"Public Knowledge" - yet another soros funded net neutrality astroturf group

Publicknowledge.org ^

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

We thank the following foundations, corporations, and individuals for supporting our work:

Foundations

Andy Warhol Foundation

Ford Foundation

Kahle-Austin Foundation

MacArthur Foundation

Open Society Institute

Rockefeller Philanthropic (NYSMF)

Rockefeller Philanthropic Foundation

Vadasz Family Foundation

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

The Open Society Institute(Soros), the far far left Ford Foundation, and the far left Macarthur Foundation. However This is where it gets good:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/about/who/advisors

Tim Wu, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School

Follow the Soros money, and you will find the father of Net Neutrality.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Soros money at Public Knowledge, Soros money at Free Press.

BTW, Wu is a chair person over at Free Press. And is now over at the FCC making decisions.

No no! They're all just coincedences! *sarcasm*

This guy is so dirty.

[abb]

FCC guy on CSPAN 2 right now testifying to Senate Committee about local news.

[abb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Waldman

[PieterCasparzen]

Foundations are bad.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Waldman is who’s testifying at the FCC?

Grrr..........

http://blog.beliefnet.com/activistfaith/social-justice/

http://blog.sojo.net/2008/03/26/the-faith-of-our-founders-by-steven-waldman/

Sojourners.......... Soros funded; Jim Wallis, connected directly to Obama.

They’re all soros funded in one way or another; or; They’re all far left in one way or another!

And these people are the worst of the worst! Wallis and those of his ilk, Waldman, whoever, they distort and twist the gospel into this dangerous social justice nonsense.

He’s the senior advisor to the chairman:
http://www.google.com/search?q=steven+waldman+fcc+advisor

There is no honesty at the FCC. None.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

There isn’t one person with integrity over at the FCC. See post 6.

[abb]

Woke up early this morning and CSPAN had on the rerun. The Republican FCC commissioner (McDowell) said (condensed version) that the FCC had no business suggesting how journalism should be practiced.

http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/robert-mcdowell

[antiRepublicrat]

Oh no, a blog on social justice! Let's see the issues they cover on the first page...

• Fighting human trafficking
• Christians of convenience
• End slavery
• Fair trade coffee (so you know that no slave labor was used to make it)
• Help someone keep his home in danger of foreclosure by personally helping him make a mortgage payment
• Mistreatment of Christians in China
• Christian outreach to the disabled

Oh no, what horrible people, liberal progressive Marxists! What horrible people supporting the rights of Christians in China! How dare they suggest us helping a neighbor make a mortgage payment instead of looking for a government solution!

Thanks for the link. Based on what I saw I kind of like this guy. Are you sure you read beyond the title? You probably saw "social justice" and assumed it would be a radical progressive page instead of one espousing Christian charity.

[antiRepublicrat]

"Our issues":

• 3D Printing: Bits to Atoms
• AllVid
• AT&T/T-Mobile Merger
• Comcast-NBCU Merger
• Rogue Websites Legislation
• Broadband Authority
• Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
• Network Neutrality
• Text Message Petition
• National Broadband Plan
• Selectable Output Control
• Broadband
• Comcast Complaint
• Copyright
• Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
• IP Enforcement
• Open Access to Research
• Opening the White Space
• Orphan Works
• Patent Reform
• Public Airwaves
• Trademark
• WiFi Municipal Services
• WIPO Broadcasters Treaty

Contrary to your statement it is not a net neutrality group. It covers many issues, one of which is net neutrality. By your logic, I am now supposed to love the DMCA, be against patent reform, and support the unconstitutional abuse of copyrights because those are issues this group works on.

It is also not an astroturf group. Just because you disagree with an organization doesn't make it astroturf. They state the big sponsors and the purpose right up front in your link. Astroturf is what the telco industry did, silently paying PR firms to create fake groups that claimed to be of the people and for the consumers (the very people the telcos were looking to screw).

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

-——————Oh no, a blog on social justice! Let’s see the issues they cover on the first page-——————

The issues listed are irrelevant. They don’t have the same goals as a constitutionalist would.

-———————Based on what I saw I kind of like this guy. Are you sure you read beyond the title? You probably saw “social justice” and assumed it would be a radical progressive page instead of one espousing Christian charity.—————

When Beck warned us about the dangers of social justice, the progressive evangelical community that’s planting these seeds in the churches went nuts. This website, similarly:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/deaconsbench/2010/03/the-gospel-according-to-beck.html

They’ll tell us who they are.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/07/jim-wallis-a-new-gilded-age.html

The difference is I’ll take them seriously. You won’t.

[antiRepublicrat]

The issues listed are irrelevant.

What? An organization is defined by the issues it presents. You define them by catch phrases that mean different things to different people and by your vague conspiracy theories. You know, the 9/11 Truthers spun a very convincing tale as well.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

(I said, partly)------------The issues listed are irrelevant.

(reply)What?-----------

The issues listed are irrelevant. They don’t have the same goals as a constitutionalist would.

And I stand by that. BUT!* I stand by the whole thought. Not what you wish to clip away.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Relevant:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/08/internet-cop/3

According to a January 2010 FCC filing by Public Knowledge, one of the most active pro-neutrality groups, “Reclassification would…expand the range of opportunities for more aggressive regulatory steps.”

This appears to be it:

http://ecfsdocs.fcc.gov/filings/2010/01/26/6015532219.html