Net Neutrality … like Affordable Healthcare, Choice and Women’s Health — language twisted to the reverse

JustineBatemanNetNeutrality1The following #Statist drek is making the rounds again… someone famous (so they must be oh-so-clueful) wants you to hurry-up-and-act because something terrible-is-happening-right-now-and-we’re-the-only-ones-who-can-stop-it and well, here it is in total (though I’m not direct-linking because it’s a total fabrication):

==============
Justine Bateman‏ (Verified account @JustineBateman )

THREAD: You are about to lose access to the Internet. Are you going to be able to handle that? Your entertainment, your banking, your socializing, your work, your everything is through the Internet. #NetNeutrality means each packet of info is treated “neutrally”; All packets are let through w/ the same treatment. This is about to end. FCC chair is removing that #NetNeutrality protection & the ISPs (your internet service providers) are abut to turn the Internet into Cable TV. Tiered pricing, limited access to premium sites, slow connections for those who won’t/can’t pay, lack of access to sites some ISP disagrees with, etc. You have a message you want to get out online? You have a site w/ a certain agenda? Maybe it will not be accessible anymore. Who knows. It doesn’t matter if we wildy disagree on issues. We will both be screwed of we don’t have #NetNeutrality. Get on the phones and call your reps. Tell them under no circumstances will you allow this. 1-844-872-0234. #NetNeutrality Call @AjitPaiFCC and tell him he has no right to touch #NetNeutrality. 1-888-225-5322.
==============

BUT…

#NetNeutrality is one of those words that labels a thing which is actually the opposite of what you get. The ploy is that there is a fear of ISPs (like Comcast) blocking or throttling services (like Netflix for instance) that they feel competes with their ability to be evil capitalists. The problem is 1) This has never happened (a solution in search of a problem) and 2) the Federal Government would GAIN OVERSIGHT – REGULATING CONTENT on the internet … because that’s a good thing, right?

Statist/Left-leaning publications are fans, but no legitimate trade rags are. Only people in favor of more government control want Net Neutrality. That would put us in a position like the Chinese (so much for the 1st Amendment).

The PRO people want you to believe that ‘AGAINSTS’ include only the ISPs. That is a lie.

Justine Bateman us, by the way, an actor. Not a professional truth-teller. And pretty easily swayed by her buddies. She wants you to go tell the government that you fear Comcast — and want more government instead. Like you did for your healthcare.

LINK: On Forbes.com, Josh Steimle outlines the three basic reasons (“I Want More Competition”, “I Want More Privacy”, and “I Want More Freedom”) people who generally hate President Donald Trump also LOVE Net Neutrality:
Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality? (Forbes.com)

LINK: An article on BBC.com showing that ‘everyone’ is ‘for’ Net Neutrality (‘the science is settled!’) — except the evil cable companies, of course:
The coming battle over ‘net neutrality’ (BBC.com)

LINK: A surprising article explaining why this ignorance is pushing the OPPOSITE of what should be happening in the industry… from WIRED magazine itself, of all places:
What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality (Wired.com)

NO ‘Net-Neutrality’ for me, thank you. I have been fighting against this propaganda war for over a decade — a deliberate promotion of ignorance to gain mindshare.

Think of the person you know with the slowest, most unreliable connection to the internet. That’s the Lowest Common Denominator. Now apply the Left’s version of ‘equal access for all’ to access as a public service; people and organizations who want to, and are able to, pay a little more can’t get a faster pipe — which sounds great until now, all schools are limited to the speed the vendor provides to all schools… at the lowest rate that can be charged — to accomodate the poorest school. What will that do to the ISP’s interest in improving their network over the years?

And that’s not just Comcast and Ameritech. Your phone… 4G LTE would not exist had this been the philosophy that drove the industry over the last 10 years. Because if not everybody can afford it, it would be #unfair to provide it to customers who can… and CHOOSE to.

Ten years ago, there wasn’t an ObamaCare to compare Net Neutrality to — so we couldn’t say “Net Neutrality is ObamaCare for the Internet”. Now we can.

LINK: Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality? (forbes.com)
LINK: The FCC’s net neutrality rules: 5 things you need to know (pcworld.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality—and Obama’s Scheme for the Internet—Are Lousy Ideas (reason.com)
LINK: Making the Internet a utility—what’s the worst that could happen? (arstechnica.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality Is Government Censorship (nationalreview.com)
LINK: 5 Arguments Against Net Neutrality (mashable.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality and the Rule of Law (fed-soc.org)
LINK: Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong (reason.com)
LINK: The Case Against Net Neutrality (thebalance.com)
LINK: Why Business Should Oppose Net Neutrality (hbr.org)
LINK: Worried about Net neutrality? Maybe it’s the FCC that should really concern you (cnet.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality Rules: Still a Threat to Internet Freedom (heritage.org)
LINK: The Inconvenient Truth Behind The Net Neutrality Movement (zerohedge.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet (theobjectivestandard.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality: Trump’s Next Big Target (americanthinker.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality? There’s No Such Thing. (nationalinterest.org)
LINK: A Third Way on Network Neutrality (thenewatlantis.com)
LINK: The Future of ‘Fair and Balanced’: The Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality, and the Internet (scholarship.law.duke.edu)
LINK: The Role of Innovation and Wealth in the Net Neutrality Debate: A Content Analysis of Human Values in Congressional and FCC Hearings (terpconnect.umd.edu)

48. Still Learning. Still Breathing.

I finally figured out what happened to me back in school. You know, I was terrified when people told me that everything we go through is to toughen us up … make us stronger … like a muscle, that you break down and build up over and over. I was terrified because I was thinking, as I was getting beaten, pushed, spit on, mocked, and … well, it was kind of a game that they thought it was funny that I didn’t cry — I just took it. Took it all. They thought it was funny to see me break without breaking down. I thought, what is it that is coming… the Thing that I’m supposed to be stronger for, after having been ‘strengthened’ by all this ‘practice’. I didn’t want to know what was worse, what it was that made all this useful. Necessary.

ittookalongtimeWhen I got to college, I found there were a few people who called me out on my … demeanor. One, from NYC, told me he was going to keep sneaking up on me until I stopped flinching. One, a supervisor at one of my jobs, told me that I was an asset because of who I’d been. Where I’d been. People needed to know that someone understood — not just hear the words.

Until now, I thought that’s all that I was. A damaged, bruised, ball of worry and calcified bones. I tried practicing my social skills, and failed. And failed. And failed. But I did learn love. And I learned that I could hurt people without meaning to. I learned that people don’t only hurt people when they’re being bad. We are imperfect, and broken, even when we’re just living.

But what I’d learned back in high school, while I was getting pushed around, was the forgiveness that maybe I would have been too stubborn to allow for if I wasn’t broken down like that muscle. Over and over.

I forgave my father for being unprepared and unable, for not listening and not hugging me enough — though he really did try. I forgave my family for … well, a lot. I never did think about waiting for them to forgive me for anything; just assumed that would never come.

That’s what I’m processing now. That everyone, not just people I have reason to know, everyone is walking around, mad at someone. I can never see it coming. I can never see how broken people are… never see what they’re carrying around. I never know when they have horrible expectations of me because of their experience in life. I never know when I will never have a chance in their lives because their burdens are so great that I can’t make a difference.

I will never know how to be good enough to matter more to them than their wounds. That, and my failures that reinforce their illusions that no one… no one is ever worthy of their love. Their trust. ‘Everybody lies.’

I’m still learning patience. I’m waiting on my Lord to come back and fix this shit.

When the Left feels that YOU shouldn’t have a firearm, so THEY take it…

Social Engineering isn’t very far removed from the mindset behind #GoodGuy vs. #BadGuy maneuvers… the ‘end justifies the means’ mentality gives them (in their mind) a ‘get out of jail free card’. Anything goes in order to pacify their outrage.

This is why Hillary gets away with so much… she has long admired the training provided to #SJW (social terrorists) types, beginning with his “Rules for Racicals” textbook, and reinforced by a Media and Political machine that succeeds by redefining ‘normal’, ‘criminal’, ‘outrage’, ‘unfair’, well… you get the idea — the whole of our language has been perverted over the last 20 years and whole generations of schoolkids steeped in this insanity are now running things.

So, off to the exercise of the day… an article about someone who was so enraged to discover that another man was carrying a concealed weapon (all guns are bad, all people with guns are bad, all things people do with guns are bad, etc.). Sooooooo… he took the weapon and decided to USE IT… which somehow wasn’t as bad as it remaining, INERT, in it’s holster.

This is why I relentlessly bang the drum that #LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder.

Rest assured, when I carry I do so with the understanding that I am responsible for what happens with that weapon… even if it is taken from my person. By extension, it is my responsibility to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to not lose the ability to govern that weapon.

What if someone disarms me and then uses it to kill five innocent people in the room? This is one of the arguments that the Left likes to throw around — we can’t have guns out there because Bad People will have access to them.

My question at this point is, why are the Bad People always the ones who the Left supports and protects? Assuming the worst of people, we are about to have a President known for killing people who are inconvenient to her… Ambassadors, her own associates, and babies.

Her opponent is being called WORSE than her (a murderer), because (it is accused) he grabbed a crotch.

Hmmm.

It should be assumed that if someone attacks you, they intend to follow through and kill you. Tactically, there is no such thing as a ‘light-duty’ assault. Understand that the people fighting most vigorously against legal and safe carry are those who, in their own minds, can’t fathom that normal people DON’T commit acts of violence simply because they are upset. These are the people who we should avoid handing society over to — and our firearms.

LINK: Charges filed after man shot in leg during disturbance in Overland Park (KansasCity.com)

LINK: Gun Control Supporter Steals Concealed Carrier’s Gun, Shoots Him (BearingArms.com)

What does it mean to ‘Take God’s Name In Vain’? And why does God consider it as serious as Murder, Lying, and Thievery?

If you’re old enough, you may have been taught the Ten Commandments, as passed down in the Bible that most Christians aim to follow as their guidebook — or maybe you’re vaguely aware of them, but would find it difficult to pick them out of a hodgepodge of other old-fashion wisdom.

Let’s try a little quiz… pick out, from the following, the advice that comes from the Ten Commandments, and figure out which of the rest aren’t even from the Bible:

The-Ten-Commandments-600x310

  • Don’t kill.
  • Don’t murder.
  • Don’t lust after other people’s things.
  • Don’t take other people’s things.
  • Respect your parents.
  • Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
  • Don’t speak God’s name without reverence.
  • Go to church every Sunday.
  • Celebrate the birth of your Savior.
  • Sinning leads to everlasting torture.

How do you think you did?

Here are the answers:

  • Don’t kill: Nope. This bad translation is often held up by non-believers as a proof that the Bible is crap, what with all the God-commanded killing throughout the Old Testament. Try…
  • Don’t murder: YES… if you can’t understand the difference between killing and murder, you might be a vegetarian — or, if you realize that eating plants is also killing, you might actually have starved to death by now.
  • Don’t lust after other people’s things: YES, this is in the Ten Commandments.
  • Don’t take other people’s things: YES, this too, was one of the things God feels you shouldn’t do.
  • Respect your parents: YES, God wants us to understand that our elders are an important part of our identity, and our structure of behavior — as He has designed.
  • Do unto others as you would have them do unto you: Close, though this one is actually in the Bible (Matthew 7:12), it’s not part of the Ten Commandments.
  • Don’t speak God’s name without reverence: YES, this is just as important to God as not murdering, et al.
  • Go to church every Sunday: Nope. Though the Ten Commandments do say to ‘remember the Sabbath Day’, most scholars (even in the Catholic Church, who created the “Lord’s Day” on Sunday but admit that it’s totally on them) understand this to be Saturday — and further, the Bible records no command to ‘religiously’ attend church services on that day, or any day. We are taught to learn together, pray together, congregate with others of similar beliefs, and the Old Testament traditions record many rules about what is and is not appropriate on the Sabbath — but these two points are clearly not from the Ten Commandments, or anywhere in the Bible.
  • Celebrate the birth of your Savior: This is where things get a little sticky — not only is this not commanded, quite the opposite is true… the only time Christmas is even vaguely mentioned is in Jeremiah 10. The custom of celebrating birthdays itself is from pagan origins… one of the things that the Bible as a whole consistently deems opposite God’s wishes.
  • Sinning leads to everlasting torture: Breaking one or more of the Ten Commandments will … to this day … make our Creator sad, angry, jealous, and justified in toasting your carcass in any manner He sees fit. BUT… the Hell ‘known’ to modern Christianity is from Catholic mythology, not the Bible. The Catholics liked to borrow beliefs from other cultures as a way of assimilating people who they wanted to dominate — the fear inspired by the idea of torture throughout eternity was just too tempting for the Catholic priesthood to leave alone — what better way to scare people into obeying? The Bible, however, describes a fire that is everlasting — not an everlasting torture. God does get angry, but the worst He would do to you is to separate you from Him for all eternity (if you choose not to live His way)… Satan has done a very good job at perverting Christians’ view of the nature of God by twisting this understanding. It’s to the Devil’s advantage that Christians believe God is willing to torture you forever while ‘claiming’ to love you.

Now that you’ve waded through what many of you will deem ‘blasphemy’ (if it’s not what you know to be true, it must not be true), what was that thing about using God’s name improperly? What does it mean to use His name ‘in vain’?

Let’s pretend your name is ‘Bob’. And let’s pretend you have lots of children, whom you love dearly. But as they grow up, and their individual natures develop, you are dismayed to see that most everything that you have taught them they only make a token attempt at following — and take great pride in themselves when they get away with doing things opposite your teaching, without suffering any consequences.

After a while, they (and their friends) begin to get a little giddy that they’re so successful at avoiding your gaze, and your admonishment, and maybe even your punishment. Eventually, they even begin to mock you as young adults — at how you used to be important, but aren’t any more. You might say you’d feel a little upset… maybe even a little jealous of the respect that you should feel from them; but don’t.

Eventually, they take that mocking tone into their everyday language… they use your name as an expletive — like, “Wow, you really Bobbed that one!”. Or when injured, exclaim, “BOB THAT HURTS!”. The only time words leave their mouths that might be confused for respect are when they wish your anger would come down on someone they are upset at, “BOB DAMN YOU!”.

In no way are they actually talking about you, or to you, at this point. They’ve just reduced your name to one of the many dirty words they toss around in an effort to impress their friends that they follow no one’s standards — they obey no one’s rules.

Your name is no better than shit. Interchangeable, in many cases, with shit.

Is that the reverence that God deserves from His children? We can be sure that in the Old Testament, when the Ten Commandments were written in stone, this observed behavior was not new to Him. And no one spoke in surprise or confusion at this command — so the practice of abusing our Creator’s name was already a familiar behavior, thousands of years before we arrived to read it in the Bible.

So, we aren’t being ‘edgy’ when we misuse God’s name. In fact, it’s one of the earliest-recorded ways to hurt God’s feelings. Taking pride in this is a dismal, shameful, disrespectful tragedy of human frailty.

You probably weren’t thinking that you were showing off your frailty when you picked up this habit, were you? Using His name ‘in vain’, or for foolish, shallow reasons — was important enough that when God narrowed down ALL the things He could have chosen for His people to learn down to TEN ITEMS… this was among those few. Do you have a legitimate reason for putting it at a lower priority than He did?

Why does God allow Evil in the world?

Because He created us (Mankind) with Free Will.

Because we chose to live apart from God.

Because we have chosen Evil. For now, He is letting us.

In The Beginning… At first, we (humanity) were with God, and what was GOOD was what was of God. Good WAS God, and God WAS Good. Simple.

CastOutOfTheGardenThen Satan convinced Humanity that we could… even should… define Good on our own… how dare God claim the sole right to define Good vs. Evil? Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and were not given a giftthey were rather SEPARATED from reliance on God for the definition of Good. We are still separate.

We have a dim view into God’s presence through His written word, through preserved stories of His interactions with our ancestors, and in the life lessons left to us by His Son, who visited us just 33 short years. We have help in understanding, in a limited way, through the Holy Spirit which is a gift that leads… but it is not the same as living in a world that is ruled by our Creator. It’s not the same as Adam and Eve experienced in being able to converse with Him in any waking moment. We lost that when Adam and Eve made the decision to define Good and Evil without RELYING on God to do that for us.

Now, we wait for Christ’s return… and it’s a long wait for us; but a short time for God. He is watching us learn how futile it is for us to live in peace and prosperity while being separate from Him.

We are living in Australia — the place that criminals were sent (Satan and a third of the angels who rebelled against God and were cast down), and are still in charge here. At Jesus Christ’s return (Second Coming), those criminals will no longer rule, and our environment will not belong to disrupters and those who thrive on Evil — but we will still have Free Will, as that is how God created us.

The difference will be that Good and God will no longer be separate, either. He will define what He wants for us, and only in communing with Him will we be capable of Peace.

We have had thousands of years to attempt to achieve it on our own… defining Good as anything else but ‘with God and of God‘ is futile. Bad things happen — wars, assaults, lying, pretense, famine, disease, hate, abuse, theft, loneliness and death — because since the time of Adam and Eve, we have been choosing (as a race) to define Good out of our own feeble minds and frail hearts.

This is not God’s doing — it is not His will. It is Satan’s world, and Satan’s will that we live apart from God, and suffer endlessly — as he knows we are to inherit a place with God that he forfeited long ago.

Answering Evil: Wresting the Conversation Away from Leftist Rage — Stand Your Ground vs. Duty to Flee

[Ed. Note: This was first published on 7/16/13; I’m bringing it forward to join a conversation about the Left’s ability to hijack our culture by perverting our language and distorting the truth…]

Imagine that you are somewhere (not at home) with your kids, and someone decides to do you harm. Maybe they thought you were the person who cut them off in traffic… maybe you WERE the person… and they have a lead pipe/knife/candlestick/rope/etc. and it’s CLEAR that you are in mortal danger.

So, you defend yourself with the firearm (that you are legally carrying) and the judge says sure, you have the right to defend yourself — but you first had a ‘duty to flee’… a choice that courts often considered to be a requirement before lethal force should be allowed.

Since you didn’t run away (leaving your children behind with the raging threat), you didn’t really have a right to defend yourself with lethal force. If you had, and he chased you, well then fine… but since you didn’t, you’re going to jail.

This actually happened… OFTEN… and is the reason most states now have so-called ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws. Eager and ruthless District Attorneys saw victims as potential notches on their belts, and treated them as criminals — until the laws were rewritten to prevent it. The rights of the attacker were seen as more socially relevant than the rights of your family members to be defended from his violent onslaught — fighting back made the victim ‘a bad guy too’.

But if you have EVER been the daily target of a schoolyard bully, and were told by any authority you complained to that it was your responsibility to ‘just stay away from them’ — you understand how ridiculous ‘duty to flee’ was.

China Meat Cleaver Attack

George Zimmerman, who was prosecuted by the Media in the public eye as having ‘abused’ ‘stand your ground’ when he shot the person who was bashing his head repeatedly on the concrete — was not in a position DECIDE whether to flee or fight… but the Media ran with this concept for months.

It would probably be a surprise to most people who know the names of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin to be informed that NEITHER THE DEFENSE, NOR THE PROSECUTION EVER CLAIMED OR CONSIDERED Stand Your Ground in their arguments — it was not offered to the jury as a reason for or against Zimmerman’s actions. Because he never had a choice to flee, beginning at the point where he realized he was in danger. His choices at that point included either to fight back or die. But the media wanted to use the death of Trayvon Martin to kill ‘Stand Your Ground’.

Why? You should be asking Why?

LINK: “Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law and Self-Defense” (BlakeDorstenLaw.com)
LINK: “Self-Defense Shooting and Disparate Force” (USACarry.com)
LINK: “The Three Headed Monster: Defending a Disparity of Force Shooting” [PDF] (OSTTI.com)
LINK: “You can legally defend yourself with a gun if the situation includes these 3 elements” (SecondCallDefense.org)
LINK: “Mayor Bloomberg: End ‘shoot-first’ laws” (Politico.com)
LINK: “Stevie Wonder Boycotting Florida Following Zimmerman Verdict: singer refuses to perform in the state until its Stand Your Ground law is ‘abolished'” (HollywoodReporter.com)
LINK: “What the prosecutors said about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law” (JohnrLott.blogspot.com)
LINK: “Media Matters, ‘Stand Your Ground’ and me” (FoxNews.com)

Answering Evil: Wresting the Conversation Away from Leftist Rage — Pence and Funerals

What makes politics so difficult for #TheRestOfUs, and easy for the #Elites that enjoy running everyone else’s lives (Politicians, Media, #ProfessionalActivists, #SocialEngineers) — is aggressive and amoral ‘messaging’.

I decided that one at a time, I’d grab one of the ‪#‎HorribleThings‬ that are ‘commonly known’ about an issue or politician, and go find out #WhatUsedToBeTrue before the propaganda.

So today, I’m starting with the headlines I’m seeing tweeted OVER AND OVER that Pence made mothers pay for the burial of their miscarried or aborted fetuses.

PenceFuneralsVOX

“State-Mandated Mourning for Aborted Fetuses” (theatlantic.com)

“Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a law this year that mandated funerals for fetuses” (Vox.com)

“Insulting New Abortion Law Forces Women to Pay for Fetus Funerals” (Vice.com)

“State-Mandated Mourning for Aborted Fetuses” (richarddawkins.net)

“Pence Signed a Law Requiring Burial or Cremation for Aborted Fetuses” (motherjones.com)

Sounds pretty heartless, doesn’t it? Well it only took me two minutes to find an article that wasn’t written by Pence-haters (though I had to wade past about two dozen parroting the same copy-and-pasted propaganda first), and here is #WhatActuallyHappened:

“The aborted fetal remains bill (SEA 329), establishes rules as to how abortion facilities must dispose of aborted babies and allows the pregnant woman to choose a different method at her own expense (i.e. burial). As testimony revealed, the Indianapolis Planned Parenthood facility was disposing of aborted babies down a drain into the sewer system, the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) implemented emergency disposal rules on July 1.” http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/10/indiana-gov-mike-pence-signs-bill-mandating-aborted-babies-must-be-buried-or-cremated/

The CHANGE was not that the woman would now be required to pay for the disposal of her infant… it was that she now has the CHOICE to do so — by law. Until then, a murdered or lost child could be treated like leftover fried chicken by the medical ‘professionals’.

Here’s the description from the Indiana General Assembly web site:

“DIGEST
Disposition of aborted remains. Defines “fetus”. Establishes a right, beginning January 1, 2016, for a pregnant woman who has an abortion to determine the final disposition of the aborted fetus. Requires that a pregnant woman be informed orally and in writing before an abortion: (1) that the pregnant woman has a right to determine the final disposition of the remains of the aborted fetus; (2) of available options for disposition of the aborted fetus; and (3) of available counseling services. Requires the state department of health to: (1) adopt rules concerning the disposal methods to be used for aborted fetuses; and (2) develop the forms for certain information that is to be provided to the pregnant woman.” –https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/329

Does that sound like a woman was GIVEN A RIGHT TO CHOOSE, or does that sound like a woman is being ‘forced to pay for burial’ (as the news stories portrayed)?

So, now that you’ve heard a version of the story that was not #SculptedByTheLeft, is Pence the #Evil now, or was #PlannedParenthood? Regardless of your opinion on this heart-heavy and contentious subject — would you have preferred to know the facts, and then made your own decisions; or are you happy trusting the Media to drive ‘knowledge’ the way they do?

#KnowAlinsky