Their stocks took a nosedive yesterday, too. It warms the heart:
America’s major telecoms and cable companies and business groups came out fighting on Monday after Barack Obama called for tough new regulations for broadband that would protect net neutrality, saying they were “stunned” by the president’s proposals.
The president called for new regulations to protect “net neutrality” – the principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally. His move came as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) finalises a new set of proposals for regulation after the old rules were overturned by a series of court defeats at the hands of cable and telecom companies.
In response, Republican senator Ted Cruz went so far as to call Obama’s proposal for regulating the web “Obamacare for the internet”, saying on Twitter “the internet should not operate at the speed of government.”
The powerful National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), which represents cable companies including Comcast and Time Warner said it was “stunned” by the president’s proposals.
I just wanted to hear this today. Rod:
I so despise this gang of thieves and thugs:
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) said on Monday that impeaching President Obama “would be a consideration” if he moves forward unilaterally on immigration.
Barton’s comments were made during an interview with former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who now hosts NewsMaxTV’s right wing program “America’s Forum.”
Barton was asked about the possibility that Obama could take executive action to slow deportations.
“Well impeachment is indicting in the House and that’s a possibility. But you still have to convict in the Senate and that takes a two-thirds vote,” Barton said. “But impeachment would be a consideration, yes sir.”
Why, it reminds me of that old TV show, Supermarket Sweep!
The seminars offered police officers some useful tips on seizing property from suspected criminals. Don’t bother with jewelry (too hard to dispose of) and computers (“everybody’s got one already”), the experts counseled. Do go after flat screen TVs, cash and cars. Especially nice cars.
In one seminar, captured on video in September, Harry S. Connelly Jr., the city attorney of Las Cruces, N.M., called them “little goodies.” And then Mr. Connelly described how officers in his jurisdiction could not wait to seize one man’s “exotic vehicle” outside a local bar.
“A guy drives up in a 2008 Mercedes, brand new,” he explained. “Just so beautiful, I mean, the cops were undercover and they were just like ‘Ahhhh.’ And he gets out and he’s just reeking of alcohol. And it’s like, ‘Oh, my goodness, we can hardly wait.’ ”
Mr. Connelly was talking about a practice known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government, without ever securing a conviction or even filing a criminal charge, to seize property suspected of having ties to crime. The practice, expanded during the war on drugs in the 1980s, has become a staple of law enforcement agencies because it helps finance their work. It is difficult to tell how much has been seized by state and local law enforcement, but under a Justice Department program, the value of assets seized has ballooned to $4.3 billion in the 2012 fiscal year from $407 million in 2001. Much of that money is shared with local police forces.
VFW section, Bonaventure Cemetery in Thunderbolt, GA…