Yep, it can be done. This article 2020 explains it well.
According to the 1934 Communications Act, the Executive Branch may shut down wireless communications in case of a broadly defined national emergency. Specifically, if the President declares that the United States is at war, or there is a threat of war, or a state of public peril, disaster, or emergency; then the Executive Branch may shut down wireless communications, including the Internet, in order to preserve the neutrality of the United States.
That may now change, however, as a bill with bipartisan support has recently been introduced that would amend Section 706, which grants the Executive Branch such powers. Congresswomen Anna G. Eschoo (D-CA) and Morgan Griffith (R-VA) have penned the Preventing Unwarranted Communications Shutdowns Act, which would limit the ability to shut down the Internet. While the Executive Branch may still shut down the Internet, the new bill would require that the Executive Branch also notify the Pentagon, Congress, and the Federal Communications Commission within twelve hours of the proposed shutdown. The bill also limits the circumstances for a shutdown to be limited to specific threats to human life or national security.
BILL PROPOSES PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS AND SAFEGUARDS If no such notice is given as described above, the shutdown would automatically terminate. If notice is properly given to the Pentagon, Congressional leadership, and the Federal Communications Commission, the shutdown would automatically expire in forty-eight hours unless an extension is approved by a 3/5 vote from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with an added requirement that at least ¼ vote from the minority party from each chamber is secured.
In explaining the bill, the authors rationalized that the extent that the American public relies on the Internet and wireless communications today could not have been foreseen in 1934, and as such, the power to shut down the Internet, which has become a necessity for most in everyday life, needs to be reevaluated.
Many in support of the new measure want to make clear that this has nothing to do with politics and, instead, is merely an important safeguard to protect internet shutdowns that may be arbitrary or decided upon without consulting knowledgeable parties. Moreover, many supporters of the bill note that studies have shown that limiting access to communications is often seen as a negative by the general public. In fact, for many, shutting down the Internet is seen as authoritarian and against the ideals of democracy.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM NEW BILL REGARDING PROCESS TO SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET A bipartisan effort by Congress is proposing to limit the Executive Branch’s ability to shut down the Internet. While the Executive Branch will still maintain the ability to shut down access to the Internet and wireless communications, the new bill proposes:
-
Notification be given to the Pentagon, Congressional Leadership, and the Federal Communications Commission;
-
limiting the circumstances in which a shutdown may occur;
-
Extensions of a shutdown to be voted on by Congress; and
-
A required number of votes be secured in each chamber of Congress before a shutdown can be extended.
https://www.klemchuk.com/ideate/government-power-to-shut-down-the-internet
I couldn't find any literature whatsoever to support banning. It appears that they will no longer be free beginning in April.
I don't think so. They will no longer be "free" in April.
Wow, this is the best yet. I am in no way equipped to fully understand the excellent, detailed pathogenesis presented in this study. A microbiologist I am not, but the message is 100% clear - these vaccines wreak horrific havoc on our God-given miraculous immune system.
My husband and I say quite often - "We dodged a bullet." There are very few people that we know who did. From that group, we have certainly witnessed a noticeable uptick the past 3 years of terminal illnesses and sudden deaths.
I live in Lancaster County, PA - Amish Country. Raw milk is a staple among the Amish. They do not drink pasteurized milk. They are 1,000x healthier than most Americans.
If you're not used to drinking raw milk, as I was before relocating here, it takes a little time to adjust to it. The trick is to take it slow and easy at first.
Last month an Amish dairy farmer won a court battle allowing him to continue to sell his raw milk products outside of PA. This ruling followed a very contentious legal battle between Farmer Amos Miller and the PDA (PA Department of Agriculture). It's very possible the PDA will appeal to a higher court. The laws in PA regarding raw milk sales are very murky, however, poor Amos Miller has been in conflict with state and federal regulators since 2016. He has also gathered some national "celebrity" attention from critics of government regulation.
Not all states permit the sale of raw milk. A total of 29 states permit it, however the focus is not on the retail level but rather on purchases closer to the milk - meaning farms. 12 of these 29 states (PA is one of them) allows farm sales of raw milk with no license.
There are also cow-sharing programs in which consumers buy a share in the animal's care and upkeep which affords the consumer an interest in the cow's production. There are only 9 states that make cow-sharing programs illegal. 23 states have no explicit law, and the remaining states all allow for cow-sharing as a way to get raw milk when you want it.
Even though PA's Milk Sanitation Law allows for the legal production of raw milk, it is a strict process for both pasteurized and unpasteurized products, AND raw milk is tested even more rigorously than pasteurized.