What Do You Think?
Thank you for writing to express your concerns about regulating broadband Internet service. Your correspondence is important to me, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you may know, in December 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its “Open Internet Order.” Among other things, this rule prohibited broadband service providers from blocking or discriminating against access to lawful content on the Internet. However, on January 14, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the FCC order in the case of Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission. The Court ruled that the portion of law the FCC relied upon for the Open Internet Order prohibited the FCC from regulating broadband service providers as common carriers.
On February 4, 2015, the FCC approved new proposed rules by a vote of 3-2. The new rules are based on Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The FCC stated that, under the rules, “broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no ‘fast lanes.'” The new rules do not go into effect yet, and are likely to be reviewed in federal court, as were prior versions of these rules. Should you wish to review the FCC’s proposed rules, you may find them at the following link:
I understand that you are opposed to reclassifying Internet service providers as telecommunications service because you believe it would lead to regulation of the Internet and that it could have negative consequences for the U.S. economy. You may be interested to know that the FCC received nearly 4 million comments on this issue. The FCC stated: “the FCC’s Open Internet docket is the most commented upon rulemaking in the agency’s history, with more than 3.9 million submissions to date.”
Please be assured that I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind as the FCC process continues, and if the Senate considers any relevant legislation.
Once again, thank you for your input. If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.
United States Senator
Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the nation are available at my website, feinstein.senate.gov. And please visit my YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for more ways to communicate with me.
Lies the Government is Telling about the California Drought
The 1974 film Chinatown, starring Jack Nicholson and Fay Dunaway, “was inspired by the California Water Wars, a series of disputes over southern California water at the beginning of the 20th century, by which Los Angeles interests secured water rights in the Owens Valley. . . . The water rights were acquired through political fighting and, as described by one author, ‘chicanery, subterfuge … and a strategy of lies.'”
Only the players have changed in California’s new water wars. As the following article by Katy Grimes, writing for Flash Report, points out, “The water war is no longer between North and South; it is between radical environmentalists and the people.”
While California’s drought conditions are actually historically normal, California’s current drought is being billed by government and media as the driest period in the state’s recorded rainfall history. Scientists who study the Western United States’ long-term climate patterns say California has been dry for significantly longer periods — more than 200 years.
However, it only takes reading the weekly California drought water-wise tips in statewide newspapers and local government websites to know the information the environmentalists are foisting on us is hogwash. While California is in the middle of an historic drought, radical environmentalists are not letting a good crisis go to waste.
“If your kitchen faucet was installed before 1994, its flow rate is likely between 2.75 and 7 gallons per minute,” the Sacramento Bee claims. “New water-efficient kitchen faucets deliver water at 2.2 gallons per minute, but that can add up quickly too; five minutes of running equals 11 gallons with an efficient faucet.”
Interesting. I ran my 2-year old kitchen faucet full blast for one minute and got just slightly over a gallon of water. And, my husband and I rarely run the kitchen faucet full blast, even while washing dishes.
Oh, the lies just keep piling on.
“With an inefficient faucet, that same five minutes of running time could mean 35 gallons down the drain.”
It would take me about 30 minutes of running my 2-year old faucet to get 35 gallons of water down the drain.
Pile these lies on to what is happening in the north state.
Drought, California Style
So if California’s drought conditions are actually historically normal, and California’s current drought is being billed as the driest period in the state’s recorded rainfall history, why is the government is breaking up hydroelectric dams, and letting much-needed water rush to the sea for Coho salmon instead?
The human cost of over-regulation is bleeding California businesses and middle-class families.
In California, there is a perceived water war between the North and South parts of the state. The State of Jefferson is making headway with its secession over this and serious representation issues.
But it’s a government-created problem; if the State of California didn’t allow billions of gallons of fresh water to spill into the Pacific Ocean every year, we wouldn’t have a water shortage.
The water war is no longer between North and South; it is between radical environmentalists and the people. Most think that the Colorado River is the largest river, but the Sacramento River is about 60 percent larger. The problem is that, while officials store 70 million acre feet of water from the Colorado River, only 10 million acre feet of water is stored from the Sacramento River. The rest is lost into the Pacific Ocean.
Chris Cuomo: ‘Our Rights Do Not Come From God’
2/19/2015 12:01:00 AM – Cal Thomas
..the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” (John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961)
It isn’t often that a member of the media reveals the philosophy behind his political ideology, but last week, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo outed himself. In an exchange with Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore about Moore’s refusal to adhere to a federal appellate judge’s order to ignore the state constitution and begin granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Moore said “…our rights contained in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.”
Cuomo disagreed: “Our laws do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man.”
Obviously, Cuomo flunked civics. Does he really believe that man is responsible for bestowing rights, and can therefore take those rights away as he sees fit? That a right bestowed today by a governing body of mere mortals can be invalidated by another body, say, following an election? That my rights and yours are as fluid as quicksilver and dependent on who sits in the big chair in Washington?
It is not a new debate, but a debate worth renewing.
The framers of the Constitution clearly understood that in order to put certain rights out of the reach of government, whose power they wished to limit, those rights had to come from a place government could not reach.
Thomas Jefferson understood this well enough to write in the Declaration of Independence that our rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are “endowed by our Creator.” He added in the next sentence that the purpose of government is to “secure these rights.”
When government believes it can create or take away rights, it becomes a god unto itself and potentially endangers those rights. The only way to preserve them for ourselves and our posterity is to acknowledge they come from a higher place.
The English jurist, William Blackstone, who once studied in American law schools, understood this. Blackstone was a contemporary of America’s Founders, who referred to him more than any other English or American authority. It wasn’t until the middle of the last century that the Supreme Court began repudiating Blackstone and started making law and creating rights.
As noted on the website Blackstone Legal Fellowship, “Blackstone called this concept (of endowed rights) ‘ultra vires,’ which means it is beyond the authority of man to write a law that violates God’s law. Blackstone also said that law is fixed, it is uniform, and it is universal. It does not change based on who the president is, or who holds judicial positions. It is the same law for everyone at all times and in all places.”
The distinction between manmade law and laws that emanate from God is critical. Did civil rights legislation grant rights to African-Americans, or did they already possess those rights and government merely got around to recognizing them? Is not the Authority Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. frequently appealed to higher than any court or Congress?
If those rights were granted by government, the day might come when the cultural winds and public opinion shift and they could be taken away by the same institution that granted them. If they were endowed, then government has no right to create or remove them.
Man enacted laws sanctioning same-sex marriage. Judge Roy Moore argues that a Higher law, including for human relationships, should prevail, a Higher law that man cannot impeach. I believe he’s right.
Secular progressives believe in a “living Constitution” that constantly “evolves” to serve the people. The Founders (and Blackstone) believed the people are best served when they conform to laws established by God.
One doesn’t have to believe in God for this to work, but the alternative potentially puts the rights of everyone in peril should one group, or class, fall out of favor.
This is why Chris Cuomo is wrong about the source of our laws and Judge Moore is right.