What’s interesting in the news today?
1. Here’s the 400 pages of new internet regulations.
From TheWashingtonPost “The Federal Communications Commission has finally published its full net neutrality rules on its Web site. And they’re not for the faint of heart. Together with the dissents from the agency’s Republican commissioners, the document adds up to 400 pages.
The release of the rules comes two weeks after the FCC voted to approve them in a historic, polarized vote at the commission. Now begins the next chapter in the story. Expect Internet providers to comb through the publication, probing the rules for legal weaknesses they can take to court.”
———————-
Oddly enough, the document cites a group funded by George Soros and one of his neo-Marxist friends a total of 46 times as “experts” pushing the matter. That’s probably why Obama needed it passed before we could read it.
More on that here, from TheDailyCaller
_____________________________________
2. The State Dept. won’t say whether Hillary signed crucial record forms, or whether she committed a felony. So I’m guessing it’s probably yes.
From NationalReview “State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki couldn’t tell reporters on Thursday if Hillary Clinton signed an official records form presented to all employees as they leave the department — a crucial question in determining whether the former Secretary of State committed a felony by failing to turn over government e-mail records.
Former Department of Justice lawyer and National Review contributing editor Shannen Coffin noted this week that Clinton should have signed form OF-109 as part of her standard exit from the department. That form declares that she turned over all relevant records at the time of her departure — and stipulates that any failure to do so could result in felony fines and jail times.
Clinton did not turn over her government communications to the State Department until asked for them late last year. “
_____________________________________
3. Do you think they would have sat on this if she were a Republican? Me neither.
From TheWashingtonExaminer “Politico scored a journalistic coup with its exclusive 2014 profile on Lois Lerner, the former IRS official at the center of the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.
But a former Illinois lawmaker who said Politico contacted him repeatedly that year with questions regarding claims he was targeted by Lerner in the mid-1990s has been left wondering why the news group chose to ignore his documented dealings with the former federal official.
“I was shocked,” Al Salvi told the Washington Examiner’s media desk, describing what he characterizes as several “lengthy” interviews with Politico reporter Rachael Bade.
Lerner went after his 1996 Senate campaign with a lawsuit totaling $1.1 million — an enforcement action that was eventually thrown out of court — when she was working at the Federal Election Commission, according to Salvi.
“I spent something like an hour and a half talking to Politico about this,” said Salvi, whose dealings with the FEC are well documented by the federal agency. “And I’m nowhere in the story. They had no intention of using anything I said.””
Click the link and read it. The IRS scandal wasn’t Lerner’s first time targeting political enemies.
_____________________________________
4. Huh. We’ve been assured for years that there was no slippery slope, and that approving gay marriage would not lead to other attempts to alter the institution. Guess that was a lie.
From SFGate “An Oakland family has found what they think is the key to a happy household: three parents.
Two women named Melinda and Dani Phoenix and the man they both consider their husband, Jonathan Stein, are in a polyamorous relationship and parenting two babies together under the same roof.
Melinda and Dani began their relationship as a lesbian couple and became domestic partners in 2010. A year later, Jonathan joined them as the third partner and the three married last summer in a ceremony that is not legally recognized.
Now they’re sharing their story to raise awareness about polyamorous families and hope that some day these arrangements can be widely accepted and legally recognized. With children entering their picture, they feel gaining support from the community is more important than ever.”
_____________________________________