If You’re White, You Should Just Feel Guilty Because You’re A Racist

Today I read a blog post published on the Huffington Post, that discusses the racism that is prevalent in books written by white authors. You can read it here.

This post itself is pure bullshit.

Blacks love to complain about a lack of diversity in fiction written by white authors, but conveniently ignore the lack of diversity in their own writing. I have read books by black authors and have found that the characters are predominately black and the white guy, if he is in there at all, is always presented as an afterthought and with the same stereotypes that are commonly attributed to whites, mainly the stereotype that all whites are racists. According to the author of this post, I should be offended when an author appropriates my culture or misrepresents it, or as a white person, do I not have the right to be offended?

“Most white writers operate from a place of self-centeredness, a consequence of white supremacy.”

That is an extremely racist statement and implies that only whites are self-centered, because apparently people of color are not subject to the same human failings. Just because a novel written by a white person has mostly white characters, does not mean the author is racist or self-centered, or practicing “white supremacy”, which only exists in people’s minds. A lot of whites don’t understand black culture which is why most don’t bother trying to include it, and when whites do try to write about a culture that is not their own, they get trashed.

Look at what happened to Rowling. People complained that her books weren’t diverse enough, so she tries to include American Indian culture in her next one, and the very people who were angry at her for not being “inclusive” are now angry at her for trying to be “diverse”. Whenever a white author tries to have nonwhite characters in their books that are major characters, not minor, they’re trashed by the very people who complain that there isn’t enough diversity in fiction. At the same time, if a white person complains about the lack of diversity in a book written by an Asian author, a black author, or a Hispanic author, they’re told to shut up and quit pushing their privilege or supremacy on others. The reality is, nonwhites are all about diversity, so long as they don’t have to be inclusive themselves. They just want to force whites to be “diverse” or “inclusive” and to quit being so white, while they segregate themselves where they are with “their kind” and are not surrounded by people or things they deem as “too white”.

What Rowling wrote is fiction. Sorry, but it is just fiction. Her Harry Potter books glossed over the Celtic and pagan religions and traditions of Europe, all of which is a part of “white culture”, and you didn’t see white people storming the internet about how she misrepresented an entire group of people.

The author of this post first complained about how Grossman didn’t have enough people of color in his books and then complained that he appropriated their language when he did have a character who was black in his book. You can’t have it both ways.

Complaining about C.S. Lewis having white kids in his Narnia books is ludicrous. First off, he never actually described their skin color, that was the publishers who did that when they hired out the cover art. Also, he lived in England and wrote the books in the 1950s, which was a time when England was predominately white, so it would make sense for him to write a book that centered around white people. Also, the author of the article says that fantasy doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Well, I got news for her: a white person named Tolkien created the fantasy genre, and most authors, no matter their skin color, tend to write in a vacuum. Should whites get angry when a black author writes a fantasy novel and complain that the black author appropriated white culture? Are whites even allowed to make such complaints?

Complaining about how publishers always pick books by white authors as “proof” of white supremacy is plain stupid and inaccurate. About 99% of authors, no matter what their skin color, will never be selected by a traditional publisher. The odds are stacked against you as an author regardless of your skin color. The other thing to keep in mind, is that publishing companies are in the business of making money. That means that they will only publish books they believe will sell. Many books written by nonwhites cater to a very small audience and though they might sell to that specific audience, they won’t sell anywhere else and the publisher loses money. Most books written by white authors cater to a more general audience and have more consistent sales, which is why it seems like white authors are always picked up by a major publisher. Many publishers turned down Rowling’s Harry Potter series because they were convinced that since it was a kids book (Juvenile fiction) that it would never sell. The company that did pick it up, figured they could write it off on their taxes as a loss if it flopped. But we all know that it didn’t.

“White authors, we are present in every word and every comma of our work. Our stories are not just stories—they’re not—but reflections of us, our worlds, our flaws. Our fantasies do not exist in a vacuum; they are pulled not only by gravity but the weight of reality. And reality includes racism. It includes colonialism. It includes a system we were raised by in which we imagine ourselves as the heroic savior at the center of the universe. Whether we’re writing about New York or a magical land where centaurs roam, our whiteness is present. Take it out of your pocket and stare at it for a while. Doing so might make a better world, and it might make a better book.”

So only a white author’s preconceptions come through in writing? Somehow nonwhite authors never show their views of the world; are never racist; and never show their hatred of anything considered white? So a white person imagining themselves as the hero of their own story makes them a racist, but if a black author does the same they are not?

The core of this article is basically this:

  • White people are evil.
  • White people are racists.
  • White people are always shoving their whiteness down people’s throats.
  • Whites, and only whites, need to be inclusive; and even if they are inclusive and try to be respectful of other cultures, they’re still racists and shoving their supremacy down people’s throats.
  • If a white author gets published, it’s only because of their privilege and supremacy and it came at the expense of a nonwhite author.
  • Nonwhites can do whatever they want and can never be called out on their double standards because doing so is racism and a sign of white supremacy and privilege.
  • Whites should just feel guilty about their existence.

Donald Trump Proposes Closing Down Portions of the Internet–and Why You Should Be Wary

Two days ago I saw a post about Trump wanting to close down the internet. I put in my 2 cents about my thoughts on his statement and it wasn’t long before his supporters came after me, calling me an idiot because I distrust someone who wants to shut down the internet, even a portion of it, all in the name of fighting terrorism. Well, here’s a question none of his supporters are asking, or anyone else for that matter: who exactly would be in charge of shutting down those portions of the internet deemed a threat? How would they make that decision and what standard would they base their conclusions on? Would Donald Trump be in charge of deciding what gets shut down and what doesn’t? Would an advisory board be set up to do the task? How would the people on the advisory board be chosen, because you can be certain that they will not be elected by the people, or answerable to the people.

Okay, so that’s five questions, but they are questions worth asking. Donald Trump made the statement, and true to Donald Trump fashion, he never elaborated on what he meant or on how he would go about accomplishing the task. And for those of you who are now seething, thinking, “Read his statement you idiot.” Okay then. I’ll post it below.

We have kids who are watching the Internet and they want to be masterminds. And then you wonder, ‘Why do we lose all these kids?’ They go over there. They’re young. They’re impressionable. They go over there—they want to join ISIS—and we have our anchors—I think I got them mostly stopped—did you notice that? I don’t hear it too much. But they say, ‘The young mastermind. Oh, he’s brilliant! Oh man, he’s brilliant!’ I don’t even think he’s got a high I.Q. In Paris, I called him a guy with the dirty, filthy hat. Not a smart guy. A dummy. A mastermind? Bing bing bing, starts shooting everybody.

The press has to be responsible. They’re not being responsible.

We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet and we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas closing that Internet up in some way.

Somebody will say, ‘oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people… we’ve got to maybe do something with the Internet because they are recruiting by the thousands, they are leaving our country and then when they come back, we take them back.

Trump does use the phrase “closing the internet”. To be fair, he does also say “maybe in certain areas”, but he never elaborates or expands on what he means, nor does he specify what areas would be closed. Would those areas just be known ISIS controlled places, or would it be anyplace we suspect of having ISIS ties? Would those areas he is referring to also include most of Europe, since we do know that they have a huge problem with Muslims immigrating there who refuse to assimilate, and it has been proven that ISIS (or ISIL as Obama likes to refer to them) has cells there?

But Donald Trump doesn’t stop there. He then goes on to bash those who have genuine concerns about freedom of speech. Well, Mr. Trump, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, the freedom to worship according to one’s conscience, so long as it doesn’t violate another’s individual rights, are core American beliefs and principles by which the United States was founded upon. The Founding Fathers believed strongly in the freedom of speech. Does that make them fools in your book? When you start discussing shutting any aspect of the web, and thus restricting people’s access to it or right to say what they want, you are in fact discussing the violation of one’s freedom of speech. And again, how would you do it Mr. Trump? What standards would be used to determine which sites should be shut down and which shouldn’t?

Trump also claims children in the thousands are joining ISIS. That is a huge exaggeration. If that was true, our schools would be empty because there would be no kids here to fill them. I know we all like to exaggerate from time to time, but when you are running as a possible presidential candidate, it is best to use actual figures, not exaggerations. The reality is (these figures were taken from this source) that only about 200 American youth have joined ISIS, according to the Director of the FBI back in July, and about 4,000 European youth have fled to join ISIS.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Bill Gates can’t just shut down the web. The web isn’t set up that way, and Gates doesn’t have that much authority.

And then there is this fact: other countries in the world already have a tightly controlled internet. China is well-known for this. Their government controls all internet servers and decides which webpages can be viewed and which cannot because they might be dissentious. Many countries in the Middle East also tightly control what can be viewed on the web and what cannot. North Korea also restricts access to the internet for its citizens. And during what is now dubbed the Arab Spring, Egypt restricted access to its internet.

And another thing to keep in mind, the United Sates already restricts access to certain sites, mostly those deemed adult sites, and anything with child pornography is pulled down. (Note: I am not advocating that child pornography be allowed. I am merely pointing out that we already restrict access to certain sites within the U.S.) Also, anything you do on the web is monitored. Think it’s not. Guess again.

But this question still remains: what sites would Trump want shut down or restricted. And how would this new and expanded authority be free of abuse? Basically, if Donald Trump gets what he wants, and he isn’t the only one in American politics who thinks the internet should be controlled, how can we be sure it wouldn’t be abused? What is to stop the government from turning its control over the web on the American people? I’ve posed this question before and people from Trump’s and Obama’s camps have called me an idiot, but it’s a valid question. History has shown that government, and people within government, abuse its power and will eventually turn on the very people it has sworn to protect.

How do we know that some of those certain areas Trump wants to shut down won’t eventually include American soil? What’s to stop some progressive from saying, “We need to close down the internet in Texas. Those gun loving, religion loving, Tea Party people live there and they’re terrorists. See how dangerous they are waving that American flag and wanting us to follow the Constitution?” And for those of you who don’t remember, Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano, and others within his administration and on the left called the Tea Party terrorists, even though there were no acts of violence or calls to violence from the Tea Party.

What’s to stop someone within the government from saying, “We need to shut down the internet in Tennesse, Arkansas, South Carolina, and other southern states because the KKK came from there we all know that those white supremacists still exist. We need to stop them from spreading their hate.”

What’s to stop someone from saying, “We should just close the internet in Detroit. It’s already gone back to being a wildland and most people have abandoned it. Who cares about those have decided to stay?”

What’s to stop someone within the government from saying, “We need to shut down the internet in all Red States because they are filled with hate. They don’t like Obama. They actually believe in free enterprise. They spout hate speech (the definition of which changes daily to mean whatever people want it to mean) all the time. In fact, we should shut down all conservative blogs and news sites like Fox News to stop their hate?”

Laugh if you will, but there are those within our government who want to do this. This is why Trump’s proposal to “close down certain areas” is dangerous. There are those within government who would shut down all sites and areas they do not like.

And you should be wary of Donald Trump. He is tapping into the real fear that Americans have regarding ISIS and the economy to gain a following. Barack Obama did the same thing back in 2008, tapping into the fear Americans had about the collapse of the housing market and the collapse of the economy. People feared for the future then just like they fear for the future now. Obama used that to his advantage, speaking in platitudes, giving us a lot of nice quotes, making all sorts of promises, but he never explained what he meant or how he would achieve those ends, and what the consequences would be. Donald Trump is no different. He says a lot of nice things that resonate with people, but he never explains what he means, he never elaborates on how he would achieve these promises of his, and he never mentions what the possible consequences could be.

And now he wants to close down certain areas of the internet in the name of fighting terrorism.

So, again I ask you:

  • What areas would be closed down?
  • What criteria would be used?
  • Who would be making the decisions?
  • How do we keep such a thing from being abused?
  • Can you really trust those who will be in charge?
  • Or should we abandon this Trojan horse all together?

And another thing, closing down ISIS’ websites will not stop them or mitigate their recruiting efforts. There is only one way to stop ISIS and that is by the use of force, i.e. send in the troops.

Another Mass Shooting, this time in San Bernardino

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you have heard about the shooting in San Bernardino that took place earlier this week Two of the shooters have been identified: Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. It is still unclear if they have ties to ISIS or were acting alone. That will come out in the investigation.
But, the bodies were barely cold in San Bernardino
 before liberals took to the airwaves and started blaming Christians, the GOP, and conservatives for the tragedy. But, like in the other shootings that have taken place within the last few years, the shooters had nothing to do with Christianity, the GOP, or conservatives. I get tired of idiots always blaming conservatives for when a mass shooting takes place, but let’s look at the facts.
1. The identified shooters are always left-wing radicals or Muslim extremists, and are nut jobs. They have nothing in common with conservatives, the GOP, or the Tea Party. (Libs love to bring up Timothy McVeigh from the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as proof that conservatism breeds violence, but he was no conservative and no Christian. He was an anarchist and a nut bag.)
2. All of these shootings have taken place in proclaimed gun free zones and in states with very strict gun control laws. These same states have been governed by Democrats and Democrat policies for years.
3. All of these have happened while Obama has been in office. You may not think there is a correlation, but Obama is constantly talking about the need for more gun control, trashing his own country by calling Americans selfish and refusing to believe in American Exceptionalism. He refuses to acknowledge that ISIS is a terrorist organization and a problem that needs to be dealt with. He and his state department have given money to the Muslim Brotherhood (another Islamic terrorist group) and given money to CAIR, an  American Muslim advocacy group with known ties to Islamic terrorists. Obama and his administration are responsible for the mayham that has overridden the Middle East. Obama’s refusal to deal with the Islamic terrorists and his constant pandering to them  has emboldened them and these attacks will continue. Instead, he makes idiotic statements such as claiming that Climate Change caused the terrorists to attack Paris. In the next few days he will give a speech about the need for more gun control and how climate change is still the biggest threat we face. And don’t worry. He’ll find a way to blame Republicans, conservative, the Tea Party, Christians, and Bush for what has happened in San Bernardino.
And to help him out will be the media who will ensure that you believe that conservatives and Christians are evil, and more people will die as a result of their existence

Supreme Court Votes for Gay Marriage, but it’s not what you think.

It was bound to happen. Everyone knew it would. The Supreme Court has decided that Gay Marriage should be allowed across all 50 states and be the law of the land. The split was down party lines and Obama lap dogs (Sotamayor and Kagen) did as they were told and approved Gay Marriage. President Obama himself gave a speech about what a momentous day it was for equal rights, conveniently forgetting the fact that in 2008 hi publicly said that he was not for same-sex marriage and did not believe in it. Oh, but of course his worshipers ignore it too and allow him to get away with it.

While progressives (far left nut jobs, who used to call themselves liberals, and who want to see the United States of America destroyed because they see it as racist, bigoted, sexist, imperialistic, and just plain evil) celebrate, I am concerned about this decision. It’s not because homosexuals will now be thought of as “married” if they live in civil union with one another. I’m concerned because the Supreme Court took it upon itself to strip the individual states of their rights, to strip the Congress of its authority in creating, passing, and nullifying legislation, to create a law themselves and to give in to the far left. The majority of the Supreme Court justices are liberals themselves who believe the only purpose of the Constitution is to wipe their behinds with as they feel the need to change it to what they think it is.

The Supreme Court’s tyrannical actions should concern everyone, including those of you who are jumping up and down with joy over their ruling. These court justices are not elected officials. They do not represent the people. They are supposed to uphold the Constitution and the law, not make laws. And, if they can give you the right to marry, or do anything, they can take it away just as easily.

Because of my stance on some-sex marriage I have been called, homophobic, bigoted, ignorant, a person who rants, uneducated, backwards, a right-wing extremist, Bible thumper, racist, hate-filled, and angry. Well, they got one thing right; I am angry. I’m angry that the Supreme Court took an issue that should have been left to the individual states to decide and overstepped their bounds, creating a law that they had no business formulating. And do you want to know the most pathetic thing? Gays have won nothing.

The gay rights crowd insist that same-sex marriage was all about equality, but that is a lie. It was never about equality. It is about tearing away at the fabric of traditional America and of a people that once believed in the nuclear family. It was about creating an issue that never existed, tearing people apart and dividing us so as to create conflict and chaos so that government could step in and create a new set of laws, thus expanding the size of the federal government. This is what Gay Rights is all about.

Homosexuals in this country have never been discriminated against, not in the sense where they were being hunted down and murdered on the streets. That is a falsehood perpetuated by many on the far left so that you pity them and see them as victims. Homosexuals have always had the same constitutional rights as everyone else in this country. They can vote. They can live as they choose, even with their lover. In many states they were already able to enter into a civil union, which is essentially what marriage is under the eyes of the law. They can buy, own, or rent property. They can get jobs and work their way up the ladder, holding even some of the most respected positions. They are discriminated against in their minds. But then, you don’t get special treatment if you don’t play the victim.

But I’m not surprised about the decision from the Supreme Court. Conservatives have been losing the cultural war for years. No matter how hard they try to educate Americans and get their voices heard, they cannot win in a country where progressivism controls and educates the young, churning out generation after generation of uneducated, low information, touchy feelly, think with your emotions, irrational adults, who act more like children than adults.

But, the Gay Rights crowd and the far left are not done. They’ve had a victory, but believe me they aren’t happy. Soon they will turn back to their crank, miserable selves because progressives aren’t happy until everybody is more miserable than them. Within a few weeks, they will find another social issue to create. They will take another group of people and turn them into victims, creating a problem that never existed until the country become so divided that they can go to the government and demand legislation to right some self-perceived wrong that they created. In the midst of all this, the left will make you believe that conservative are the cause of all of this new discord because they’re greedy, religious nuts who are owned by evil corporations. And you will find yourselves hating conservatives again and pitying the new victims that the progressives throw in front of you, while more of our rights and liberties disappear.

Here I a short list of what progressives (AKA liberals) have on their agenda. And just remember that as these items get checked off the list, I told you about it here, first.

• Eradicate the COnfedarate flag, calling it a symbol of racism, bigotry, and hatred.
• Eradicate any vestige of the Southern U.S. history for the same reason as listed above.
• Eradicate the American Flag, calling it a symbol of bigotry and imperialism.
• Eradicate White history and turn whites into second class citizens, stating that they are racist and deserve it because it was only whites who enslaved blacks during pre-Civil War America. (FYI, there were black slave owners and they were the ones who ran the breeding factories and beat their slaves to death; but you won’t learn that in any school or university because it doesn’t fit the progressive narrative of American being a white, racist country.)
• Get rid of private property rights.
• Make you fear and loathe anyone who is self-reliant, independent, is a prepper or DIY, and who doesn’t adhere to political correctness of liberalism, with the end result of eradicating these people.
• Eradicate all vestiges of Christianity in this country, claiming that Christianity violates separation of church and state.
• Eradicate the First Amendment entirely so that you no longer have the right to think as you choose or express and opinion progressives do not agree with.
• Eradicate the Second Amendment and confiscate all guns from law-biding citizens. AN unarmed people are easily controlled.
• Push more and more drugs on children and adults, claiming that they are curing some disease, so that the people are so drugged up they have no will of their own.
• Eradicate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution entirely. They have already gotten rid of the right of individual states to govern themselves. (Think Obamacare and almost every federal law that exists.)
• Expand the welfare state to the point where every American is dependent upon the federal government for a livelihood.
• Some progressives even want the forced sterilization of Americans and want to adopt China’s one child policy.
• Control every American’s energy usage in the name of stopping climate change. though they will not limit theirs.

This is just the beginning. There is way more to the issue of equality for gays than what you are being told.

Obama Willing to Violate the Constitution to Help Iran. What Else is New?

So no President Obama is addressing the people of Iran to push his illegal deal with the Iranian people. And, yes, his deal is illegal. The president of the United States has no authority to accept a treaty of any kind with a foreign nation. He can negotiate with the leaders of a foreign nation, but all treaties must be approved by the Senate in order for it to become law. If the Senate does not approve of the treaty, then it becomes void. the president has no authority to commit us to a deal with a nation. This is something that Barack Obama is knowingly violating, not that he cares. And since he can’t seem to get the American people on board, he is going to make a plea to the Iranian people.

First, why is he even talking to the people of Iran, and that is assuming they are actually watching his address because the Iranian government controls what it is their people get to watch on television. Does he really think that the Iranian people care about what he has to say?

In his video he dismisses his opposition by saying that they do not want a diplomatic solution to dealing with Iran. This is a complete lie. Even those on the right want a diplomatic solution with Iran, but they realize that Iran has no intention of keeping their end of the bargain.

Countries like Iran use our goodwill against us. They force us into a deal that weakens us, while they ignore the treaty and continue to strive for the acquisitions of the very weapons they mean to use to destroy us. Only a fool would believe that Iran actually intends to use nuclear development to supply energy and electricity to their people. By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that Obama is all for helping Iran develop their nuclear energy program so that they can end their energy crises, but won’t allow the United States to expand its nuclear energy program? But then what can we expect from the same man who gave millions of U.S. taxpayer money to Brazil to help them develop their offshore drilling, while t the same time denying permits for the U.S. to expand its offshore drilling; and he unilaterally decided to kill the Keystone pipeline even though they had gotten all of their permits before he had entered office.

Now, Obama wants to help the Iranian people build their economy, while ignoring the fact the U.S. economy has stagnated due to his policies with millions more being added to the food stamp program and unemployment line. However, in an effort to skew the figures in Obama’s favor, the government no longer counts those who have been unemployed for more than six months as unemployed. In fact, they don’t count them in anything. Basically, if you have been out of work for 6 months or more, you aren’t even important enough to be a statistic.

Another disturbing aspect of this video is Obama openly admitting that he and his family celebrated an Islamic holiday. Yes, I find this disturbing. This man shows more empathy and compassion towards Muslims, especially the more radicalized sects that are hell bent on killing everyone they don’t like, that he does for the American people. Also, weren’t we told repeatedly that Obama is not Muslim, but Christian. Well, if he isn’t Muslim, why is celebrating a Muslim holiday? It is an insult to their religion, and if you read the Qu’ran they get really angry about this, to celebrate their sacred holidays when you are not Muslim. The consider such a thing sacrilegious and blasphemous. But this begs the question, is he really Muslim; and if so, why has he been lying to us the whole time?

But again, I cannot emphasize enough how unconstitutional what he is doing is. The Senate ratifies all treaties and deals with foreign nations. But Obama is going to ignore them, like he has on everything else he has done, and use the United Nations to make this deal go through, thus diminishing the sovereignty of the United Sates. He is also putting the wants and desires of a foreign nation above those of the United States, you know the country he was elected to lead and protect.

Net Neutrality: Not What You Think (Part 3)

Now, back to the pro Net Neutrality argument.

  1. Comcast slows your service to Netflix to force you to use Hulu, which they own.

Why would Comcast purposefully slow down your access to Netflix? Considering that the majority of their customers have Netflix accounts, it would be bad business to deny them access to Netflix. It is in Comcast’s best interest to endure that their customers can access their Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime accounts without difficulty.

The quickest way for Comcast to lose customers is for them block access to Netflix. They might be a big corporation now, but things change. If Comcast blocks their customers access to Netflix, or their favorite streaming sites, a competitor will come along saying, “We’ll give you faster internet service for less than what Comcast charges and you will never have problems streaming Netflix.” Know what will happen. Comcast will lose a bunch of customers to their new competitor.

  1. Some people have smaller bandwidths than others.

Well, duh! You pay for what it is you want. Comcast, and other ISPs, offer different packages, each promising a certain amount of bandwith for a certain cost, plus taxes. (Sorry, but the government taxes everything.) T=The more streaming speed you want, the more you pay. Period. There is nothing wrong with that. That is how the free market works. That is also how you keep things truly fair. Some people use the internet more than others, so they pay for it. The way it is set up now is that you pay for what you use. Under the new Net Neutrality regulations, you will now be paying for some else’s internet.

  1. Net Neutrality will encourage competition.

Remember how Obama and the health care reformists used this same argument for the passage of the health care bill in 2010? Notice how there is no competition, and how nothing promised to us about Obamacare has actually come true? Why would it be any different with Net Neutrality.

Forget the fact that the internet is already fair and anyone can set up a website to sell things. And, you can contract with Amazon to sell your wares on their site in an effort to get traffic. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Amazon needs the smaller sites to provide products while the small sites need Amazon to provide them web traffic. It’s a win-win for both.

But now that we have Net Neutrality, you might find your access to sites like Amazon, Ebay, Google, and even Netflix slowed down and limited because, in the government’s view, it’s not fair that they get so much web traffic. So all of you people who love Net Neutrality because you think it will allow you to have uninterrupted Netflix, think again. Because of Net Neutrality, you will find it more difficult to stream Netflix. Way to go useful idiots.

At its core, Net Neutrality is about opening the door for the government to control the internet. Liberal, the Democrats, and Obama hate the internet because anyone, especially those critical of them, can voice their opinion. The internet also allows people to see the truth about Obama and his failures and allows people to listen to dissenting opinions. Obama and those like him hate criticism. They can’t stand criticism. The internet has made it where Obama cannot hide his shady deals and shenanigans. If he can control it, he can control what you see and hear on the web and control the flow of knowledge and ideas. That is what this Net Neutrality is all about.

The FCC passed 380 pages of regulation concerning the internet. 380 pages! How is all of this regulation going to make the internet more open and free? Also, no one knows what is in these 380 pages of proposed regulation. The FCC refuses to post it online for the general public to view. So, as Nancy Pelosi once said, “We have to pass it to know what’s in it.” Yeah, because that worked out so well for the health care debacle. What I find interesting is that for something that is supposed to promote openness, the people involved are being very secretive on how that Is to be done. shouldn’t we find that suspicious?

And an interesting fact you people in favor of Net Neutrality might want to keep In mind: the European Parliament passed Net Neutrality banc in 2014 and they are now, a year later, trying to get rid of it. 28 European countries are trying to strip away portions of their Net Neutrality and reinstate the premium packages for internet service. Basically, they are going back to the, if you want internet you pay for it, and the more you want, the more you pay. Why? Because Net Neutrality has been a disaster over there with buffering, slow internet speeds, unreliable service, and higher costs.

So why are we implementing the same mistake?

Net Neutrality: Not What You Think (Part 2)

First off, the internet has always been open and free. Everyone has access to it, whether they pay for internet service, go to a café with free wifi, or go to the library. No matter what your station in life, you can get access to the internet, and worldwide information.

Anyone can start a blog. It doesn’t matter if you earn millions, or work for minimum wage. You can set up a blog from free using wordpress or blogger and post photos, videos, and online journals. You can talk to people halfway across the world due to free social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, and Google Plus. With Skype, you can talk to people face to face, basically, video chat. Something that used to only be possible in sci-fi shows like Star Trek.

You can set up your own website for free with places like WIx.com. And I don’t mean crappy, clunky websites, but fully functional sites with images and video for free.

You can buy anything you want on the internet. Thanks to sites like Amazon you can find what you need or want and purchase it. And if the item is available in another country, you can still buy it, using the internet.

You no longer need to go to a video rental store to rent a movie. Because of the internet and it being unregulated, sites like Netflix (only $8/month) and Hulu (again only $8/month) and Amazon instant video (only $109/year) popped up, filling a consumer demand for video entertainment that was literally at their fingertips. Think about it. All you need is a video streaming device (Roku, Fire TV, or a bluray player with internet connectivity), and an internet connection, which you can get for as low as $30/month and you have instantaneous and never-ending entertainment, allowing you to stream movies and your favorite shows commercial free. In Hulu’s case you have limited 30 second commercials, but it’s still better than cable.

You can access new the moment it happens and rewatch speeches given by the president thanks to Youtube.

With all of this, how can you possibly claim that the internet is not free and open?

But sometimes my service slows down when I’m streaming Netflix. Evil Comcast.

Well, let’s look at that. First, how much bandwidth are you paying for? How much video streaming are you doing per month. How many internet devices are you using simultaneously? How old is your equipment? All of this plays a role in the speed of your internet service.

If you stream videos every day for 5 or more hours per day, you are going to need more than just 25Mbs. If you wifi equipment is old, it won’t work as well. I have a wireless network in my own home. One day I noticed that my internet wasn’t working as well as it used to. I contacted Comcast, which is my provider, but they assured me that their equipment worked fine. Since it was the beginning of the month, I knew that I hadn’t gone through the amount of bandwidth I pay for. But I did remember that there had been a severe thunderstorm that had come through some time before, causing several power surges. Also, my streaming device and wireless network was five years old.

So, instead of blaming my internet service provider, I bought a new wireless router and a roku , replacing my sony bluray player (and I don’t recommend Sony for streaming), and then went to the Comcast office asking them if they would replace my modem. I had explained about the power surges and my concern that some of the electrical components might have gotten shorted out. 15 minutes later, I walked out with a new modem, free of charge. After all of this, my streaming problem was solved.

Other things to keep in mind if your service slows down: the servers could be down. There might be a ton of other people trying to stream the same content. If your home network can only handle so much. If you have six or more devices connected to the internet, it will slow your internet speed. Your modem and wireless network can only handle so much activity at the same time.

So, instead of blaming your ISP, make sure that it isn’t a problem you can solve on your end.

(Continue Part 3)

Net Neutrality: Not What You Think (Part 1)

It was inevitable. We all knew it was going to happen. Back in 2010 Barack Obama mentioned that he wanted an internet kill switch. Congress turned him down, so he came back with a request for Net Neutrality, a series of regulations that will keep the internet safe, open, free, and equal. Again, Congress turned him down along with the Supreme court, both saying that Net Neutrality was not only unconstitutional, but that the federal government had no authority to regulate the internet in any way. Well, never fear. When Obama wants something he gets it.

Instead of using his executive order pen, which President Obama has shown no qualms in using in order to get what he wants regardless of what Congress, or the American people tell him, he went to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) demanding that they pass a measure to regulate the internet. It took him five years, but he got what he wanted. Despite the FCC turning him down a few times, two weeks ago they voted 3-2 (along party lines) to have the internet within the United States regulated all in the name of the common good. Basically, they gave Obama what he wanted: control over the internet.

It should come as no surprise that this happened. Obama has been power mad and acting like a dictator since the day he was first inaugurated. When Congress refuses to vote a certain way, Obama just uses is special executive order pen or goes to a bureaucratic agency to get what he wants. He takes what he wants and everyone else be damned. But the average person refuses to see it this way.

Instead, many Americans have bought into this Net Neutrality propaganda. They truly believe that it is about keeping the internet free and open and equal so that the small ma and pop business can compete against corporate giants like Comcast and Amazon. Do a web search about Net Neutrality and on the first page you will find ten results: the first nine will be pro Net Neutrality, all repeating the pro argument word for word, almost like they were cut and pasted, and only one result that is against it. Does anyone else beside me find this odd?

The arguments for Net Neutrality goes like this:

  1. Comcast is a huge corporate giant the provides internet service to customers such as you and me. They do not like Netflix and Netflix doesn’t like them. Comcast will slow down your internet service whenever you watch Netflix so as to push you to watch Hulu, which they have a controlling financial interest in. So an in effort to keep Comcast in line and not impede your ability to watch Netflix, the government must step in with a slew of regulations.
  1. Some people have a smaller bandwidth than others. The (evil) rich pay companies like Comcast for faster internet speeds and higher bandwidths while the (disadvantaged) poor must settle for a mere 25 Mbs at a neck breaking 39.99 a month. So to make sure that the internet is equal, the government must step in and ensure that no one has higher bandwidths or faster internet speeds than another person. All of this is to ensure that there is equal access to the internet.
  1. Encourage competition and keep things fair. According to Net Neutrality proponents corporate giants like Amazon get a lot of hit and millions of visits a day. This cuts down on the amount of site vests for smaller businesses who are unable to pay for the kind of web advertising that Amazon can afford. So, once again, the government must step in to make sure that the smaller websites get their fair share of visitors to their websites

These are the main arguments for Net Neutrality and a great majority of Americans have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. When they tell you that regulation of the web is necessary, they repeat these arguments word for word from the websites that offer pro Net Neutrality arguments.

But what is Net Neutrality at its core?

It’s simple. It’s all about government control.

Now, before you start accusing me of being part of the evil right wing conspiracy, let’s look at the pro argument logically.

(Continue in part 2)

Why Obama’s Prayer Breakfast Speech Matters

Once again Barack Obama gave a speech, took the moral superiority route, During the Prayer Breakfast a few days ago, instead of doing a typical “we should mindful of ourselves, thank God for what we have, pray more, blah, blah, blah”, Obama decided to compare the crusaders and those of the Inquisition to ISIS, basically saying that we shouldn’t judge ISIS because of the atrocities that Christians committed during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Those on the left, like Steve Benen, have jumped in to defend Obama and condemn those who are angry about what Obama said, saying that it’s laughable and not justified anger, but posturing.

Well, Mr. Benen, those who are upset with Barack Obama have every reason to be, and for you to belittle them makes you look like the jerk that you are.

Obama is quoted as saying,

“So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities – the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ…. So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.”

His, “don’t judge” BS sounds nice, makes him look reasonable and fair, but at its core is a slap in the face to Christians and to those who are currently being slaughtered by ISIS (or ISIL, as Obama seems to like to refer to them) and does not solve the problem that ISIS poses.

We are all taught the politically correct version of the crusades where Christians, instructed by the pope, went marching down to the Holy Land and slaughtered the poor, peaceful Muslims that lived there. the truth is, none of that happened. Long before the crusades happened a man named Mohammed showed up, had an epiphany, and created the religion of Islam. When people would not willingly convert, and many villages laughed at him and kicked him out, he decided to become more forceful, thus attracting those who wanted an excuse to commit violent acts. and spread his religion by the sword, literally. that’s the short version. The older Mohammed got, the more radical her became about his religion, and the more radical his mandates became. Mohammed preached Jihad, the spreading of Islam where people either convert or die, and his followers continue his mandate.

After Mohammed’s death, there was no clear successor because he never named one, so the infighting began as people vied for the position being the one leader of Islam. Eventually they worked it out, though violently, but they continued to follow Mohammed’s dictate of spreading Islam, and what would become known as Sharia Law. The spreading of Sharia Law is a mandate, not a wish, but a mandate and required of all Muslims.

After the Roman empire fell and Europe lay in its Dark Ages, the Muslims began spreading. First they took over the Middle East, before spreading up through Turkey and all through North Africa. It wasn’t long before they invaded Spain and worked their way northward and east through Europe, killing, raping, and burning as they went. In 1095 A.D. Muslim jihadists invaded the Byzantine Empire and its emperor sent a message to Pope Urban II asking for help against these invaders. The pope sent help and this became known as the First Crusade.

It is true, that along the way, some of the commanders ordered their troops to burn and massacre Jewish villages. It wasn’t as prevalent as many Liberals want you to believe, but it did happen and there will never be any excuse for that. But you must keep in mind, for since the time of Christ there had been tension between Christians and Jews and that rift was still there at the time. (It still exists today in some circles, especially in Europe.) But here is something many haters of the Crusades forget to mention: the Muslims that invades Turkey, Northern Africa, Spain, and everywhere else they went, slaughtered Jews, Christians, and Pagans and burned their settlements.

The Crusades happened in three waves and was spread over a period of 200 years. Each crusades was done in response to Muslim invasion and the atrocities committed by those Muslim invaders, whose goal was to spread Sharia across the globe. Now people like Obama can get on their high horse and go on about the evils committed by the Crusaders, but what they conveniently forget is that only a small percentage of actual crusaders committed these horrific acts and that the Muslims, who started it all in the first place, did far worse to the people they slaughtered; and the Muslims did all in the name of Mohammed and Allah.

Now, I have an assignment for you. Imagine if the Crusades had never happened. Imagine if the Byzantine emperor had failed to send a message to Pope Urban II, or that the pope refused his request for aid. Imagine that Europe at that time decided to do what they, and our president are doing now: ignore the problem of Islamic radicalism who were invading their borders. Think of how Europe would have looked had the Moors (who were Muslims jihadists) had succeeded in their invasion of Europe. Think of what the world would look like had the Crusades never happened. That means there would be no:

  • Western Civilization
  • No United States (though this might make liberals happy)
  • No end to slavery in the Europe and the United States. (Islam promotes the enslavement of non-Muslims.)
  • No advancement in technology.
  • No Industrial Age.
  • No Computer Age.
  • No space age.
  • No internet, so say good-bye to your Facebook, Twitter, and everything else.
  • No advancements in medicine.
  • No Woman’s Liberation movement.
  • No Civil Rights Movement.
  • No idea along the lines of: all men are created equal by their Creator.
  • No electricity.
  • No banishment of punishments such as cutting off hands, cutting off ears, or gouging out eyes.
  • No modern way of life. We’d still be living like the medieval days.
  • No idea of democracy, or self-government.
  • No separation of church and state.
  • No global economy.
  • No knowledge of history before Islam because Islam prohibits anything that is non-Muslim, and dictates that there is no history before Islam.
  • Basically, our modern world, and everything you love about it, would not exist.

All of the above mentioned are a result of Western Civilization and what the Crusades achieved in halting the invasion of Muslims and their ideology of Sharia Law. If Islam is allowed to spread and cover the world in Sharia law and wipe out all knowledge of the past, or non-Muslim learning, we will be living in a permanent dark age.

The Crusaders stopped the spread of radical Islam. We are now faced with Islamic jihadists bent on destroying our way of life. ISIS is just one small sect, albeit a very radicalized and psychopathic sect of Islam. The spread of Islam is a problem. Islamic jihad is a reality, whether you choose to ignore it or not, and if we do not deal with it now, we will be forced to address it later at our own peril and it will be a far larger problem.

Obama’s prayer breakfast speech has conservatives angry because of what he is telling the world. Despite what might have been committed in the past, it will never excuse the behavior of ISIS, and Obama’s speech attempts to excuse it. His “don’t judge” nonsense basically says:

  • That he doesn’t care about the people that are suffering under Islamic rule, and especially under ISIS; nor does he have an intention of helping them.
  • A big “fuck you” to all Christians, especially those suffering at the hands of ISIS.
  • He has no intention of protecting America from the threat ISIS poses, which means when we are attacked (and we will be) a lot of innocent people will suffer.
  • That the world, and those areas currently under ISIS rule, is on its own.
  • Israel can expect no help from the U.S. while he is president.
  • He probably wants ISIS to succeed and maybe wants Islamic rule to wipe out western civilization. His indifference to the problem ISIS poses has to make you wonder.
  • He does not care and doesn’t want to be bothered.

Obama’s speech is an insult to those who were sent to Afghanistan to fight Islamic terrorism.

Obama’s supporters can defend him all they want, but I wonder how much they will defend him once ISIS reaches our shores and start killing Americans.

The World Burns and Obama is on Vacation

For the past few months ISIS has been expanding their role in the Middle East by invading Iraq, which we left defenseless under Obama’s leadership, or lack thereof, and now they are busy executing Christians all in the name of Allah. After first implementing a tax on the Christian population, forced them to wear an armband, marking them as Christians, and then forcing them to leave their homes, the members of the terrorist group ISIS have decided to entertain themselves by beheading children and placing their heads on spikes for all to see; and in one instance they cut a child in half using a knife. This barbarism in the Middle East is going practically unnoticed by the mainstream press, who still feel the need to protect the man they helped get elected president. Only Fox News and a few independent outlets have been reporting these atrocities with any consistency.

And where is Barack Obama during all of this? On vacation. When ISIS first showed up on the world stage, Obama could not be bothered to acknowledge the threat they posed. Then he tried to ignore it entirely, but ISIS is a problem that is not going to go away. Instead, while Islamic fundamentalists have busied themselves with committing genocide, Obama felt that going on vacation at Martha’s Vineyard was more important. He did take one day out of his golf game, and beach lounging (oh, but it was too cold for that) to go back to Washington D.C. and give a speech, on the events in Ferguson Missouri no less, but then he went back on vacation, playing a round of golf minutes later. I’m glad that the president thought the events in Iraq were important enough to deliver a speech about the riots taking place in Ferguson, Missouri. Too bad he can’t do anything else, other than listen to himself talk. He did authorize the use of drones on ISIS, but, MR. President, it’s too little too late. Of course, the White House officials are saying that he came back to D.C> to attend briefings, but couldn’t those briefings have been held where he was on vacation? What about a phone call? Presidents have been known to hold important meetings over the phone when on vacation, or have the meeting where they happen to be. The reasoning for Obama’s unexplained, one day trip back to Washington D.C. sounds like a load of manure.

It’s nice to know that while the majority of Americans remain out of work, struggle to pay their bills or feed their families, that Obama is taking it easy from a hard day of not working. It’s wonderful that while the world burns, Obama is busy playing golf. Meanwhile, Islamic terrorists continue to murder Christian children, and Hamas, another Islamic terrorist organization, continues to bombard Israel with missiles in their efforts to destroy. But don’t worry. I’m sure Barack Obama has it all under control as he plays, yet again, another round of golf.