The Patriot Post Digest 12-15-2017

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 12-15-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

The Patriot Post® · Mid-Day Digest

Dec. 15, 2017 · https://patriotpost.us/digests/52975

IN TODAY’S EDITION

Drip, drip, drip for the FBI and it’s corruption.
The FCC ends net neutrality rules, but that’s not all a good thing.
Disney buys Fox, which has some major implications for entertainment as indoctrination.
Trump’s great regulatory rollback is impressive, but he has yet to repeal “the big one.”
Leftists dredge up Sandy Hook to argue for gun control all over again.
Is a starving polar bear conclusive evidence of climate change? Hardly.
Plus our Daily Features: Top Headlines, Memes, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.

THE FOUNDATION

“The outstretched arm of tyranny … may appear under any mode or form of government.” —Mercy Warren (1805)

IN BRIEF

‘What in the Hell Is Going on With the DOJ and the FBI?’1

New documents have come to light indicating that former FBI Director James Comey sought to water down language in his eventual exoneration of Hillary Clinton2 for her email scandal. It is now apparent that Peter Strzok3, who was involved in the Clinton investigation, was responsible for some of the most significant edits. The motivation for this lessening of language severity seems to have been directly related to concerns over implicating Clinton for criminal intent.

On Thursday, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) expressed his concerns to FBI Director Christopher Wray, writing that the original drafts “could be read as finding of criminality in Secretary Clinton’s handling of classified material. The edited statement deleted the reference to gross negligence — a legal threshold for mishandling classified material — and instead replaced it with an exculpatory sentence.” Johnson’s letter continued, “This effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an ‘insurance policy’ against Mr. Trump’s election, raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation by President Trump.”

Indeed, there are profound questions about corruption in this investigation, which, at least in part, was started because of a phony dossier paid for by Clinton and the DNC4.

Below is a great video of Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) taking Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to task for the recently unveiled corruption5 at the DOJ and the FBI. His constituents, Gowdy says, are going to want to know, “What in the hell is going on with the Department of Justice and the FBI?”

Net Neutrality Neutered6

By Nate Jackson

Throughout the debate over net neutrality, we’ve been skeptical that Barack Obama’s approach of regulating Internet Service Providers (ISPs) under telecommunications standards from 80 years ago made the most sense. In fact, conservatives didn’t trust Obama to regulate anything with the best intentions for the free market, because he so regularly allocated too much power to the executive branch.

Net neutrality is a good thing, however, whether Obama had the right angle or not. As much as we hate to admit it, the Los Angeles Times editorial board is mostly right7: “The [FCC] reclassified internet access as a telecommunications service in 2015, and it’s important to remember why: to bar broadband providers from blocking or throttling data from legal sites and services, from creating fast lanes for sites and services willing to pay for them, and from discriminating unreasonably when managing traffic on their networks. Those protections are all designed to protect the online status quo.”

We still argue that Title II regulations aren’t the best way to do that, as it would be far preferable for Congress to take action to set boundaries appropriate to the technology.

But the FCC’s decision Thursday to return to the prior regime of what Chairman Ajit Pai calls “light touch” regulation is, unfortunately, likely going to lead to some undesirable behavior from Big Business. Half of America has Internet access only through a single broadband provider, and most of the rest has a choice between only two. That means monopolistic providers are free to charge whatever they wish, throttling traffic that doesn’t pay up or belongs to a competitive service.

What happens when Time Warner decides that their competitor shouldn’t get through, or only gets through poorly? It isn’t theory, either. Verizon throttled Netflix in 2017 in contravention of the rules.

Under Pai’s new rules, the Associated Press accurately reports8, “the Comcasts and AT&Ts of the world will be free to block rival apps, slow down competing services or offer faster speeds to companies that pay up. They just have to post their policies online or tell the FCC.” The LA Times adds that the problem with this is that “broadband providers could pick winners and losers online and stay out of trouble for it simply by disclosing that they are, in fact, prioritizing traffic for any online site or service that can afford the fee. No deception and no unfairness, but no neutrality, either.” And that’s why it’ll face inevitable court challenges.

The bottom line is really this: Do we think that major media conglomerates are inherently trustworthy? Or do we think that given the opportunity, they will engage in anticompetitive behavior to the detriment of customers who have no recourse? If you’re a conservative who understands human nature, you probably believe in some form of regulation, but ideally only as much as necessary. As we’ve said before, the dilemma is one of trust, and neither an overbearing government nor monopolistic Internet companies are worthy of that trust.

Disney Buys Fox, Mickey Becomes Mighty9

By Thomas Gallatin

The Walt Disney Company has closed a deal to acquire a significant portion of 21st Century Fox Inc. In the nearly $60 billion deal, Disney will get Twentieth Century Fox’s movie and TV studio, cable channels that include sports networks, and international properties. The deal does not include Fox News or Fox Business. Disney assets now include Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel Studios, ABC, ESPN, half of A&E and 30% of Hulu, among other properties. This near-monopolization of media companies by Disney is troubling for a number of reasons.

While the most obvious objections folks may have are concerns over monopolization, and that means the even larger issue is one of message control. Execs at Disney will now have greater power to push their own worldview while excluding others. Entertainment as indoctrination10. As Jim Geraghty of National Review notes11, “More than a few conservatives contend they see some heavy-handed propagandizing in Disney’s entertainment options. The controversies about ESPN growing more political are well-covered. Julie Gunlock recently laid out the increasingly crass and activist tone on the programs of the Disney Channel and Disney XD. Disney’s CEO, Bob Iger, has grown increasingly vocal about topics like the DACA program, the Paris climate accords, and gun control.”

If conservatives are opposed to Big Government, they should be equally concerned with the dangers posed by Big Business. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey writes12, “Mega-acquisitions like Disney’s and AT&T’s put far too much control over communications and industry into too few hands. We want a free market, but when consolidation reduces a market to one or two entrants, consumers no longer get free choice and dynamic innovation."