Free Internet Courtesy of the American Tax Payer

Well isn't that great, another freebie courtesy of the federal government. As if the government isn’t already taking over enough of the industries in this country, they now have their sights set on Internet access for the masses.  We have seen the government subsidize industries like the green energy industry, the ethanol industry in Iowa, and plenty of other industries throughout the country. And in case you thought they were satisfied with controlling those aspects of our lives you thought wrong!

According to The Hill,

The Federal Communications Commission will finish up rules in the “not to distant future” to help subsidize Internet service for low-income Americans, according to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

The FCC started work last year to update Lifeline, the program that now only offers subsidies for traditional voice-only phone service. The update has faced resistance from Republicans who point to lingering inefficiencies in the $1.7 billion program.

So what you have here is the federal government by way of the FCC attempting to regulate Internet service as they do traditional voice-only phone service.  Let’s take this a few steps back and look into whether or not the government should be regulating any of these services to begin with.  The original intent of the federal government was to operate within the confines of the Constitution, I know most don’t like to hear this especially the millennials of today who like to rely on the federal government for everything, but it is not within the purview of the federal government to regulate such an industry. We have become so consumed with relying on the federal government that we are now relying on them to instruct companies which are part of the free market to provide a specific service, at a specific quality, at a specific price.

The other issue here is when the federal government is instructing these companies to provide this service they are compensating those companies, and whose money are they using?  You guessed it, the taxpayers money.  For instance, this program that is intended to cover Internet service for low-income Americans is a plan that is projected to cost $1.7 billion. We have become trained to overlook these types of costs and think they don’t necessarily mean anything. This is thanks in large part to the Marxist style of thinking in which you overwhelm the average citizen with numbers that are far outside the realm of comprehension.  Honestly, what everyday citizen can even come close to rationalizing the concept of $1.7 billion?

The article by The Hill then goes on to explain,

The first principle of Lifeline reform is allowing the program to support both fixed and mobile broadband service,” Wheeler said during a speech Wednesday about digital equity. “We will propose having minimum standards of service that Lifeline providers must deliver to receive funds.”

The FCC has not yet defined a minimum standard of service for service providers, like Comcast or Verizon, to join.  

So the same government that is going to instruct private entities to provide a specific service are going to than going to institute “minimum standards” as to the type of service being provided.  You can rest assured the government hasn’t fully looked into what the real cost will be of the service they are instructing the companies to provide or are they really taking into consideration what the long term ramifications are of the service down the road.  That’s ok though because the government has an open ended bank account funded by the American people.  

The Hill sums up their report on the government funded Internet project,

A report released Wednesday found that 91 percent of people below the poverty line have some form of Internet access. But that includes 23 percent of low-income homes that only have access on their smartphones.

Only 7 percent of those living in poverty have ever signed up for discounted home Internet service. Researchers found 40 percent of those who did not have service listed cost as a factor. Other responses included a lack of need, slow speeds, or the use of smartphones instead.

Of course at the end of the report we find out that 91% of people below the poverty line have at least some sort of Internet access albeit it may be from a smartphone.  Nonetheless we have to realize that it is not the responsibility of the government to provide this service and it is not the responsibility of the citizen to fund it.

Young Conservative

@Steve0423

www.facebook.com/youngconservativeshow

Stop Catering to the Illegal Alien

Enough is enough! I'm sick and tired of the left trying to reconfigure the English language to avoid “offending” people. We are seeing the pussification of our society through the guise of political correctness run amok. This mentality is coming from those in the mainstream media and is being driven by the liberals in government. The underlying principle (if you want to call it that) is the idea that if the ruling class can eliminate anything that makes one person different from another they can essentially make us all the same. You are no better than the other guy regardless of how hard you work or the sacrifices you make, you don't deserve to reap the benefits of your labor. After all it's simply not fair that you should have excess when those in the flat ass society who don't work, who don't put forth any effort to earn the things they want, have nothing.

This idea couldn't be more relevant when it comes to illegal… (yes I said ILLEGAL, because when you break a law that makes what you're doing illegal) aliens! When an individual enters our country without going through the proper immigration process they are breaking our immigration laws. Yet to the Democrats they are simply “dreamers”, and now the director of housing and urban development Rep. Joaquín Castro (D-Texas) is putting in motion a bill in which illegal aliens would have to be referred to as “undocumented foreign national”.

According to The Hill,

"America is a nation of immigrants, yet our federal government continues to use terms that dehumanize and ostracize those in our society who happen to have been born elsewhere," Castro said in a release.

"Regardless of status, immigrants to our nation are first and foremost human beings. Removing the term 'alien' from our federal laws shows respect to our shared heritage and to the hundreds of millions of descendants of immigrants who call America home."

Let's break this down for what I like to call the wrong information voter. I agree our nation is indeed a nation of immigrants, immigrants who arrived here legally and abided by the current immigration statutes that were applicable when they arrived here. If we begin to break down the immigration laws that help us to remain a sovereign nation what will we be left with? We will simply be a land with no borders, we will no longer have a country as we will simply occupy a space once known as the United States of America! Then again that is the end game of the liberal elitist. Their ultimate goal is for us all to become citizens of the “world”. Hence why they demean and belittle anyone who shows true pride in America and truly believes American exceptionalism!

If you are born elsewhere and would like to come to America believe me we would live to have you. All we ask is that you abide by our laws and come here legally. I agree we are all human beings and deserve to be treated with respect, which is why no one individual deserves to be placed at the front of the line in front of those who are going through the immigration process in a legal manner. If we are truly all created equal why are those like Julian Castro prioritizing the ILLEGAL ALIEN?

It's quite some because they know they can manipulate them and use them to their advantage. The liberal elitist ruling class doesn't have the best intentions of the individual at heart. They know if they can just get the illegal aliens here and find a way to guilt the American people into accepting amnesty they will have a virtually unlimited supply of new voters. Voters they they can promise an unlimited supply of free crap to paid for by you guessed it, the American taxpayer!

Welcome to the North American Union formerly known as the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the countries that make up Central and South America. We will all be equally miserable if the liberal elitist get their way because after all socialism if for the people, never the socialist!

-Young Conservative 

The Case for Getting Government Out of Marriage

Given the recent Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage we have seen a hug upheaval from those on all sides of the issue. We have seen the far left gay activists heading off of the deep end as they rub it in the faces of Christian conservatives.  We have also seen many on the far right become quite nervous as to how this ruling will affect religious institutions such as private schools, hospitals, and most importantly houses of worship. Many think that fear is far-fetched and unwarranted. 

Let’s take a look at Chief Justice John Roberts dissent regarding the gay marriage ruling as referenced in the NYT Blog, "Religious Liberty is the Rallying Cry after Gay Marriage"

But in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts predicted a clash ahead between religious freedom and same-sex marriage. He specifically noted the dilemma for religious colleges that provide married student housing, and adoption agencies that won't place children with gay couples.

"There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this court," Roberts wrote.

While we keep hearing that there is nothing to worry about, clearly the justices had considered the possible legal repercussions their ruling would have for many far removed from the two same sex individuals getting hitched. How will religious based institutions be treated if they refuse to hire those who do not fall in line with their beliefs?  Will the government actually use the force of law and begin prosecuting businesses for sticking to their deeply held religious beliefs?  This is precisely why the federal government should have never entered this arena in the first place, regardless of who is marrying who there is no right to marriage outlined in the Constitution.  As a result marriage law should reside at the state level and no higher.

As this debate becomes a major player in the upcoming presidential election we are beginning to see how the potential candidates are handling the issue. 

According to The Hill,

The libertarian-leaning presidential hopeful walks a fine line in a new column in Time magazine between his support of traditional marriage and his calls for limited government by arguing that the government shouldn’t be licensing marriage in the first place.

I’m not sure what all of the other candidates stances are so far on this issue but this is definitely a stance I can get behind. As with many other issues, Rand Paul takes the liberty stance here which is to keep government out of it.  We need someone in office who will fight to get government out of arenas like this and back to dealing with issues outlined in the Constitution.

Paul goes on to further clarify his libertarian stance,

“The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage,” he writes.

Paul warns that the Supreme Court could “involve the police power of the state in churches, schools, church hospitals” if those religious institutions don’t comply with the court’s recent decision.

“I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others,” he writes.

This is something the activists fail to realize when they go on their quests for things like gay marriage, gun control, racial equality, etc. They petition the federal government to make laws to appease whatever their cause is while ignorantly refusing to look at the possible implications of those laws further down the road.  They also fail to see how those laws may be interpreted or twisted when a new group of politicians are elected into office.  This is why the founders designed a Constitution greatly limiting the powers placed on a central authority, the federal government, and as a result placed more power within each individual state.  Unless we get back to this mindset we are headed down the road to destruction.

-Young Conservative