The American Spectator's Prowler column published today has a disturbing report on the plans by the Democratic Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman to regulate political speech on the Internet.
In addition to details of methods Waxman is considering to rein in conservative talk radio, The Prowler reports on Waxman's desire to use the power of the federal government to investigate amd control political content on the Internet.
The article quotes an unnamed committee staffer as saying of Waxman's power grab:
"Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."
"Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information. We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."
"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about. The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."
The article reports that Waxman intends to work with Democratic Party President Barack Hussein Obama's nominee to be chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, who is awaiting confirmation by the Democrat controlled Senate, to investigate and regulate free speech on the Internet.
If you have not been following HF 1341 and SF 1478, you should know that your baby, or young child's DNA very likely is "out there" and the government has their information stockpiled and already in use for research. No problem to you? Then never mind.
But if you value your child's privacy and the fundamental principles of less government intrusion into private lives, then you should know about the hard work Twila Brase and the CCHC have been doing on your behalf.
Today Jordan Jelinek wrote me this letter she submitted to her representative as an example of what you might say to yours. No need to be rude when writing elected leaders even when they consistently vote against your principles and opinions. I think Jordan strikes just the right tone with this letter.
Dear Legislators,
There is a concern among many constituents in Minnesota over the data privacy of the new born infants. Many of us understand as a matter of fact baby DNA is not state DNA. This is of course true, and the law requires that the DNA database of 820,000 be destroyed. This is not even a dispute between differing ideologies, but a matter of law. I no longer expect my legislators to understand the concerns of state control over baby DNA, however there should be a bare minimum that our legislators understand those concerns do exist.
It is understandable that there are those who want to advance science and to use infants as a vehicle to prove their dedication to such endeavors. Given that the HHS is in violation of the law, and is currently ignoring the law (and there is no evidence to support any other conclusion), the precedent being set here is not one of reasonable men and women. Essentially, supporting HF 1341 and its counterpart 1478 is affirming that science trumps reason. This is doubly troubling to those who have taken a brief look at some of the darker chapters of the history humanity concerning genetic research.
Again, at the bare minimum there is an understanding among many who are aware of the issue that baby DNA is not state DNA. They will grow distrustful of their doctors, and possibly even the medical profession. I implore my legislators to vote against HF 1341 and SF 1478, because I believe unabashedly that all ideologies understand the necessity of the patient/client relationship that is currently in jeopardy. That sacred relationship should not be infringed upon by legislators. We all share the same wonders towards what lies ahead, but lets put our best feet forward.
Sincerely, Jordan Jelinek
Twila and the CCHS are putting together stories from parents who have had their baby's DNA taken like these below. As she says, "Stories from moms, dads, nurses, grandmothers or anyone who has one would be great. Legislators need to hear what's really going on before they vote on the bill (HF 1341/SF 1478). Be sure to mention in the subject line that you're a constituent so they open it up. Include a comment about the newborn screening bill, HF 1341/SF 1478 so they know this is about something they have to vote on". If you would like to offer yours or learn more, contact them here: Also, they have a petition New Baby DNA Petition to the Governor you might consider here.
Parent: We have four children. We had no idea that this was being done. The nurses may have brought is some forms for us to sign. If they did, I am sure my wife and I signed them thinking that they were just routine papers when a child is born. Really though, we have no idea if they even had us sign anything. I do know that we were not explained anything about the collection of our children's blood or DNA. I find this very disturbing and outrageous. I want my children's private information back. They are not the state's guinea pigs. They are my wife's and my children, and their blood and DNA is their private genetic information – Taconite, MN
Parent: Our nurses didn't even know we could opt out, or that any collection was going to the government. We kept being redirected as to who to go to to get the right paperwork. Postpartum nurses, nursery nurses, HUCs, no one knew where to find it. Eventually the head nurse got the proper form for us…Everyone was shocked when we told them that the collection was going on…When we got the letter from the government saying that they had destroyed the sample, they didn't spell our child's name correctly. It makes us wonder if they even destroyed our child's sample. – Woodbury, MN
Of the estimated 1 billion people who will observe Earth Day worldwide this year, few will know about the progress that has been made. The world, especially in developed nations, is a cleaner -- and greener -- place than it was when the environmental movement began, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).
Every year Steven Hayward, a scholar at the Pacific Research Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, compiles his Index of Leading Environmental Indicators. And every year, his findings contradict the alarmists' warnings that the world is on the edge of environmental cataclysm. From evidence "that tropical rain forests may now be expanding faster than they are being cut down" to the improving health of U.S. ocean fisheries to better outdoor air quality in American cities with the worst air pollution, Hayward shows there's more to be optimistic about than there is to be troubled about.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also published its own Report on the environment. Last year's report, the most recent, indicates outdoor air quality has improved, there's been a net gain in wetland acreage, public-source drinking-water problems are uncommon and forest land is expanding after declining for a century.
Americans are actually generating no more trash per-capita than they were in 1990.
Our production of hazardous waste has fallen from 36 million tons in 1999 to 28 million tons in 2005.
Lead levels in our blood have shown "a steady decline since the 1980s."
And then there's carbon dioxide, says IBD. We are pumping out more than ever, but there's no evidence, only speculation, that this weak greenhouse gas is having any effect on the environment.
Overall, the health of the U.S. population has continued to improve, the EPA says. Mortality rates continue to decline, and life expectancy continues to increase.
I wanted to let you know about an upcoming event put on by Jordan Jelinek and the Normandale College Republicans April 8th. They are having a viewing, free of charge, of the movie Expelled with Ben Stein at 1PM. As Jordan says:
The God question always sparks discussion, which makes it interesting to me why university would like to stifle it out along with Intelligent Design. Contrary to what critics of EXPELLED present, this movie serves to plant the seeds of healthy discussion between two rivaling doctrines, Intelligent Design and Darwinism. EXPELLED also succeeds in bringing many recognizable figures on both sides of the discussion.
As this documentary plainly shows, Academia wishes to keep students in the dark about the Ph. D's, teachers, politicians, journalists, and students who are intimidated into silence. As College Republicans, we wish to spring new life into a dying discussion by welcoming disagreements on ideas that truly matter.
Are you for stronger gun control like Mayor Bloomberg? Think voting no on the Thune amendment was the way to go? Hey, you're not alone. There are a lot of hard working people that are on your side...
If you have not been following HF 1341 and SF 1478, you should know that your baby, or young child's DNA very likely is "out there" and the government has their information stockpiled and already in use for research. No problem to you? Then never mind. 
