobby Jindal at CPAC: Repeal Obamacare; Remove Common Core From Every Classroom; We Are At War With Radical Islam

Gov. Bobby Jindal took aim at the Affordable Care Act, Common Core educational standards and President Barack Obama’s leadership in the fight against Islamic terrorism in a speech Thursday that stuck to familiar ground at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Jindal ticked off his three main targets, saying, “We must repeal every single word of ‘Obamacare,’ ” and “We need to remove Common Core from every classroom in America” and “We are at war with radical Islam.”"

Jindal's federal Common Core case may proceed, judge rules

Gov. Bobby Jindal's Common Core case against the federal government is going forward. Judge Shelly Dick ruled Thursday (Feb. 26) that the governor does have standing to bring the suit, which charges that the new mathematics and English standards represent federal overreach.
The case will be heard May 28 in Baton Rouge.

La. teacher gestapo’d for criticizing Common Core

Michael F. Haverluck   ( Saturday, February 28, 2015
When 12-year junior high school teacher Deborah Vailes posted a criticism she had about the Common Core on her personal Facebook page, school officials immediately retaliated by ordering her to retract her post and threatening disciplinary measures, which could include termination.
Contending that Rapides Parish School District and Pineville Junior High School Principal Dr. Dana Nolan violated Vailes’ free speech rights protected by the United States Constitution, Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) filed a lawsuit with the Federal District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against the school officials Wednesday on the teacher’s behalf.
“Debora Vailes re-posted on her personal Facebook page a photograph of a little girl crying because of the shortcomings of Common Core,” TMLC reported. “Later that day, her school principal, Dr. Dana Nolan, after discovering the post, gave Deborah Vailes her first written reprimand and ordered her to refrain from expressing any opinion about public education on social media and to remove her anti-Common Core post from the social media site — ASAP. (The school district refers to written reprimands as a ‘documented conference.’)”
Jindal appalled
Embarrassed that state officials over education took to a Gestapo-like approach to silence any opposition to the federally created Common Core, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal took immediate action to ensure that such authoritarian control isn’t enforced against concerned teachers in the future.
“After hearing about the Principal's gag order, Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, issued an executive order that teachers were to be afforded the same constitutional guarantees afforded to all citizens,” TMLC reports. “However, his executive order did not deter the Defendant, Dr. Nolan, from continuing her vendetta against Deborah Vailes.”



The Hidden Truth of America's Black Site Epidemic Exposed
Police Deny Torture
People Afraid to Talk to Press

Published on Feb 27, 2015
Infowars reporter Joe Biggs touches down in Chicago to investigate the secret domestic torture facility that is being used to illegally detain, beat and even kill US citizens. As soon as Infowars arrives they are immediately swarmed by police, told to leave public property and bizarrely threatened by a plain clothes officer.

Abu Ghraib Comes to Chicago:
Published on Feb 26, 2015
Thom Hartmann talks with America's Lawyer - Mike Papantonio, Host-Ring of Fire Radio / Attorney, Website:, about a Guardian report on Homan Square, a black site operated by Chicago Police.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!

Friday, February 27, 2015


Randy Berry

United States Ambassador 

For Sexual Perversion? 

Obama Names Randy Berry LGBT Envoy

Randy Berry, right, seen with spouse Pravesh Singh at a 2012 gala


The U.S. Now Has a Special Envoy for LGBT Rights

Randy Berry will work to fight discrimination across the globe in the newly created State Department position.;

EXCERPT: "Human rights groups have lauded the creation of the position and say it is in line with the Obama administration’s prioritization of LGBT issues. Robert Herman, vice president for regional programs at Freedom House, says Berry will help galvanize support for such issues throughout the State Department."

SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Folks, if we’ve learned anything from Barack Obama, it’s that there are no limits to his pandering to the homosexual and transgender activist movement. This latest development described by my Brazilian friend Julio Severo is an insult to the majority of nations around the world that choose not to celebrate the Sin of Sodom like so many liberal Americans–note I did not say all Americans–do.
Where is the Special U.S. Envoy for Adultery? Fornication? Pornography? Abortion?  I’d better be careful: I don’t want to give the Obama bureaucracy any ideas. This is neo-imperialism at its worst–rather than being a force for good in the world, America is now using its money and power to advocate for sexual immorality and gender rebellion across the globe–as we re-define “human rights” to accommodate destructive yet changeable behaviors.
If the Democrats are defeated in 2016, I would hope that the next administration will reverse actions like this, but that is far from certain to happen given the Republicans’ craven timidity on this issue. The Shining City on a Hill which Reagan invoked has turned into a Smog-covered Slum spreading moral pollution under Obama. And his shame becomes our shame until we, the citizens of this once-great nation, right the wrongs that are being carried out abroad in our name. — Peter LaBarbera,; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

US Names First Global Envoy for Homosexual Agenda

By Julio Severo
The United States is naming its first international envoy for homosexual rights. This is a historic event, because no nation, even the United Nations, has ever appointed a homosexual ambassador for global homosexual rights.
Every single major news outlet in the U.S. is covering this historic event.
In a press release, the U.S. State Department said Randy Berry, an openly homosexual diplomat, will be its special envoy to promote homosexual rights. State Department Secretary John Kerry said, “We’re working to overturn laws that criminalize consensual same-sex conduct in countries around the world.”
The U.S. government’s concern is not only the more than 75 countries that criminalize homosexual activity, but also to target nations trying to resist the onslaught of homosexual groups from United States and Europe, especially because of several pro-family laws that have taken effect around the world in recent years. The Washington Post gave some examples, “Russian President Vladimir Putin signed legislation in 2013 banning ‘homosexual propaganda,’ and Nigeria banned same-sex marriage and restricted homosexual behavior, including public displays of affection between gays.”
Putin was named by The Advocate, the largest homosexual magazine in the U.S., as the most prominent opponent of the gay agenda.
Kerry says Randy Berry will help the Obama administration in its global efforts to press foreign countries to eliminate laws that criminalize homosexual activity.
According to “The Advocate,” the idea of appointing a special envoy for LGBT issues was championed by several groups, including the American Jewish World Service (AJWS) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest homosexualist group in the U.S., whose co-founder, Terrance Patrick Bean, was arrested for a pederastic homosexual assault on a child last year.
In a press release, left-wing AJWS applauded the historic State Department appointment of Randy Berry as America’s first special global envoy for LGBT issues around the world.
According to its own website, AJWS is the fourth largest funder of the gay agenda worldwide. Since 2005, AJWS has invested nearly $9.5 million in global LGBT rights. Last year, AJWS provided $2.97 million to 47 organizations promoting the gay agenda in 14 countries.
If you wonder how a leftist group promoting the gay agenda is Jewish, remember that the leftist U.S. president promoting the same agenda is allegedly Protestant.
Under the Obama administration, American Embassies worldwide have flown the "rainbow flag" symbolizing homosexualism, in solidarity with "gay" activists.
America Foreign Policy Goes “Gay”: Under the Obama administration, American Embassies worldwide have flown the “rainbow flag” symbolizing homosexual activism, in solidarity with “gay” advocates. This is the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv.
According to the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade, HRC president Chad Griffin applauded the State Department.
“At a moment when many LGBT people around the world are facing persecution and daily violence, this unprecedented appointment shows a historic commitment to the principle that LGBT rights are human rights,” he said. “President Obama and Secretary Kerry have shown tremendous leadership in championing the rights of LGBT people abroad. Now, working closely with this new envoy, we’ve got to work harder than ever to create new allies, push back on human rights violators, and support the brave leaders and organizations that fight for LGBT rights around the world.”
The appointment of an openly homosexual diplomat as a LGBT envoy sends a message that the United States will remain on the forefront and leadership of promoting the gay agenda around the world. It shows also its determination of pushing back Russia, Nigeria and other nations.
Now the United States will make the world freer to adherents of homosexual acts and ideology and less free for Christians and others who do not accept homosexual depravity, including Russia and Nigeria that are trying to protect their children from homosexual propaganda.
Every single homosexual activist around the world is benefited by the U.S. move.
Every single practicing Christian is threatened by it.
I wonder what will happen to Christians like me. My book “O Movimento Homossexual” (The Homosexual Movement), published originally by the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers in 1998, made Brazilian gay groups furious because I exposed that they were bringing to Brazil the gay ideology from America. In fact, many of their militants had been trained and funded in America. My exposé brought threats against me. But now, with the U.S. government strongly siding with international homosexual activists, they will receive more training and funding to advance and threaten, and Christians like me run the risk of being labeled “human rights violator” and “criminals.”
America, which was founded by men who believed in the Bible, is determined to challenge their Christian convictions, including their belief that God destroyed Sodom because of its homosexual sins. George Washington, for example, saw the homosexual behavior as abominable and detestable. But the current America, a superpower, thinks that she is greater than Washington and the God who punished the homosexual sin of Sodom. And a greater Republican presence in the Senate and House of Representatives has not increased opposition to this national and international threat.
Seeing the relentless advance of the gay agenda in the U.S., several American evangelical leaders are investing in the spread of a resistance in other nations. HRC issued a report entitled “Export of Hate,” denouncing American Christian leaders who, contrary to the official U.S. foreign policy promoting the gay agenda around the world, are promoting a global resistance to this agenda.
Of course, when the Evil itself calls it “Export of Hate,” it is exactly the contrary. The real “Export of Hate” — hate for family, children and Christians — is the U.S. government funding homosexual activism around the world.
I miss the days when the biggest U.S. export was the Gospel of Jesus Christ, with the blessing of the U.S. government. Today, it is sodomy…
It is no wonder that Billy Graham said, “America is just as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah.” And often he mentions, “If God doesn’t punish America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”
The number 1 enemy in the HRC report is Rev. Scott Lively, author of “Pink Swastika,” who has distinguished himself by inspiring Russians to take a solid stand against the Western homosexualist policies. The report also points that in addition to Russia, he also travels to Uganda, Eastern Europe and England.
Lively is the author of an “An Open Letter To President Vladimir Putin,” of 2013, where he says:
“The homosexualist movement is not simply seeking social tolerance, or acceptance, but political power and control. They want the power to stamp out all disapproval of homosexuality in your society and to compel every citizen (especially the youth) to embrace the view that homosexual conduct is good and normal. They ask for a place at the table, but once they have one all the social ideals they exploited to get there, such as social tolerance, freedom of speech, and respect for cultural diversity, are discarded. In place of those ideals is inserted a new backwards and upside-down morality and world-view that condemns all disapproval of homosexuality as a new fictionalized form of bigotry. I have termed this phenomenon ‘Homo-fascism’ and defined it as a form of extreme left-wing, regressive radicalism which seeks to establish rigid authoritarian controls over all public discourse and government policies regarding sexual norms and proprieties, and to enact punitive measures against conscientious objectors that would punish or suppress all disapproval of homosexuality and related sexual behaviors (that would of course even though they deny it, quickly include a sexual indoctrination and exploitation of children). In the coming months and years Russia and Her people will be increasingly portrayed by emotion laden and abusive hyperbole as bigoted haters, intent on exterminating homosexuals. Indeed, the propaganda campaign on that theme has already been initiated, with video footage purporting to show Russian neo-Nazis beating homosexuals now being circulated on the Internet, along with the false implication that this is the intent of your policy.”
Other American evangelical leaders mentioned in the HRC report also travel to other nations to help them in the global resistance to the gay agenda intensely promoted by the U.S. government.
With information from Fox News and other U.S. agencies.

"WASHINGTON: In a ground-breaking move the United States on Monday appointed the first US special envoy for gay and lesbian rights in a bid to help eradicate discrimination around the world.

"Defending and promoting the human rights of LGBT persons is at the core of our commitment to advancing human rights globally - the heart and conscience of our diplomacy," US Secretary of State John Kerry said.

He named Randy Berry, the current Consul-General in Amsterdam, as the new envoy, saying he believed Berry would "significantly advance efforts under way to move towards a world free from violence and discrimination" against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

Berry's role will be to help coordinate US strategy on rights for gay people, as well as to highlight such issues around the world."

Published on Aug 9, 2013
Consul General Randy W. Berry just celebrated his 1 year anniversary in Amsterdam. In part 2 of this series of 6 month videos that document his time in the Netherlands, you can follow his work in the local community.
Do you want to learn more about what U.S. Consulate General staff are doing in Amsterdam? Visit our website, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.


It's Official: Obama Declares War on Gun Owners
Obama Arrogantly Taunts: 
"I Will Veto Any Laws That Restrain Me":


Executive tyranny in high gear
"It’s starting.
As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.
Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.
The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast."


Administration's agenda has always been to erode the Second Amendment
SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

5 Facts that Prove Obama Hates the Second Amendment
Image Credits: Public domain, Public domainRyan J. Reilly / Flickr
In light of the Obama administration’s move to outlaw ammo for one of the nation’s most popular rifles, a look back at the president’s various promises to dismantle the Second Amendment is in order.
Today we learned that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would be recategorizing M855 AR-15 ammo as “armor piercing rounds,” despite the ammo containing leadwhich should exempt it from the law’s classification.
The ban would effectively dry up the ammo supply for the embattled, but still popular AR-15, and would be a devastating blow to gun owners and the Second Amendment, but the move isn’t unexpected from the Obama administration, who has consistently shown itself to be an enemy of gun rights.
1. Obama has a name for people who love the Second Amendment
In the run-up to the 2008 election, Obama had choice words regarding gun owners when he made a campaign stop in San Francisco, labeling people who support gun rights “bitter clingers.”
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
2. ‘With or Without Congress’
During the 2014 State of The Union Address, Obama made it clear that he would “take action without Congress” to pass more strict gun control laws.
“I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.” Obama said.
“Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day,” he continued. “I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say ‘we are not afraid.’”
3. In wake of Sandy Hook, 23 executive orders were ready to restrict firearms ownership
Less than a month following the December 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, the Obama administration drew up 23 executive orders aiming to restrict firearms ownership, which included plans to have the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “research causes and prevention of gun violence,” and which ordered doctors to ask patients about “guns in their homes.”
Among the proposed rules was a stronger data sharing network for the federal background check system, the launch of a national safe and responsible gun ownership propaganda campaign and requirements for the ATF to send rules to gun dealers regarding “how to run background checks for private sales.”
4. Obama Endorsed Australian-style Gun Ban
During a live discussion last June concerning student loan debt, Obama made a swipe at guns, claiming gun violence was “off the charts.”
“Levels of gun violence are off the charts,” he told Tumblr founder Dave Karp. “There is no advanced developed country on Earth that would put up with this.”
Obama then went on to praise Australia’s “very severe” gun laws, touting them as the reason the island has not had a recent mass shooting.
“Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown,” Obama said. “And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.”
The fact that Australia suffers from other types of violent crime, such as mass stabbings, is ignored.
5. Eric Holder’s “Brainwashing statements”
One need simply look at the man who heads up the Obama Justice Department, Eric Holder, to recognize that the administration’s war on guns is part of a broader top-down, anti-gun propaganda campaign.
Speaking at a Women’s National Democratic Club conference in 1995, Holder expressed that it was important to “really, really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we’ve changed our attitudes about cigarettes,” Holder outlined.
Watch for yourself:

Holder, who had previously worked as then-Senator Obama’s senior legal advisor, was nominated for the role of Attorney General after Obama won the 2008 election.



Common Core Testing Regime 

Ruled Unconstitutional

"In a development with massive implications for the Obama administration’s ongoing attempt at nationalizing education with Common Core, a Missouri judge ruled this week that the federally funded testing regime for the controversial standards was unconstitutional. The ruling means that the state of Missouri is officially prohibited from participating in the “Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium” (SBAC), a key element of Common Core enforcement, because it's an “unconstitutional interstate compact.”
The lawsuit against participation in the scheme was filed late last year by a group of taxpayers seeking to uphold the rule of law, safeguard public funds, and stop Common Core. Judge Daniel R. Green, with the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the state to immediately halt all involvement with the federally funded “multi-state” testing regime. In particular, Judge Green noted that Congress had never approved the interstate compact being foisted on states by the Obama administration’s Department of Education."


"The Court finds that the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, a.k.a. Smarter Balanced, Smarter Balanced at UCLA, SBAC, and SB, is an unlawful interstate compact to which the U.S. Congress has never consented, whose existence and operation violate the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 10, cl. 3, as well as numerous federal statutes; and that Missouri’s participation in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium as a member is unlawful under state and federal law.
Accordingly, the Court DECLARES that any putative obligations, including the obligation to pay membership fees, of the State of Missouri to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, Smarter Balanced at UCLA, Smarter Balanced, SBAC, SB, the University of California, and/or the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (collectively, “SBAC”) are illegal and void; DECLARES that no Missouri taxpayer funds may be disbursed to SBAC in the form of membership fees, whether directly or indirectly; and PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants, and each of them, and all those in active concert with them, from taking any action to implement or otherwise effectuate any payment of Missouri funds as membership fees to SBAC, whether directly or indirectly."


The Guardian Reports CIA-style "Black Site" Detention Facility in Chicago:
"The Chicago police department runs a “black site” detention facility where detainees are “disappeared” and kept out of contact with family and lawyers at a warehouse on the city’s west side called Homan Square, according to a report published Tuesday by the London newspaper The Guardian. Stories of abuse at the “off-the-books” interrogation facility, where people are said to “vanish into inherently coercive police custody,” include:
• allegations of beatings by police, leading to head wounds;
• shackling of detainees for long periods of time;
• holding people for up to 24 hours without access to a lawyer;
• keeping arrestees out of booking data bases."
EXCERPT: "The secretive warehouse is the latest example of Chicago police practices that echo the much-criticized detention abuses of the US war on terrorism. While those abuses impacted people overseas, Homan Square – said to house military-style vehicles, interrogation cells and even a cage – trains its focus on Americans, most often poor, black and brown.
Unlike a precinct, no one taken to Homan Square is said to be booked. Witnesses, suspects or other Chicagoans who end up inside do not appear to have a public, searchable record entered into a database indicating where they are, as happens when someone is booked at a precinct. Lawyers and relatives insist there is no way of finding their whereabouts. Those lawyers who have attempted to gain access to Homan Square are most often turned away, even as their clients remain in custody inside."

Published on Feb 24, 2015
The Chicago police department operates an off-the-books interrogation compound, rendering Americans unable to be found by family or attorneys while locked inside what lawyers say is the domestic equivalent of a CIA black site.

The facility, a nondescript warehouse on Chicago’s west side known as Homan Square, has long been the scene of secretive work by special police units. Interviews with local attorneys and one protester who spent the better part of a day shackled in Homan Square describe operations that deny access to basic constitutional rights.

Alleged police practices at Homan Square, according to those familiar with the facility who spoke out to the Guardian after its investigation into Chicago police abuse, include:

Keeping arrestees out of official booking databases.
Beating by police, resulting in head wounds.
Shackling for prolonged periods.
Denying attorneys access to the “secure” facility.
Holding people without legal counsel for between 12 and 24 hours, including people as young as 15.



Thursday, February 26, 2015



Press Conference of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai
Published on Feb 10, 2015 on YouTube Channel "fccdotgovvideo"
Held on February 10, 2015 at FCC Headquarters in Washington, DC. For more information, see



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 comesto 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.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.”

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.


On February 5, 2015, Chairman Wheeler circulated to his fellow Commissioners President 
Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. Here are some key aspects of that plan:

Through broad and vague rules, President Obama’s plan gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.
o Instead of allowing the American people to choose the broadband service plan that is best for them, the President’s plan places that decision in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.
o The plan curtails the ability of broadband providers to offer innovative service plans. For 
example, the rules jeopardize the future of T-Mobile’s Music Freedom program.
o The plan also explicitly calls into question usage-based pricing. This means that broadband subscribers who use less data could end up subsidizing subscribers who use more data.
President Obama’s plan opens the door to billions of dollars of new taxes on broadband.
o Following a transition period, the plan contemplates adding assorted regulatory taxes to 
Americans’ broadband bills, including fees to support the multi-billion-dollar Universal 
Service Fund and the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund.
o These taxes will increase the prices American consumers will have to pay for broadband.
President Obama’s plan contains rate regulation.
All rates charged by broadband providers will be subject to FCC regulation. Specifically, 
they must be “just and reasonable” pursuant to section 201 of the Communications Act. The plan does not forbear from any aspect of this statutory provision.
o This requirement will apply both to retail rates for consumers and interconnection rates for edge providers. It will embroil the Commission in an endless series of disputes that the 
agency is ill-suited to resolve.
President Obama’s plan will steadily increase regulation over time.
o The plan does not safeguard the Internet from additional regulations. Instead, it takes what it describes as an incremental approach to imposing those new regulations.
o Some of the plan’s new Internet regulations will go into effect immediately. Others will not take effect at this time or for now, making clear that the President’s plan contemplates even more rules in the future. This undermines regulatory certainty and will leave consumers poorer, step by step.
President Obama’s plan will be a boon to trial lawyers and will lead to more litigation.
o The plan allows trial lawyers to file everything from individual lawsuits to sprawling class 
actions against broadband providers for any practices or charges they believe to be 
o These litigation costs, including attorneys’ fees, will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

President Obama’s plan will reduce competition and decrease consumer choice.
o The plan imposes a host of new regulations on broadband providers. The costs of these 
regulations will hit smaller broadband providers the hardest and push them out of the market. For example, many of them will face higher pole attachment rates.
o The plan implements Title II public-utility regulation that was designed for a monopoly. A one-size-fits-all regulatory framework intended to regulate a monopoly will push the 
broadband market in that very direction.
President Obama’s plan will slow broadband speeds for American consumers and the deployment of high-speed broadband.
o The plan contains a bevy of new regulations that will depress investment in broadband 
networks. That will mean slower broadband speeds for American consumers. It will also 
mean that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.
o Public-utility regulation has been shown to decrease infrastructure investment. In the United States, where we have embraced a light-touch regulatory framework, there has been far more investment per capita in broadband than there has been in Europe, which has embraced a public utility model.