Power To The People


The Not-So-Neutral Net

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

In a matter of hours, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will be voting to implement unprecedented regulatory authority over the Internet. What started out as a debate over a simple law that would prevent Internet Service Providers from requiring fees from content providers in order to get the bandwidth necessary to get their content to end users has morphed into a massive government power grab, with the FCC pushing to regulate the Internet as a public utility. All we know so far is that there are over 300 pages of proposed regulations. Very few (if anyone) outside of the FCC and the White House knows just what those regulations will entail.

Mozilla, makers of the Firefox browser, have been pushing a petition encouraging the FCC to pass its new regulatory measures. The petition talks about how “the Web is a global engine of innovation and entrepreneurship – a level playing field from which we can learn, connect and create.” It speaks out against “restricting freedom of choice online” and further states that “there should be no blocking and discrimination of content online.”

But the FCC’s regulations were built in the dark. While we might know at a theoretical level what we want from Net Neutrality, we have no idea what we’ll actually be getting…and if the FCC takes action to regulate the Internet as a public utility, we have no way of knowing what shape that will take in the future. With their petition, Mozilla shows an alarming naivete, blindly assuming that regulations they’ve never seen will do exactly what they want, and won’t morph into something even worse as time goes on. Didn’t we learn this same lesson from Obamacare? Nancy Pelosi told us we had to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it. They passed that bill, and millions of people found out (too late) that they don’t like it. Back then, President Obama told us “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Now he’s saying “If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet.” We don’t need to fall for the same BS twice.

If you believe that “there should be no blocking and discrimination of content online,” then you should want to keep the government as far away from Internet regulation as possible.

Continue reading here.

The Battle Over DHS

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

On February 27, funding for the Department of Homeland Security is set to expire, and once again, the blame-game is in full force in Washington. The House has passed a bill to fund all of DHS, with one exception: the House bill bars funding for the implementation of President Obama’s executive amnesty. Democrats claim that the GOP is placing funding for Homeland Security at risk. Nancy Pelosi has been quoted several times calling on the House to pass a “clean”funding bill, claiming that GOP attempts to stop executive amnesty amount to “anti-immigrant grandstanding.”

But what’s really going on here?

The House’s funding bill would pay for all current DHS operations. The only really significant thing about the House bill is that it leaves out funding for implementation of President Obama’s unconstitutional executive order. It does nothing to combat the massive amounts of waste at DHS. Nor does it do anything to combat any of DHS’s growing extraconstitutional law-enforcement activities. While Democrats would like us to believe that the Republicans’ bill is some deep, dark Tea Party scheme, I can guarantee you that many in the Tea Party would like to see cuts to DHS that extend far beyond just shutting down President Obama’s extraconstitutional executive order.

And likewise, the push to stop President Obama’s executive amnesty goes far beyond “anti-immigrant grandstanding.” Twenty-six states have sued the federal government to stop these unconstitutional actions, prompting a federal judge in Texas to issue an injunction.Secretaries of State from Ohio and Kansas have testified to Congress that Obama’s amnesty could enable illegal immigrants to get away with voter fraud, as “motor voter” laws that tie voter registration to government services will make it easy for illegal aliens to register to vote…and as they gain more ‘legal’ recognition from the government, it makes it that much harder for elections officials to weed out the non-citizens from the roles.

Continue reading here.

American Sniper

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

This past Saturday, I took the opportunity to see American Sniper, the movie about former Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle. With 160 confirmed kills during the Iraq War, Kyle has been dubbed the most lethal sniper in U.S. history. Watching this movie was a profound experience; Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller told a compelling tale of a military family’s struggles during war, and how difficult it can be for soldiers to transition from the horrors of war to a home where the war goes virtually unacknowledged.

Chris Kyle featured on the [ American Sniper ] article. AND Magazine - Photo: Archives - American Sniper is a 2014 American biographical war drama film directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle the deadliest marksman in U.S. military history with 255 kills, 160 of which were officially confirmed by the Department of Defense. The film is based on the book "American Sniper" by Chris Kyle.One thing that drew me to this film was the controversy surrounding it after it was released. All manner of columnists, pundits and talking heads sounded out on the movie, a lot of them obviously without watching a single frame. Michael Moore and Seth Rogen were some of the first to sound off (both on Twitter), Moore insinuating that Kyle was a “coward,” and Rogan stating that the movie reminded him of a Nazi propaganda film portrayed in Inglorious Basterds. Both walked back their initial comments after receiving tons of criticism – Moore claimed that he wasn’t really referring to Chris Kyle or American Sniper (though how he expects anyone to believe that when he tweeted right after the movie exploded at the box office is anyone’s guess), and Rogan released a statement that looked like it was written by his publicist as damage control.

The film has also received criticism because several times, Iraqis are referred to as “savages,” most of this surrounding a single passage from his book. It is simultaneously amusing and headache-inducing to hear many who criticize Kyle quote from this passage, as it soon becomes clear that they never saw the movie, but went on TV to provide commentary after they received that single quote from some program director. A lot of the criticism over these comments completely ignores the enemy we were fighting in Iraq. The Hussein regime was barbaric, and while much has been made of the Bush administration’s use of WMD programs as a justification for war, we should not ignore the fact that part of why we went to war in Iraq was to put an end to the Husseins’ reign of terror. The Al-Qaida forces who went to Iraq to fight our troops after the Hussein regime fell committed innumerable atrocities as they sought to kill American soldiers and inspire fear in the Iraqi people, to prevent them from helping us.

We were fighting a regime who would imprison and torture its own citizens for no reason other than being from a different sect of Islam. Terrorist forces who strapped bombs to mentally handicapped women, sent them into a crowded market, and blew them up. “Savage” is a mild term for the kind of barbarity our troops faced in Iraq, which itself provides a sad commentary on the fact that we have let much of that nation fall to Islamic State forces guilty of much worse.

Continue reading here.

The Obama Double-Standard

Pointing at the Left & making accusations of double-standards is nothing new, I know.  For too many on the Left, double-standards just seem to be a way of life, and pointing out those double-standards is almost cliché in the conservative blogosphere.  But rarely do we have the Left’s double-standards so starkly displayed by the President of the United States himself than we do today.

Shortly after President Obama delivered his latest lie-fest (aka his “State of the Union” address), the news media started buzzing about how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been invited to speak before a joint session of Congress, and that House Speaker John Boehner, whose office had made the invitation had -GASP- failed to notify or ask permission from the State Department.  For a few days there, I could swear that if I heard the words “breach of protocol” one more time, my head was going to explode.

obama_pout_xlargeThe White House then put on a collective pouting child act, acting hurt that a major world leader would come to the United States without meeting with His Lordship King Obama.  To the White House, this was a huge deal.  To the rest of us, it makes sense.

The Obama administration has never been a friend to Israel.  From the beginning, this president has paid lip service to being Israel’s ally, but always with an attitude approaching snide sarcasm.

When Israel went on a major offensive to prevent Palestinian terrorists from using tunnels to infiltrate their nation and murder their civilian population, the Obama State Department criticized them for making a strong offensive – despite the extreme lengths Israel goes to in every campaign to avoid civilian casualties, they cannot lift a finger to stop murdering terrorists without facing criticism.

But lately, the Obama administration has taken a stance toward Iran that is completely untenable to Israel.  The White House seems bound and determined to allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons capabilities, and right now is very publicly stating that the president will veto any legislation coming out of Congress to impose sanctions on Iran, which essentially amounts to continually spitting in the face of one of our closest allies.  The White House’s capitulatory stance toward Iran puts Israel at risk – especially considering that Iran is the primary supplier of the rockets that Hamas continuously and indiscriminately fires into Israel.  The rockets often miss their intended mark, but even a small nuclear payload in the form of a dirty bomb could be devastating.

After getting all pissy because Speaker Boehner decided to use his pen and his phone to unilaterally invite the Prime Minister to speak to Congress, the White House announced that they wouldn’t be meeting with Netanyahu while he was in Washington, due to a supposed “longstanding policy” to avoid meeting with leaders close to their elections – they wouldn’t want to influence foreign elections, after all.

Except that in 2009, President Obama met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel right before her re-election.  And in 1996, then-President Bill Clinton met with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres less than a month before elections.

Benjamin+Netanyahu+Chairs+Weekly+Israeli+Cabinet+aCQ4mtEabgelLet’s be honest: Barack Obama has a longstanding policy to avoid meetings with leaders he doesn’t like, and he doesn’t like leaders who take a strong stance against Islamic terrorism.  Obama’s only truly consistent side has been his insistence that it’s his way, or the highway.

But President Obama, and officials in his administration, have very high opinions of themselves, and they see this as a slight.  And to be slighted by someone they despise like Benjamin Netanyahu is intolerable.  And they are pissed.


And that, my friends, is the only reason why this is an issue at all.

What They Said They Would Do

My latest column is up at Right Wing News.

Here is an excerpt:

We conservatives who have been upset over the lame duck Congress’s passage of the $1.1 trillion CROmnibus bill last month have had a bit of a reprieve over the past couple of weeks, as the new Republican-controlled Congress moves forward with a much more conservative agenda.

Personally, I was, and still am pissed off at the House leadership’s tactics in pushing the CROmnibus through. A spending bill that large doesn’t get written overnight, yet they held on to it until the very last minute, forcing Congress into crisis mode to facilitate the bill’s passage – a common tactic in Washington these days. While they made some important cuts to the IRS and EPA, they should have been much more forthright in explaining their long-term strategy to their constituents, instead of running on stopping Obamacare and the president’s executive amnesty, and then pushing a massive spending bill through at the last minute that did neither. To say that it was very poorly handled is putting it lightly, and many conservatives will not soon forget, or forgive, this betrayal.


But in late December, as I was voicing my opposition to the CROmnibus, and specifically expressing my disappointment in Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, in whose district I happen to live, Congressman McCarthy gave me a call. It took me quite by surprise, as I’ve only met Kevin a couple of times, but I was grateful for the opportunity to discuss my concerns with him directly, and to hear his perspective.

To his credit, the Republican Congress is moving on the exact agenda that Congressman McCarthy told me they would be working on.

Continue reading here.

America’s Religious War – Whether We Like It Or Not

Last week’s attack on the offices of the satirical publication Charlie Hebdo captured the world’s attention, and predictably, Progressive elements are yet again rising up to equivocate and excuse the actions of evil terrorist thugs. It seems that every time Islamic terrorists attack the civilized world, it is necessary for some to wring their hands over the possibility of anti-Islam backlash, while others breathlessly explain why Christianity is just as bad (the implication being that Christians should just keep their mouths shut about Islamic terrorism).

_78494916_sm9h0msoThe end result of all of these excuses? We continue to do very little to confront one of our world’s greatest evils, allowing more innocent people to die in the name of our high-minded “tolerance.”

To make matters worse, there seems to be growing support for restricting speech that might offend Muslims. In other words, THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING.

The overwhelming sentiment seems to be, “Maybe if we’re nice to them, they’ll just go away.” Because that strategy has worked so well at stopping evil in the past.

Every religion has its blemishes, but unlike Islam, the vast majority of world religions were not born in violence, and do not practice violence in the name of their god (or gods) today. Even Mecca, one of Islam’s holiest cities, became an Islamic city through military conquest. The religion spread has spread through two means: conversion and conquest, the latter being used if and when the former failed. The Crusades began as Europe reacted to this Islamic conquest, lest they be conquered themselves.

Islam has always been “tolerant” of some other religions, provided any non-Muslims subjugate themselves to the Islamic government. The jizya, a tax that non-Muslims are forced to pay, is a part of Sharia law. And if the non-Muslim elements were ever to gain too much wealth or power within an Islamic society, chances are they would face a choice: convert or die.

Islamic nations allied themselves with the Nazis in World War II; they may not have been part of the so-called master race, but Nazi and Muslims were able to find plenty of common ground in their hatred for Jews.

Today, many evils are ignored in the Muslim world due to political correctness, and the wealth and oil controlled by Middle-Eastern Muslim nations. Yet across the Muslim world, non-Muslims are second-class citizens. Women are forbidden to drive, to get an education, to walk outdoors without being completely covered. In many Muslim nations, women are killed for adultery after being raped. Female genital mutilation is all too common in Muslim areas in Africa.

Islam has a long history of using kidnapping and threats of violence to further their cause. The Barbary Pirates came from the Berber Muslims in North Africa, terrorizing international shipping lanes, demanding tributes from nations that essentially amounted to “protection” money. Nations that did not pay the tribute would find their ships attacked, the crew kidnapped and held for ransom.  Today, they do much the same, kidnapping foreigners and holding them for ransom.  Every time nations give in, they fund Islamic terrorism, yet too many nations pay the ransoms anyway, funding the very terrorists who then plot to attack them.

Here in America, our government seems to be in full-blown denial when it comes to the threat posed by Islam’s jihad.  President Obama made a statement condemning “violent extremism” and “foreign terrorism,” and his plans to hold a “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism,” completely ignoring the religious factor involved.  This weekend, Attorney General Eric Holder was asked multiple times if the United States is at war with radical Islam.  He refused to answer the question directly.  And President Obama, showing the type of leadership he has become famous for during his presidency, failed to show up at a massive anti-terrorism rally in Paris, despite having an open schedule.

9-11-toomuchnews-com-1-21vu212As long as we continue to ignore the danger Islam poses to the Western world, we will continue to face attacks.  Al-Qaida is encouraging its followers to commit “lone wolf” attacks.  This is exactly the kind of thing we were trying to avoid by waging a War on Terror overseas: to prevent terrorists from carrying out attacks here in America.  Now that we have eased up on our campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have seen a resurgence of radical Islam in the form of ISIS.  There have already been several “lone wolf” attacks in the United States and other Western nations: the Fort Hood shooting, the Boston Marathon bombing, a beheading in Oklahoma, an axe attack on two NYPD officers, a shooting at Canada’s Parliament, the beheading of a soldier in London, a hostage standoff in Australia.  Much of the West abounds in soft targets.  With tenuous economies across the globe, the West cannot afford an extended campaign of lone wolves.

We have a choice: we can either meet this threat head-on, or stand by and watch as it devastates our way of life.  As of right now, we seem to be choosing our own end.

Terrorism Is Winning

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

The Religion of Peace has struck again, this time in Paris. Muslim terrorists killed 12 people, including the editor, deputy chief editor, and three cartoonists from the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, the same magazine that touched off controversy several years ago when it published a cartoon making fun of the Prophet Mohammed.

This isn’t the first time that Charlie Hebdo has come under attack from Muslim terrorists, either. They have faced attacks multiple times over the last several years for making fun of Islam and publishing unflattering cartoons featuring Mohammed.

Not that they singled out Islam in particular for criticism – nothing was sacred at Charlie Hebdo.

But the response to this attack has been quite disturbing. Multiple news agencies chose to blur or crop out images of the Charlie Hebdo covers.

Continue reading here.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,438 other followers