Open Internet Preservation Act Seeks To Stop Internet Censorship & Promote Free Flow Of Information

Congress in both the House and the Senate are moving to protect the Internet from the hands of the Federal government; viz., the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) bureaucracy making law rather than Congress. All bureaucratic rules touted as Federal law should be verified by Congress before it has the force of law.


The legislation would not only take a politicized FCC out of the Internet, but would keep some of good parts of the Net Neutrality issues such as preventing ISP blocking or slowing data streaming of companies or ideologies out of favor of the an ISP owner.


JRH 1/5/18

Please Support NCCR


Open Internet Preservation Act Seeks To Stop Internet Censorship & Promote Free Flow Of Information



JANUARY 4, 2018

Freedom Outpost


Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has introduced HR4682, the Open Internet Preservation Act, in the House of Representatives, along with 21 co-sponsors.


The bill, which was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce near the end of December, seeks to “amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure internet openness, to prohibit blocking of lawful content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices, to prohibit impairment or degradation of lawful internet traffic, to limit the authority of the Federal Communications Commission and to preempt State law with respect to internet openness obligations, to provide that broadband internet access service shall be considered to be an information service, and for other purposes.”


This legislation begins to address the growing threat by corporate giants, not just broadband services that are seeking to eliminate anything by the state-controlled message to the masses rather than allowing the internet to be a free flow of information.


“The Open Internet Preservation Act will ensure the internet is a free and open space,” said Rep. Blackburn, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee.


“This legislation is simple, it provides light-touch regulation so companies can invest and innovate, and makes sure our internet is up to 21st century standards,” she added.


Blackburn’s bill was introduced on December 19, 2017 and came just one week after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed the 2015 Title II regulations under the Communications Act of 1934, the so-called net neutrality rules.


The repealed regulations classified broadband internet as a utility-like tool for communication. It will now be categorized as an information service, which is what it is.


However, the repeal removes bans on throttling, blocking and paid prioritization, as well as on how much data companies would have to report.


So, Rep. Blackburn’s bill would seek to restore some of those newly adopted regulations, but not all of them.


Among the things HR 4682 would restore are two provisions of the net neutrality.  It bans both blocking and throttling while not including a ban on paid prioritization.


Blackburn sought to block the implementation of Net Neutrality in several congresses she served in.


In the 112th, 113th and 114th Congress, Blackburn introduced the Internet Freedom Act, legislation that would block the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules by stating that they shall have no force or effect and prohibits the FCC from reissuing new Net Neutrality rules.


In 2016, the Senate introduced a companion to Blackburn’s bill, S. 2602. The bill was introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). Co-sponsors included Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rand Paul (R-KY), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Thom Tillis (R-NC), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Benjamin Sasse (R-NE).


“We must stop the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules, which are nothing more than a Trojan horse for government takeover of the Internet,” rep. Blackburn said.  “These overreaching rules will stifle innovation, restrict freedoms, and lead to billions of dollars in new fees and taxes for American consumers. We thank Senator Lee for introducing the Senate version and look forward to working with him as we move this forward.”


“The economic burden of these regulations will fall squarely on the backs of the consumers the FCC purports to help,” Senator Lee said.  “The threat of anticompetitive behavior should always be taken seriously. But it makes no sense for a five-person panel of presidential appointees to write a sweeping law aimed at solving a problem that might someday exist. There are more effective, more democratic, and less intrusive ways to address anticompetitive behavior, including existing antitrust and consumer-protection laws.”


Blackburn commended Ajit Pai for his getting net neutrality rules repealed and said that he “had done his job.”


Rep. Stivers, who co-sponsored the bill, said of the legislation, “Bottom line: Free and open internet should never be a partisan issue.  This bill would put into law crucial consumer protections that millions of Americans have asked for and that are emphasized in the principles of net neutrality.”


He added that the bill did just that “without imposing the burdensome and overly broad aspects that were originally designed for the rotary telephone on the cultural and economic engine that is our modern internet.”


The fight for a free and fair internet is possibly the biggest fight of the century.  If you wish to voice support for this legislation, please contact your representative or senator today!


Tim Brown is an author and Editor at and He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.


Copyright © 2018


That Far from the Truth?


Essentially President Barack Hussein Obama and the Leftist Dems have nationalized the Internet with the propaganda campaign of making the Net freer. It turns out the reality is the Internet is under tighter manipulative control by the government – meaning bureaucrats with a political axe to grind. You can thank the President for making sure three out of five FCC board members were his Dem acolytes. The vote incidentally was three Dems to two Republican board members.
Protect Internet Freedom sent an email with a link to a video using parody to show how government oversight of the Internet will operate. Below is the text of the email and I will include the video about where it is located on the original email.
JRH 4/13/15

Please Support NCCR

That Far from the Truth?
By Team Freedom
Sent: 4/13/2015 10:30 AM
We all know the FCC’s Internet takeover means one thing: bigger government.

Controlling every aspect of Internet access will not be a small task and it is not hard to imagine that Washington’s bureaucrats will revel in this growing authority. We created a short video imagining the very real possibility of a “Department of the Internet” scenario.

Published on Mar 2, 2015
It’s a funny take on a serious issue – but really – is it that far from the truth?
Please watch this video and share it with your friends to get the word out on the real consequences of the Internet takeover.
Keep fighting,

Team Freedom

Protect Internet Freedom
PO Box 2372
Alexandria, VA 22301


Net Neutrality Lie

Here is an essay that demonstrates the political side of the Obama/Democratic Party inspired FCC rules changing the Internet from a truly Free Speech zone into a government controlled entity that will be regulated according to which Political Party dominates the FCC federal bureaucracy. Jonathan Emord shows us how the FCC can regulate its displeasure with how an Internet Provider deals with its customers. The government’s pitch of net neutrality is double-speak for Big Brother Internet despotism.
JRH 3/4/15
At the behest of President Barack Obama, the Federal Communications Commission voted this past Thursday, 3-2, on party lines, to impose FCC control over access to and charges by internet service providers. This is the beginning of the end of freedom over the internet. So-called net neutrality is not neutral at all, but is a regulatory schema that imposes federal oversight and control over what was but a moment ago the last remaining example of largely unfettered freedom and free enterprise left in the world.
Longing for the power to force internet service providers to bend to the will of government masters, the Obama Administration aimed to get the proverbial camel’s nose into the tent, anticipating that its whole body would come next. Using the pretext of ensuring consumers had more rapid internet connections, the new regulations promise to do much more, essentially rendering all internet service providers common carriers subject to the same kind of innovation and competition stultifying regulations that made the old Bell system such an archaic, byzantine bureaucratic mess.
On the road to a better internet, now architects of systems and markets will have to stop at a government toll booth. There they must satisfy the subjective dictates of FCC commissioners or else they will not be allowed to proceed. One of the greatest, most powerful and far reaching technological achievements of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries is now to be but another utility where rates, service plans, and technological advances will not be allowed unless first approved by the politicians who populate the Federal Communications Commission.
The FCC has just denied liberty and free enterprise its essential place in that medium which holds out more promise for the advancement of mankind than any other. The FCC has learned through broadcast, cable, and telephone regulation that structural controls beget in time near total control over a medium. By lording it over on the internet service providers in the years to come, the FCC will coerce and cajole them into implementing the political dictates of FCC Commissioners in a manner akin to FCC’s long and sordid history of control over the broadcast media.
Displeasing a regulator who has subjective power over the structure of media invites retaliation. What former FCC Chairman Newton Norman Minow referred to as “regulation by raised eyebrow” in broadcast regulation is now applicable in the internet context. The mere hint of an FCC Commissioner’s dissatisfaction with the operations of an Internet Service Provider will cause that provider to appreciate all too well that the regulator’s displeasure makes essential approvals far more difficult to obtain. Instead, most will alter their business plans to avoid regulatory payback, even if that means constricting access to some in favor of others, thereby affecting who may speak and what may be said.
In that single instance, the First Amendment’s command that government be disarmed of power over speech and press is eviscerated. The ultimate control over the structure and content of the medium has passed from private to public hands. Now the politically appointed, unelected heads of the FCC, will call the shots over the internet. In this one vote of the FCC, everyone in America, indeed in the world, has lost freedom and opportunity. February 26, 2015, is the blackest day so far in the history of the internet.
Click here to visit home page.
© 2015 Jonathan W. Emord – All Rights Reserved
Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, seven on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of the Amazon bestsellers The Rise of Tyranny, Global Censorship of Health Information, and Restore the Republic. He is the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine and joins Robert Scott Bell weekly for “Jonathan Emord’s Sacred Fire of Liberty,” an hour long radio program on government threats to individual liberty. For more info visit, join the Emord FDA/FTC Law Group on Linkedin, and follow Jonathan on twitter (@jonathanwemord).
Website: is dedicated to revealing lies, innuendo and agendas – wherever they may be.  Our political affiliations are not to the left or the right, but to “what is right and true.”
Our goal is to bring you the best news and commentaries on current events that may be manipulated or controlled by the mainstream media.
Our aim is to enlighten, educate and awaken people to the real issues facing this country and the world today. started publishing June of 2001. We noticed that there were websites that were the mouthpieces for the Republican party, the Democratic party, the feminist movement, the environmental movement, the Christian Right, etc., Everyone was in someone’s corner. The Left points a finger at the right, the right points a finger at the left. Neither side sees their own evil and hypocrisy, they escape the truth about themselves by blaming and pointing a finger at the other.
It’s not a Jewish, Christian, or a Muslim issue, neither is it a conservative or a liberal issue, nor a Republican or a Democrat issue, it’s a Right or Wrong issue. Truth is UNIVERSAL. Everyone can recognize it but, some reject it. Truth and honesty unite, lies and deception divide. Bare in mind that Truth is hate to those that hate the Truth. is NOT affiliated with any religious organizations or groups. We believe in God and our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior of mankind.
We run a small operation with a dedicated unpaid staff. All donations are appreciated. Click here if you wish to donate.

The views and opinions held by our writers and contributors are their own, and not necessarily the views of our advertisers, or its staff.

The future of Internet Usage questionable

Published by SenTedCruz
Published on Feb 13, 2015
Obama is getting ready to nationalize … err, I mean have the government takeover the Internet for massive taxes and other kinds on intrusions likely to lead to censorship. Senator Mike Lee wants you to sign the Protect Internet Freedom petition against Obama’s Internet theft.
JRH 2/18/15

Please Support NCCR

The future of Internet Usage questionable
By Senator Mike Lee, Republican-Utah
Sent: 2/19/2015 7:22 AM
Sent as sponsored from:
Federal Communications Commission is going to vote on it February 26th. That’s why I am writing you today–I need your help to stop this.

President Obama came out a few weeks ago urging the FCC to vote to regulate the Internet the same way that it regulates public utilities under Title II. What this means is that, for the first time, billions of dollars in fees will be attached to Internet service just like they are to telephone service.

You see, under Title II if someone wants to own a telephone company, there are fees baked into the law–fees companies pass on to customers.

Now, under this new regulatory regime, Internet service providers will be subject to these fees as well, and then pass them on to you, the consumer.

This is essentially a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.

The Internet is built on speed and dynamism, it’s always changing, there are always new and better ideas that are exploding onto the scene, and part of the reason for that is that innovators are not having to go ask Washington, DC for permission every time they want to do something new.

What this really comes down to is a fundamental question:

Who do you want in charge of the direction of the Internet: people at dot-com startups that brought us game changing companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and Uber; or nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats in our nation’s capital?
There is another aspect of this that gets overlooked: the Internet is an incredibly important force for freedom, for liberty, and the rights of free speech that we hold dear. It is an existential threat to tyrants in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia who seek to keep information from their people.

We must preserve the high ground for the United States to stand up to these countries and tell them to keep the Internet free and preserve free speech on the Internet throughout the world. We cannot do that if we are regulating the Internet in a similar manner ourselves.

I am not accusing anyone of sinister motives here, but I am deeply concerned about the idea of any government bureaucrat having the power to tell companies what they can and cannot do. In the long term, this could have a chilling effect on political speech, in ways that today we could not even begin to imagine.

We do not have much time left to stop this gigantic government takeover of the Internet. The FCC is voting on February 26th and the Left is mobilizing to support their effort to do so. We cannot let the conversation be totally one-sided. The FCC needs to hear from us today–not tomorrow or next week or next month. Today.

Please join me and go sign the petition to keep the Internet free. We must stand for liberty and preserve the Internet free of government interference.

Thank you for standing for Internet freedom.


Senator Mike Lee


© 2015 Protect Internet Freedom

Sarah Palin shames ‘lamestream’ media …



Sarah Palin issued a scathing statement against the Mainstream Media (MSM) whom she labels the Lamestream Media for not publicizing the Obama Administration’s intent to send monitors to News Rooms to watch their activity. The FCC has backed off from this fascist/Commie plan.


JRH 2/26/2014 (Hat Tip: Justin Smith)

Please Support NCCR


Sarah Palin shames ‘lamestream’ media: You wake the hell up when ‘Obama’s boot is on your neck’


By Tom Tillison

February 23, 2014



In the wake of the news that the Federal Communications Commission backed off on its controversial study of American newsrooms, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin used her standard Facebook perch Friday to go after the media for its selective outrage.


Pulling no punches, Palin shamed the “lamestream” media for failing to “wake the h*ll up” until President Obama had his boot on their necks.


Garbage collector’s patriotic gesture brings resident to tears [Blog Editor: This link has nothing to do with this Sarah Palin story but this link was placed in the original story and you may find it interesting.]


Her comment, in it’s (sic) entirety:


“What? Lamestream calls for empathy, even outrage, for a First Amendment violation that’s on par with all the abuse we’ve brought to your attention as Obama stomps on our Constitution. You’ve IGNORED us, you’ve marginalized us, you’ve left us for ‘destroyed.’ But when Obama’s boot is on YOUR neck you finally wake the h*ll up and cry foul? Good Lord.”


Palin included a link to a Breitbart article about America dropping from 33rd to 46th in the World Press Freedom Index, with author Ben Shapiro pointing out that “the violation of press freedoms has been egregious under this administration.”


The harsh commentary from Palin not only reflects an understanding of how important a free press is to our form of government, but gives every indication that she vividly recalls the despicable way she has been treated by the media.


H/T Independent Journal Review


About Tom Tillison


Tom is a grassroots activist who distinguished himself as one of the top conservative bloggers in Florida before joining BizPac Review. He can be reached at


© Copyright BizPac Review


About Us


Conservative News You Can Trust


Based in Palm Beach County, BizPac Review is a privately held, for-profit news and opinion website covering news that matters to conservatives throughout Florida and the United States.


Our articles and posts are fact-checked and edited, and BizPac Review content is accepted by and listed with Google News.


BizPac Review is a major new conservative media outlet that provides an alternative to legacy media in Palm Beach County, Florida and the nation.


To inquire READ THE REST

Asteroid 2005 YU55 Cometh

Asteroid-Itokawa Credit- NASA


John R. Houk

© November 7, 2011


I am spending today sifting through the Tony Newbill emails I have received. Unfortunately some have missed their relevance. I came across one though dated October 26, 2011 that I have to post.


Actually the email has three links. I think you will see where this is going with my fascination if I provide the intro-sentences Newbill provided for each link:


What do you think?


Massive Tsunami Drills Coincide With Continent Killer Asteroids that will pass Close In November.


FEMA, FCC Announce Nationwide Test Of The Emergency Alert System: 

Similar to local Emergency Alert System Tests, this Test is Scheduled to Take Place on November 9, 2011


Asteroid 2005 YU55 to Approach Earth on November 8, 2011


The implication is that this huge asteroid is coming to planet earth. The official line from scientists is the asteroid will miss Earth but will come amazingly close. The Conspiracy Community wonders: If the asteroid is not going to hit Earth then why is the US government and other governments initiating serious emergency drills and notifying the public it is only a drill instead of the real deal? In America the Emergency Alert System (EAS) is issuing a warning about the warning notifying listeners this will take approximately three minutes so don’t be alarmed.


We all have to wonder about the coincidence of the asteroid arriving close to the Earth on November 8th and the EAS warns of a lengthy test of the warning system a little less than a day after the asteroid.


Read the odd coincidences at SlantRight 2.0.


JRH 11/7/11

Government Regulation of Net Neutrality Can’t be Good

John R. Houk

© December 3, 2010


The concept of Net Neutrality at face value is something that any Internet addict as I am would embrace as the last frontier of freedom in the 21st century.


The difficulty I have run into recently is that there appears to be a huge chunk of deception around the term “Net Neutrality”. There are the people that say Net Neutrality is an unregulated Internet free of government tentacles governed by the principles of Free Market competition. The idea of Free Market competition would be that Internet Service Providers (ISP) will charge based on the concept of supply and demand. The supply would be the Internet and the demand would be the consumers wanting availability to the Internet. In the days when the demand was smaller there was not a lot of options in creating markets to create diverse kinds of demand. Because of this the Internet has been neutral treating all users with equal access. The only market creation dial-up and broadband access to the Internet. Dial-up is typically slower and broadband is typically faster. The greater the demand for faster broadband became the first hurdle of ISPs to raise the price in a static market available to all.


At broadband’s first arrival its cost was a bit more than most consumers were willing to pay. However, the problems inherent in dial-up were more than just a slower speed. Dial-up encounter situations in which connections were dropped from the increasing growth of users on a dial-up line. Users were getting bumped from their connection because of the number of people online. As music and movie downloads became more popular (Does anyone remember Napster freedom?) it was discovered that slow dial-up was inadequate for downloading. Something might take a half-hour, an hour or hours to download. In some cases the download was interrupted by the evil of being bumped off line.


Demand then became greater for broadband. The increasing popularity of broadband made it affordable to many relegating dial-up to dirt cheap as the dial-up became less and less in demand. Then other market possibilities were developed by ISPs. High speed Internet began to be divided into slower high speed to faster high speed brackets. ISPs began to exclude competitors from what might take away from money making projects personal to an individual ISP.


This kind of market creation is the very thing that has made the term Net Neutrality a stinker.


The Obama Administration and BHO’s appointed Chairman of the FCC Julius Genachowski believe that the Internet should be regulated to keep Net Neutrality. Is government regulation good for Internet Net Neutrality? The best neutral analysis I have read about Genachowski’s Net Neutrality rules he wishes to implement have pluses and minuses:


Today, the FCC’s chairman will deliver a speech essentially outlining the agency’s stance on net neutrality—and making an exciting push in its favor. The news isn’t entirely positive though—net neutrality might be preserved, but it’ll be expensive.


FCC chief Julius Genachowski plans to back new government rules that would prohibit your ISP from blocking legal content. That means that Comcast, for example, couldn’t block Netflix, in an attempt to bolster its own streaming video offerings. The Washington Post is also reporting that Genachowski’s proposal would block Comcast from even slowing down Netflix. So, basically, these are the prime tenets of net neutrality. So this is good news! No anti-competitive behavior from ISPs.




In what appears to be a pretty major concession to the companies carrying your data, Genachowski’s speech will give the thumbs up to tiered internet service, establishing cheap-o plans for those leaning most on email and other data-light activities—and potentially gouging bandwidth-hungry users. Under this rule, ISPs would be able to restructure their business along the lines of cell carriers—buy more to get more.


Interestingly (and to some, disappointingly), the FCC has chosen not to throw down and impose its sole authority to regulate the internet by reclassifying its legal status as something similar to telephone lines. It’s a weaker approach—surely one easier to swallow for the ISPs—and one that’ll open up the push to attacks from courts and an anti-regulatory lawmakers.


As well, Genachowski will support separate, non-public internet channels—what many feared would become “second internets”—but says they must be justified to the FCC and shown to not undermine the real internet.


For wireless broadband—the frontier of the speedy net—things are a bit murkier. Genachowski says there are “differences between fixed and mobile broadband,” and will “address anticompetitive or anticonsumer behavior as appropriate.” Whatever “differences” and “as appropriate” means remains to be seen, although he’s still promising a basic ban against wireless broadband providers blocking rival content entirely. But weasel terms in policy making are never good news.


… (The FCC’s Net Neutrality Announcement: The Good, The Bad, and What It Means for You, Sam Biddle)


The neutral analysis seems to point out that FCC regulation is not so neutral for the Internet. The “preserved by expensive” explanation should be read more like, ‘preserved with some qualifications and expensive.’


Biddle’s explanation of preserved is that an ISP will be prohibited from blocking content from a rival ISP or a rival ISP’s subsidiary. However, data equality comes with broadband impositions of tiers that relate to how slow or how fast data is streamed to your connection. It sounds a bit like a compromise of equal access for Internet users but the users have to pay more for faster data such as data downloads or perhaps gaming. From a market stand point that really doesn’t bug me since I am a Net surfer for information more than downloading data or a data streams. I can see how gamers or those dependent on Entertainment downloads such as movies might be a bit disgruntled with institutionalizing higher priced tiers to effectively acquire the desired result.


My greatest concern with Government regulation of the Internet is the end of real Net Neutrality. Leftists and Democrats have been trying for a decade to end Conservative editorializing via Conservative blogging and Conservative Internet News. The Left has a near stranglehold on the Mainstream Media (MSM) of the traditional sort: Newspapers and Television. The Left realizes that Conservative resistance on the Internet has become a major cog in exposing Left Wing transformation that alters American society from its Christian/Founding Father roots by chipping away at the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. Silencing the Right greatly slows down the Left Wing agenda of making Biblical Christianity irrelevant and making the State the focal point of every American citizen’s life rather than allowing individuals to be involved in the decisions of their life.


The irony for me is that it seems that the Left is the prime mover against Government regulation within the concept of Net Neutrality.


Here are a couple Net Neutrality articles that I sense express my concerns of the entrance of Government regulation into the Internet: EDITORIAL: Wave goodbye to Internet freedom and “Fake Net Neutrality” Scheme Threatens Internet Freedom.