The FCC and The Internet Spell Disaster

This is a follow-up to a recent post reference; “Net Neutrality.” The very thing I feared when I wrote the previous mentioned post has occurred. A committee of five approved Obama’s request to regulate the internet by designating it as a public utility.

The real reason for the new FCC internet rules changes is the perception on the part of some that freedom is a vacuum in need of government control. Be forewarned, all will begin with regulation of rates for access.  It will institutionalize innovation by permission – giving advisory opinions on prospective business plans or practices. Competing tech companies will ask before innovating for fear of what will happen if they don’t.

Online traffic will have to be controlled in stipulated protocols, and trial lawyers will cash in with class-action lawsuits over the rules. As I see it, the purpose is control for control’s sake. Digital dysfunction must be conjured into being to justify a public-sector power grab. Aside from being a bad deal for everyone who relies on the Internet, this "Beltway-centric" plan also distracts the "FCC from what it should be focusing on: increasing broadband competition and giving consumers better broadband choices.”

Should not our leaders look at what government’s micromanagement of the Internet might look like by examining Amtrak, U.S. Postal Service, Obamacare? Has our federal leadership not wondered why Facebook, Google, Netflix are successful? The answer is obvious to even a half-wit. These mentioned companies started with a blank slate and created a new and better way to create and deliver products and services. Something Washington, heretofore has failed to do.

Anyone with a lick of sense knows that the providers must be able to survive financially to have an effective Internet. In summary; Regulated fees will come, the NSA will be watching and there will be taxation “at every level.” The FCC and net neutrality is not the right answer regardless to what Obama and his FCC Committee minions say. Suggest you contact your Congressional Representatives.

Why not Ben

I know it is early but after much deliberation and research I ask the rhetorical questions; Why not Ben Carson as President? Is America not ready for a leader of character and values? Did we not already elect the most inept, unqualified and most anti-Constitution president in our nation’s brief history? 

Although Barack Obama came to the White House with such promise, instead of healing our land of racial strife, he has only made it worse. Sadly, he continues to shred our nation apart solely for political gain. Not since the Civil War has America been more divided than it is today. If another ultra progressive follows Barack Obama to the White House, our nation will continue its slide down the same precarious path. The path of which I speak is that which leads to oblivion.

As a president, Barack Obama has inspired but a few on the fringe, the liberal left and Islamic extremists. Unlike Obama, I believe Ben Carson appears ready to inspire and lead, emphasizing what unites us as Americans, not what divides us. Unlike Obama, I believe he will be a president for all Americans, regardless of race or background, working for the best of America, not just to advance a political ideology or another’s agenda. Unlike Obama, who espouses Christianity while likening Islam to Christianity, Carson is an active Christian who seeks to heal and bring harmony, not dissonance and acrimony to our land. From everything I read, hear and observe, Carson is a proud American. When is the last time Obama has stated that he sees America as a great, good, and exceptional nation that is unique in the annals of history?

Does not Ben Carson revere the principles of the Founding Fathers? Carson believes in life and further states; “There’s no war on women, there’s a war on babies.” Ben Carson unequivocally stands for every American’s right to keep and bear arms, not just for hunting and target shooting, but, if necessary, to defend freedom. Ben Carson believes in small, less intrusive government, low taxes, and a dollar tied to gold. Carson will not only balance the budget, but begin the necessary process of paying it off. Ben Carson has stated he will not seek military action, but if called upon to act, his response will not be proportional to that of the enemy. He will fight for victory on our terms, with no quarter given.

Perhaps most important of all, Ben Carson is not an inside-the-Beltway politician. He is a citizen statesman as envisioned by the Founders. They sought men to serve in office for whom service would be a sacrifice, not a career. I can’t help but think that if men like Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were alive today, they, like myself and fellow patriots would be supporters of Ben Carson.

Obama's Speech on the Crusades Casts a Dark Shadow

The president made a fundamental error in his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast: He tried to maintain the liberal absurdity that all religions, all beliefs, all theologies, are equally valid. He wants to maintain the myth that all religions are fundamentally the same and only superficially different, whereas the fact is most religions are fundamentally different and only superficially the same. The President’s ignorance of religion and history is evident by his analogous comparison of Christianity and Islam. He compared Christianity and Islam, using the Crusades and Inquisition as examples. He is correct; both produced unsightly atrocities, and they were distortions of “Christianity.” However, there are fundamental issues with this comparison:

First, the strongest point is simply that there is not one example in the life of Christ of anything approaching a Crusade or an Inquisition. There is not even one example in the life of Christ of violence, and not a shred in the New Testament. There are plenty in Muhammad’s Quran and other holy writings. No amount of distortion can vanquish this simple and straightforward fact.

Second, the Inquisition, while awful and inexcusable, murdered an estimated 3000-5000 thousand people over three centuries. Granted, that is thousands of people too many. But think about Islamic terrorism in comparison. September 11 alone saw nearly 3,000 deaths. Think about all that has happened just since 9/11, and the Inquisition is no longer visible in the rear view mirror. This does not even include the centuries of terrorism prior to 9/11. So as awful as the Inquisition was, make no mistake: There is no comparison to Islamic terrorism.

Three, there were many serious issues with the Crusades. However, what most people do not know is how they started: They were a response to a call for help by the Byzantine Empire to Western Europe, in response to Muslim invasions of the aforementioned empire. They were not conceived of as a holy war in any way similar to how Muslims have so often framed their wars as wars of conquest on behalf of the faith. The Crusades were initiated as a response to a cry for help to defend lands which had already been invaded.

It is also worth noting that the Crusades never went beyond the former frontiers of the Byzantine Empire pre-Islamic invasions. There are many problems with the Crusades, but they were no jihad. This is something very few people know, and of course even fewer are interested in acknowledging, since, after all, it is a cultural stereotype which is far too useful. What progressive or Islamist would want historic facts to get in the way of historicity.

The president’s points about showing humility, etc. are well-taken; it is his attempt to make the public believe the absurdity that all religions are the same, to which I object. All religions have been abused. Such is the case with every facet of human existence that one might even say, it is the only absolutely binding thread that brings it all together (that is if it involves man) it has been abused. But the facts of history speak forthrightly for themselves. The lives of the founders of Christianity and Islam also speak for themselves. Let us not disconcert ourselves in attempting to grasp for this evanescent of equality of all religions the president presents to us as fact. Let not such an infantile discourse again be our response to such merciless and malevolent evil as that we all recently saw carried out at the bidding of ISIS. One can only surmise that President Obama does not realize the thousand-year “statute of limitations" has lapsed.

Yet Again no Surprise

Surprised by the apparent rift between the Obama administration and Egypt?  Does it startle anyone that the divide is expanding at the same time the Islamic State is increasingly escalating its terror campaign?

Is it just me or does it appear that the Obama Administration begrudges Egypt’s proactive approach in dealing with Islamic terrorism?  Could it be that Obama is slighted by Egypt’s head of state’s use of terms he forbids? How else does one actually detail the 21 murders of Egyptian Christians that was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists? The Obama administration has had more than enough opportunities to express its support of Egypt’s campaign against ISIS. Yet, the administration refuses to back one of its most important allies in the tumultuous region. The administration’s lack of endorsement of Egypt’s airstrikes is a disturbing sign of the mounting strain between the United States and Egypt. Does not all this sound like a reoccurring theme in Obama’s never ending novella? Has not the administration turned its back on Israel in favor of a free Palestinian State? If only the heads of Egypt and Israel would seek his counsel prior to armed retaliation against an enemy and accepting speaking engagements with his perceived political adversaries, perhaps things would be different or in the least, more palatable.

The administration’s deliberate distancing of itself from the efforts of Egypt against ISIS underscore that America and Egypt—once crucial partners in the war on extremism are now fighting a separate war against a common enemy. The problem, of course, is that such division is likely to only help the Islamic State’s brutal campaign. Using personal license with some alterations as a frame of reference, one need look no further than the opening line of a familiar childhood nursery rhyme to understand why Obama's foreign diplomacy is what it is.  Opening line follows: "sticks and stones may break my bones but words" will also, fracture an (Obama's) ego. 

Look Towards Jordan and Egypt for Inspiration

Do you not think the United States could actually look towards Jordan and Egypt for inspiration? Why one may ask would Jordan or Egypt inspire America. Because when the Islamic State burned their fighter pilot, Jordan responded by executing two ISIS prisoners who were being held for terrorist committed crimes and began a bombing campaign against ISIS. Egypt responded to the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians (note; I did not say "Egyptian citizens") by conducting its own bombing raids against ISIS. Unimaginable as it may seem the United States could actually look to Jordan and Egypt as a source of inspiration.

And as 21 Christians were recently beheaded, and an American citizen executed by ISIS, there has not been a word uttered from the lips of President Obama as to the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated the acts mentioned. He has refused to make any substantial moves against the Islamic State or its leader, Abu Baker ("Big Daddy") Al-Baghdadi much less identify ISIS as Islamic Terrorists. This refusal has even caught the ire of all but the most ardent Obama supporters and a few libertarians.  

Is it not high time Obama and his court jesters and liberal supporters alike admit ISIS is a threatening menace, an Islamic terrorist group and a plague on humanity? If anyone thinks that Obama will ever come to this same conclusion they are delusional. I believe, as others assert, ISIS has America in its cross-hairs. It is only a matter of time and opportunity before they attack our homeland. Why cannot our president see the eventual consequences of his inaction? It’s obviously far beyond witlessness and we can only hope a real leader with real resilience takes leadership of our country in 2016.  

"Net Neutrality" is an Oppressive Regulatory Scheme

From what this blogger has been able to ascertain through what little public information is available, I will present a summary of potential threats to all internet users. This blog was written because several friends and acquaintances over the past few months have asked me to address the issue. Hence this blog post.

Did you know, If President Obama gets his wish, government bureaucrats would be put in charge of a new oppressive regulatory scheme?  Worst of all, Americans do not fully understand the implications of how far this could go because it’s all happening so hastily. Instead of Congress having a public debate out in the open where the American people can listen and Congress is held accountable, the Executive Branch is rushing to pre-empt Congress and force this new regulation through while the American people are not paying attention.

A plan misleadingly referred to as “Net Neutrality,” involves declaring the Internet a “public utility” and gives the FCC the power to decide what Internet service providers can charge and how they operate. This is not only a direct attack on the free market, but it will also result in an increase in Internet access fees for millions of consumers in America. It’s massive a tax on the middle class, plain and simple.

Americans should be deeply concerned about the chilling effect a Government controlled Internet could have on speech. Recent actions taken by foreign governments should make every American nervous when thinking about a Government controlled Internet. Why should one be uneasy? Because the Internet is not just a more efficient way of engaging in commerce; it’s the greatest threat to tyrannical Governments in the world today. Autocrats and tyrants do not want a free and open Internet. Government regulation of the internet could become a slippery slope in the future. A future Administration could use power over the Internet to censor speech and intimidate perceived political opponents. A government attempt to regulate the Internet could eventually be instrumental in launching a direct attack on America’s freedom of speech, freedom of information and an innovative market. The world is full of such infringements.

My take, which is likely shared by many others is, at worst, the “net neutrality” plan is a government power grab of mammoth proportions of the one place where opinions or ideas are dispersed with limited intrusiveness. At best, it’s a solution in search of a problem destined to stifle technological innovation and online competitiveness. If past government regulatory measures are true to form, adoption of Obama’s “net neutrality” plan will come at a high price.  A final thought; it's probably a safe wager to assume Obama has grander ambitions for internet control given the consternation it has caused him during his presidential tenure. 

Do You Not Get It

Is it not a fact that in the past, people viewed the world differently? If not we should. Most of us get that. In the present, not everyone sees the world the same way. Many of us don’t get that. And so within the foreign policy establishment it is widely assumed that those who send suicide-bombers to kill us must harbor “legitimate grievances,” and that they, like us, would prefer peace to war, and are eager, as we are, to resolve conflicts diplomatically, with both sides accepting compromises.

I contend, as others probably do, these are dangerous illusions. Throughout most of history, war has been the norm, peace the exception. Pursuing victory and conquest, founding empires were seen as noble pursuits. Abu Bakr (Big Daddy) al-Baghdadi is self-evidently among those who hold such views today. He has declared himself caliph of the Islamic State: spiritual, political and military ruler of the world’s Muslims, heir to Mohammad who founded the first Islamic empire. al-Qaeda, from which the Islamic State splintered, has similar goals, though other Islamic terrorists, believe the first order of business is to collapse America’s infidel empire. That achieved, the restoration of Islamic power and glory surely will follow.

More important: People like “Big Daddy” spread the ideas that what the Non-Muslim West wants undermines what today’s jihadist want. The West wants to usher in the modern world. The West encourages meritocracy, equality before the law, property rights, religious toleration, modern secular education, sound finances as well as rational and efficient local administration, an end to rural banditry, the encouragement of science and the arts, and the abolition of feudalism. Contemporary jihadists, by contrast, are building nothing, teaching only religious dogma, slaughtering, enslaving and oppressing those they conquer, while imposing medieval readings of sharia, Islamic law. Any questions as to which world is best for civilization or its civilized inhabitants?

This is Measles; To Inoculate or Not is a Choice

The recent measles outbreak and the media coverage of the same has led me to conclude that we are a people adrift in ignorance and reliance on government. My take on the measles outbreak is one based on CDC statistics, philosophical viewpoint on one’s freedom of choice and big government. It has become apparent to me that those opposing mandatory vaccination for measles are widely portrayed as ignorant and even dangerous by some officials and much of the public alike. To the surprise of yours truly,  Centers for Disease Control records reveal a startling truth – while no one has died of measles in the U.S. in the last 12 years, 108 have died as a result of the adverse effects of the vaccine in that same time period. The CDC even reported that measles deaths were rare in the U.S. before the vaccine became widely used. In addition, CDC statistic show the adverse reactions to the measles vaccines are much more widespread than death.

So the next questions are: Does vaccination work? Does it really protect you against disease? The answers are yes, no, and maybe. It all depends on one’s point of reference. A better question to ask ourselves is, do we really want a progressive worldview or the coercive power of the federal government to be used to enforce a scientific orthodoxy upon those citizens who intellectually reject it?

At the end of the day, the issue here is one of sovereignty, and sovereignty is the freedom to choose. The argument that one must inoculate a subset of a community’s citizenry in a democratic nation for the benefit of the whole is not only scientifically questionable, it is an unethical edict or dictum. It is a claim that has been espoused by tyrants, despots, and authoritarians in times past.

If one thinks the government has the right to use compulsory means to vaccinate its citizenry what is to prevent that same government from exercising similar means to “purify” select groups or inhabitants, or exploit entelegenesis for the benefit of a nation’s elite, or forcibly implanting a tracking device on those they view as a threat (both perceived and real). All this they claim for the good of society. Now, if the government owns our bodies, then the presupposition of individual liberty guaranteed by the Constitution has been furtively abandoned, and there will be no limit to what the government can compel us to do or to what extent it chooses and what it can extract from us.  

Let us not forget, this is measles we are talking about not the Black Plague, not Ebola, not even a pandemic flesh eating Zombie/Walking Dead type virus.

Why not Label the Obvious

Why is the Obama administration frightened to label Islamic extremist as terrorists? Why are so many media outlets afraid to cross radical Islam and its followers? I think we are at risk because there are a group of people who believe in this frenzied murder cult of Islamist extremism. Has the Obama Administration and left ideologues not yet realized that you cannot appease them?

You can’t appease them; they hate our democracy, our sovereignty, our freedom of expression, our way of life. Only a person with half-a-brain would think there are a set of behaviors we could implement to make us more secure within our own borders. This type rationale is simply not healthy and borders on lunacy. As an American I believe in liberty. It is up to us to defend our right to criticize, what we publish, what we say and what we believe is right within the confines of our Constitution. Sometimes that will mean offending people. If that offends people, so be it.

I am a Christian and serve a risen Savior, Jesus Christ. I am not one who believes in derision of another’s faith. But in a free country, if people want to ridicule my faith, I accept that (not necessarily like it) by virtue of living in a land of liberty, which includes freedom of speech. 

The Absurdity of Middle East Peace and Why

Almost one half the world's population of 7 billion people are either Muslim, Jewish, or Christian. And each is deeply passionate, and religiously invested in a small tract of land in Jerusalem called the "Temple Mount." 

The Muslims intensely believe their prophet Mohammed left his footprints on the rock sitting underneath the Dome of the Rock shrine; the last remaining evidence of his human existence, before he ascended into heaven. The Jews strongly believe the Temple Mount quarter or district is the very site of their former two temples and will once again be the site of their predicted third temple. The Christians are genuinely invested because their prophets have predicted that Jesus will walk through the sealed "eastern gate" and then sit down beginning His Millennium reign from the Jews rebuilt third temple on the "Temple Mount." 

The issue or problem that should concern all humanity is that none of these three monotheistic religions (though I contend that Islam is more an ideology than a religion) can possibly let go of their deeply seated passions connected to this sacred real estate. Hence, we will always be on the brink of war in the Middle East. For a nation’s leader to think there will one day be peaceful co-existence between Muslims, Jews and Christians is irrational and border’s on the absurd. Only when Jesus himself returns will we see peace in the Middle East. And, He will return.