Thursday, April 28, 2016


Young People Abstract - Public Domain
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A shocking new survey has found that support for capitalism is dying in America.  In fact, more than half of all adults in the United States under the age of 30 say that they do not support capitalism at this point.  You might be tempted to dismiss them as “foolish young people”, but the truth is that they are the future of America.  As older generations die off, they will eventually become the leaders of this country.  And of course our nation has not resembled anything close to a capitalist society for quite some time now.  In a recent article, I listed 97 different taxes that Americans pay each year, and some Americans actually end up returning more than half of what they earn to the government by the time it is all said and done.  So at best it could be said that we are running some sort of hybrid system that isn’t as far down the road toward full-blown socialism as most European nations are.  But without a doubt we are moving in that direction, and our young people are going to be cheering every step of the way.
When I first heard of this new survey from Harvard University, I was absolutely stunned.  The following is from what the Washington Post had to say about it…
The Harvard University survey, which polled young adults between ages 18 and 29, found that 51 percent of respondents do not support capitalism. Just 42 percent said they support it.
It isn’t clear that the young people in the poll would prefer some alternative system, though. Just 33 percent said they supported socialism. The survey had a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points.
Could it be possible that young adults were confused by the wording of the survey?
Well, other polls have come up with similar results
The university’s results echo recent findings from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who surveyed 1,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 26 and found that 58% of respondents believed socialism to be the “more compassionate” political system when compared to capitalism. And when participants were asked to sum up the root of America’s problem in one word, 29% said “greed.”
This trend among our young people is very real, and you can see it in their support of Bernie Sanders.  For millions upon millions of young adults in America today, Hillary Clinton is not nearly liberal enough for them.  So they have flocked to Sanders, and if they had been the only ones voting in this election season, he would have won the Democratic nomination by a landslide.
Sadly, most of our young people don’t seem to understand how socialism slowly but surely destroys a nation.  If you want to see the end result of socialism, just look at the economic collapse that is going on in Venezuela right now.  The following comes from  a Bloomberg article entitled “Venezuela Doesn’t Have Enough Money to Pay for Its Money“…
Venezuela’s epic shortages are nothing new at this point. No diapers or car parts or aspirin — it’s all been well documented. But now the country is at risk of running out of money itself.
In a tale that highlights the chaos of unbridled inflation, Venezuela is scrambling to print new bills fast enough to keep up with the torrid pace of price increases. Most of the cash, like nearly everything else in the oil-exporting country, is imported. And with hard currency reserves sinking to critically low levels, the central bank is doling out payments so slowly to foreign providers that they are foregoing further business.
Venezuela, in other words, is now so broke that it may not have enough money to pay for its money.
We are losing an entire generation of young people.  These days, there is quite a lot of talk about how we need to get America back to the principles that it was founded upon, but the cold, hard reality of the matter is that most of our young people are running in the opposite direction as fast as they can.
And Americans under the age of 30 are not just becoming more liberal when it comes to economics.  Surveys have found that they are more than twice as likely to support gay rights and less than half as likelyto regularly attend church as the oldest Americans are.
So why is this happening?
Well, the truth is that our colleges and universities have become indoctrination centers for the progressive movement.  I know, because I spent eight years at public universities in this country.  The quality of the education that our young people are receiving is abysmal, but the values that are being imparted to them will last a lifetime.
And of course the same things could be said about our system of education all the way down to the kindergarten level.  There are still some good people in the system, but overall it is overwhelmingly dominated by the progressives.
Meanwhile, the major entertainment providers in the United States are also promoting the same values.  In a recent article entitled “Depressing Survey Results Show How Extremely Stupid America Has Become“, I discussed a Nielsen report which detailed how much time the average American spends consuming media on various electronic devices each day…
Watching live television: 4 hours, 32 minutes
Watching time-shifted television: 30 minutes
Listening to the radio: 2 hours, 44 minutes
Using a smartphone: 1 hour, 33 minutes
Using Internet on a computer: 1 hour, 6 minutes
Overall, the average American spends about 10 hours a day consuming one form of entertainment or another.
When you allow that much “programming” into your mind, it is inevitable that it is going to shape your values, and our young people are more “plugged in” than any of the rest of us.
So yes, I believe that it is exceedingly clear why we should be deeply concerned about the future of America.  The values that are being relentlessly pounded into the heads of our young people are directly opposed to the values that this nation was founded upon, and it is these young people that will determine the path that this country ultimately takes.
*About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog. Michael’s controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled “The Rapture Verdict” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on*


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

When FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler launched the opening salvo in the battle to regulate the Internet, he said time and time again that Net Neutrality would not be used to regulate rates. Now he is arguing that restricting the FCC from regulating Internet rates will kill Net Neutrality. Brace yourselves: Rate regulation is coming, and Net Neutrality and those who supported it are to blame.
In February 2015, Wheeler wrote an op-ed piece for Wired that laid out his strategy to "ensure net neutrality" by treating the Internet as a public utility and applying the same types of regulations that are used for phone and electric companies. He wrote that his plan would “modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century” and that there would be a light touch to FCC regulation of the Internet. “For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling,” according to Wheeler then.
The New American reported at the time that Commissioner Ajit Pai was telling a different story concerning Wheeler’s Net Neutrality. After studying the 332 pages of rules — which were kept secret at the time — Pai tweeted, “Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside." Pai issued a press release listing — point by point — his reasons for voting against Net Neutrality. As this writer said then:
Any one of his six major objections to FCC regulation of the Internet is damning all on its own; when seen in toto, they are frightening indeed. Pai says he has studied the document "in detail" and determined that it is worse than he thought. For example, he says that regulation will include rate regulation, rules that stifle competition and innovation, tax hikes on broadband services, provisions that morph the FCC into a sort of "Department of the Internet" with authority to "micromanage the Internet," and future utility-style regulations. In other words, this is the beginning of a complete government takeover of the Internet.
But Wheeler and others pushing Net Neutrality continued to assure the public that “there will be no rate regulation.” As Tech Policy Daily reported in March 2015:
But there is one issue about which Chairman Tom Wheeler has been crystal-clear since announcing his support for reclassification: the commission will not engage in broadband rate regulation. In his landmark Wired op-ed announcing his plan to put reclassification to a vote, he insisted that “there will be no rate regulation,” a promise he repeated in a fiery speech a few days later at the Silicon Flatirons Center. Three times in the span of 1600 words, the FCC fact sheet on net neutrality promised that whatever else it contains, “the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject” to rate regulation, the “proposed order does not include utility-style rate regulation,” and there will be “[n]o rate regulation or tariffs.” And as she cast her vote, Commissioner Clyburn took umbrage at the suggestion that the commission would use its new-found classification authority to regulate broadband rates.
The article was quick to point out that “these fervent protests cannot mask that Title II is fundamentally a regime for rate regulation.” Any person or organization opposed to Wheeler’s plan was accused of paranoia or worse. After all, Wheeler had made it clear: Internet rate regulation was not on the table.
That was then; this is now.
Congressman Dan Kinzinger (R-Ill.) introduced the “No Rate Regulation of Internet Access Act” (H.R. 2666) to make certain that Wheeler and the other architects of Net Neutrality kept their promises not to regulate rates. One would expect Wheeler to ignore the bill, or — at most — to issue a statement that it was unnecessary since there are no plans to regulate rates. Instead, Wheeler testified before the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee that the bill would kill Net Neutrality and prevent the commission from enforcing the rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.
Ars Technica, playing the role of apologist for Net Neutrality, reported that Wheeler published a letter on the FCC website stating that the bill would threaten nearly every aspect of Net Neutrality:
Wheeler wouldn't object to legislation that merely prevents traditional rate regulation from being imposed on ISPs, he wrote. But this bill "would introduce significant uncertainty into the Commission's ability to enforce the three bright line rules that bar blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization rules, as well as our general conduct rule that would be applied to issues such as data caps and zero rating," Wheeler wrote. "It would also cast doubt on the ability of the Commission to ensure that broadband providers receiving universal service subsidies do not overcharge their consumers. Finally, it would hamstring aspects of the Commission's merger review process."
What Ars Technica left unanswered is why forbidding something that Wheeler said would not happen in the first place would threaten anything other than his ability to break his promise and do it anyway.
The bill passed the House earlier this month and will still need to pass in the Senate. Even then, President Obama — who had directed Wheeler to press forward with Net Neutrality by reclassifying the Internet as a utility — has said he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
So even though there is little likelihood of the bill becoming law, it at least serves as notice that Net Neutrality was intended from the beginning to allow the FCC to set prices for Internet service. When that happens, it will be interesting to see Ars Technica and other Net Neutrality supporters try to spin the facts. Until then, the rest of us just need to prepare ourselves to pay more for less.
Big Government strikes again.

FCC Commissioner Pai Ordered To Keep Obamaphone Fraud Quiet


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

OKLAHOMA CITY — Lawmakers in Oklahoma have passed a bill that would revoke the medical licenses of abortionists in the state.
As previously reported, Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, introduced S.B. 1152 earlier this year, adding a provision to a section that regulates the way physicians are licensed in the state.
“Any physician participating in the performance of an abortion shall be prohibited from obtaining or renewing a license to practice medicine in this state,” it reads. “No person shall perform or induce an abortion upon a pregnant woman. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than three years in the state penitentiary.”
The legislation passed the House on Thursday 59-9, just over a month after it was approved in the Senate 40-7.
“This is a core function of government,” Dahm had said during the hearings. “This is our proper function, to protect life.”
“If we take care of morality, God will take care of the economy,” supporter David Brumbaugh, R-Broken Arrow, also remarked.
But abortion advocacy groups have decried the move as a “new low.”
“Oklahoma politicians have made it their mission year after year to restrict women’s access vital health care services, yet this total ban on abortion is a new low,” Amanda Allen, senior state legislative counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Reuters.
The group has threatened to file a legal challenge if it the bill is signed into law.
Paul Blair, pastor of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmonton, remarked in an op-ed for the Edmonton Sun that the state should push back if the courts strike down the law as unconstitutional.
“The ultimate fate of abortion laws in Oklahoma won’t hinge on what lawmakers do. It won’t hinge on what the courts do. The future hinges on what our leaders do in response to the courts,” he wrote.
“Many northern states said ‘no’ in a response of moral outrage to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision. Oregon, Colorado, Washington and Alaska have all said ‘no’ to federal marijuana laws,” Blair said, noting that he doesn’t personally agree with the marijuana legalization. “Sometimes the forces of history come together with the right people at the right time to bring justice to people who have been denied it for too long. This could be that time.”
The bill now moves to the desk of Gov. Mary Fallin, who has not yet indicated whether she will sign the measure.