Month: July 2018

A New American article by Alex Newman criticizes a recent speech that Barack Obama gave in South Africa celebrating the 100th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s birth, where Obama pushed for the globalist Establishment’s totalitarian control over the world.

In his speech, Obama attacked nationalism, free market capitalism, and leaders such as Donald Trump, saying that he prefers the vision of Nelson Mandela and South Africa, despite the fact that Mandela was a Communist terrorist who was convicted of 193 counts of terrorism that killed thousands of innocent people, and despite the fact that South Africa is currently mired in extreme poverty and agendas of leftist terror being perpetrated by Mandela’s political party.

Obama claimed that the world should follow South Africa’s example, despite Nelson Mandela’s political party the “African National Congress” currently being responsible for the following:

— Genocide occurring against South African minority communities.

—  Poverty Levels exploding in South Africa.

—  Racist land-expropriation programs being implemented.

—  Threats of civil war and societal collapse looming in South Africa.

From the article:

“.. Ironically, one of the key themes of Obama’s speech was inequality.  What he did not say was that, since Apartheid ended and Soviet-backed Communists took over, inequality and poverty have exploded far beyond the levels that existed under the previous regime, making South Africa one of the most unequal societies on Earth.  Average life expectancy has plummeted more than 10 years under the new regime, according to UN data.”

…

“Obama was also clear about what he opposed.  For instance, he blasted ‘populist movements’ as a backlash against the inevitable forces of progress and globalization, and suggested that those involved in fighting back against big government, globalism, and open borders were merely pawns being ‘cynically funded by right-wing billionaires intent on reducing government constraints on their business interests.’  He also lambasted people who hope to secure their borders and maintain their nations, liberties, and self-government, suggesting that everyone who opposes his agenda was a vile racist living in the past.  …”

Newman also mentions an article that examines Mandela’s “heros” that include the mass-murdering Communist dictator Fidel Castro and his chief executioner “Che” Guevara.  “… Mandela claimed that Che Guevara, who executed thousands of alleged ‘counter-revolutionaries’ after sham trials or no trial at all, was an ‘inspiration for every human being who loves freedom.’”

Paul Watson explains that over 500,000 South Koreans have signed petitions being opposed to Islamic immigration that has been happening in their country.  Also explained is many of the problems that have been happening is Europe due to the unchecked immigration that is happening there.

I’m seeing more complaints  about unfair treatment of conservatives by social media companies, but I think it would be easy to boycott and replace those companies with new ones.  For example, it would be practically effortless for a tech company to create a replacement for Twitter, of all things!

I think what needs to be protected is Net Neutrality though.  It seems strange that libertarians like Rand Paul have always been opposed to that.  I think Paul’s stance would be the correct one if the actual legislation has issues, but I think at least in theory Net Neutrality is important.

It would be good to see a specific summary of the actual Net Neutrality legislation, I think there would be much more support for it if people knew exactly what it entailed.

Following is an open letter that Rand Paul Wrote in 2015 about the matter, complaining that Net Neutrality will declare the internet to be a “public utility.”  Paul’s only concern in the letter is “protecting the free market” though, he doesn’t mention any specific issues with the legislation itself:

Dear Conservative,

Big government can’t seem to keep its hands off of anything.

The latest insult: President Obama and the Federal Communications Commission are going to take over the Internet on February 26th if we don’t do everything we can do to stop them right now.

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

The details are complicated but here’s the truth: If “Net Neutrality” is passed, for the first time ever, the Internet will be under the rule of an antiquated regulation designed for land line telephones.  President Obama wants to take something that’s working just fine, and tie it up in red tape–sound familiar?  We’ve seen this movie before–it’s called ObamaCare.

The FCC plans to vote on Feb. 26th on whether or not the government should take their usual heavy handed approach to controlling the Internet or do the right thing and leave it alone.

I need your help to tell President Obama and the FCC: “Don’t mess with the Internet!”

An unregulated Internet has been the single greatest catalyst in history for individual liberty and free markets on the planet.  It has created the greatest revolution since Henry Ford invented the Model T.

Let’s get this straight–technology has progressed because it has been driven by a free and open Internet–not because of DC bureaucrats.  This latest attempt to regulate the web threatens to interrupt that positive innovation, set the market back, and kill jobs.

A free, flourishing Internet is as important as anything man has ever created.  But those freedoms are under assault.

Please, stand with me and help protect Internet freedom by signing this petition today.

These attempts to regulate the Internet are a direct attack on the freedom of information and an innovative market.  The government needs to stay out of the way.

Free markets are worth protecting.  Please tell your friends, your families, that there’s nothing neutral about net neutrality.  We have to stop this aggressive, invasive, and harmful regulation and we need all the help we can get to do it.

Sincerely,

Senator Rand Paul

[Note:  March 8, 2020— I’m a vegan who doesn’t eat chicken, however I respect the good intentions of the store manager.]

The following is summarized from a DailyMail article:

A homeless man was selling CDs outside of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Bowling Green, Kentucky, which prompted the manager of the restaurant to come out and give him a free bag of food with an offer to eat inside the restaurant.  She said, “Because of your sign we can’t let you solicit.  You are more than welcome to dine in and be our guest.”

The man who recorded the video said that he doesn’t know the manger but she has always seemed to act very professionally.

A strange article in the Village Voice newspaper entitled “The Sexual Assault Epidemic That No One Is Talking About” claims that one out of every four women who wear hijabs has been assaulted while riding in the subway systems of New York City.  However, I think that is almost certainly a false or exaggerated claim based on everything that I know about New Yorkers and the nature of the city’s subway system.

Even more strangely, the title of the article mentions “sexual” assaults, but the actual content of the article essentially doesn’t mention sexual assaults at all but rather it talks about how women are supposedly being attacked by having hot coffee thrown on them or by being pushed or shoved on the subway platforms.

The article claims that Muslim woman warn each other on social media after high profile Islamic terrorist attacks: “Be careful, be cautious, don’t walk too close to the platform edge.”— Saying that they are worried that people will actually push them onto the tracks or into the path of oncoming trains, but I doubt that is something for them to actually be concerned about.

So then, what are the characteristics of the people who the article claims are attacking the women?  It says “… New Yorkers from these backgrounds face high rates of bias-based harassment, discrimination, and violence, … our country’s growing climate of hate isn’t isolated to Southern cities or Republican strongholds.”— Oh I see, it’s conservative Republicans who physically attack people!  Also the article mentions “the 2016 election” a few times implying that it is some sort of a cause of a rash of “Islamophobic” attacks, which actually hasn’t happened.  Does video exist of any of the attacks that the article mentions?

So in other words, if the dubious claims that the article makes aren’t questionable enough, it then goes on to ridiculously imply that it’s Trump supporters who are the cause of the assaults!

It is usually rare for people to be attacked in New York which is generally a very peaceful city for its size and population density.  Of course anything is possible, but overall it is a very diverse and tolerant place.  I think if someone were to actually attack a woman wearing a Hijab it would usually cause a commotion and quite a reaction.

The story is written based on the results of an obviously politically biased survey created by the “New York City’s Commission on Human Rights.”  Presumably the creators of the survey either altered the results of their findings, or when many women filled out the survey they may have simply embellished their claims thinking that it wouldn’t hurt to do so because perhaps it would somehow be helpful for their demographic in general.

I’m sure that most New Yorkers reading the article would just roll their eyes and skip to reading the next story, with few if any actually bothering to mention anything about it.  Therefore the article will continue to live on in the search engines to be used for backing up exaggerated claims of “Islamophobia” for the purpose of justifying harmful leftist agendas.

A 2001 UN Security document entitled “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?” outlines a strategy to “offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates” by importing millions of migrants into various regions of the world each year including Europe, Japan, Russia, Korea, and the United States.  The plan seeks to bring 10.8 million migrants to the United States each year until 2050, bringing a total of 593 million by that time.

This Infowars article details the issue.

I’m seeing many news stories on the “Voice of Europe” website about migrant related issues in Europe over the past few days.

People in the United States should be terrified about voting for supposedly “well-meaning” leftist Democrats in the upcoming November elections, they work for the same political Establishment who brought the following problems to Europe.  The following are the sorts of situations that politicians associated with groups like the corrupt Establishment organization “Emily’s List” will bring to the United States if they are elected.

“UK: Three-year-old boy suffers serious burns after deliberate acid attack in Worcester” — A three year old child in the UK has been taken to the hospital suffering severe burns to his face resulting from a deliberate acid attack in a Home Bargains store, with the police releasing surveillance footage of three men who were responsible. — https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/07/uk-three-year-old-boy-suffers-serious-burns-after-deliberate-acid-attack-in-worcester/

“Very low sentences for African migrants after ‘bloody gang rape’ of 13-year-old girl in Sweden” — Four Somalian migrants raped a 13 year old girl in Sweden while making videos of it which they shared on social media, and a Swedish court has just halved their punishment from eight months to four and five months in juvenile detention while the fourth could not be punished because he was underage — https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/07/very-low-sentences-for-african-migrants-after-bloody-gang-rape-of-13-year-old-girl-in-sweden/

“Syrian migrant arrested for raping 13-year-old Swedish girl” — A 13 year old girl was raped on a beach in Skåne, Sweden by a 16 year old Syrian migrant, and a football team who was nearby on the beach subdued the attacker and held him down until the police arrived and apprehended him. — https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/07/syrian-migrant-arrested-for-raping-13-year-old-swedish-girl/

“Afghan migrant stabs 18-year-old Norwegian boy to death for no reason” — An 18 year old man in Vadsø, Norway was stabbed to death by an Afghan migrant while working in a supermarket. — https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/07/afghan-migrant-stabs-18-year-old-norwegian-boy-to-death-for-no-reason/

“Adult migrant men are marrying children to qualify for EU passports in Sweden” — Adult Muslim migrants are marrying child brides in order to quality for receiving EU passports in Sweden. — https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/07/adult-migrant-men-are-marrying-children-to-qualify-for-eu-passports-in-sweden/

“7-year-old boy chased and injured by knifeman in a Liverpool park” — A seven year old boy was chased and attacked by an 18 year old knife-wielding gang member in Worcester, UK, injuring the boy’s arm — https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/07/7-year-old-boy-chased-and-injured-by-knifeman-in-a-liverpool-park/

“UN already had plans to replace Europeans with 159 million migrants 18 years ago” — A UN report that was published in the year 2000 entitled “Replacement Migration: a solution to an ageing population decline” states that 159 million migrants should come to Europe by 2025 —   https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/07/un-already-had-plans-to-replace-europeans-with-159-million-migrants-18-years-ago/

Earlier today I wrote a post that explained why it I think it would be a bad idea for the government to be involved with mandating who private social media platforms must be allowed to use their services, but I do agree that major media companies should be fair with their practices anyway.

I think it should be made in the best interest of such companies to be fair to their users without needing the government to be involved in that process.  For example, new companies who are in fact fair to their users could arise as competition that would soon become popular in place of the companies who discriminate.

I think it is mostly a matter of activists keeping track of the companies who are unfair to their users and making sure that people are aware of those  companies, and it is also important for alternative companies to be promoted.

This video explains problems with the major internet content providers such as Google..

I think it is mostly a matter of people being made more aware of issues with the problem companies and informing them of effective alternatives.  For example, other search engines than Google exist that don’t track users, such as “DuckDuckGo.com.”

[Note:  March 8, 2020— I’ve always been a big fan of Infowars, they are a very important source of news.  I’ve learned much from them over the years.  I don’t always completely agree with what they say though, such as in this example.  Also note that I’ve revamped the text of this article to fix a few grammar errors.]

Strangely, the usually libertarian-minded media outlet Infowars.com has launched a petition advocating for the government to take control of social media companies to enforce “ending the practice of shadow banning and algorithm based censorship,” claiming that social media companies are now “deFacto becoming the internet and are forming monopolies.”

However, I don’t think allowing the government to meddle in the content of private internet companies would be a good idea at all.  Once the government would be given such authority, they would use it to enforce quotas of political correctness such as by using the guidelines of corrupt organizations like the “Southern Poverty Law Center” which makes phony accusations of racism at the instructions of the political Establishment.

Such legislation would be the same as letting the government mandate the content that book publishers print in books in order to force of content of every book to be accommodating to everyone.  The content on the internet is an infinite resource, and calling a social media company a “monopoly” is essentially the same as calling a book a monopoly just because it is popular.

Creating an online social media company is not any sort of an impossible task at all, so there is no reason to treat already existing ones as if they are monopolies.

Such potential legislation reminds me of a lawsuit that was filed in California a few years ago where a private Christian dating website was sued to accommodate dating for homosexuals.  Is that the sort of legislation that Infowars is advocating for?

 

Then what about “Net Neutrality” rules?

However, I do agree with having the government enforce net neutrality rules, because the actual physical broadband infrastructure of the internet is a finite resource where equal access to actual internet service by everybody should be protected.

Some people argue that even net neutrality rules are invasive and create a “backdoor” for government corruption into companies, however the government has backdoor access anyway through the CEOs and upper management of such companies being members of Establishment secret societies.

If net neutrality rules didn’t exist, then broadband companies would throttle and block the traffic of websites that have information critical of the political Establishment by claiming that the information violates the company’s definition of “political correctness,” no matter where the content actually originates from on the internet.

Essentially, having the government enforce “net neutrality” rules is like ensuring that everyone can have their books printed and everyone can have access to those books, while at the same time it is crucial that the government is not allowed to mandate the actual content of the individual books that are printed.

[Note:  March 13, 2020— The text of this article has been updated.]

A new CNN documentary entitled “The Trump Show: TV’s New Reality” which premiered on Friday night attempts to suggest that women are on the verge of being forced into sexual slavery under Donald Trump’s administration.

In the documentary, the producer of the television series “The Handmaid’s Tale” Bruce Miller ridiculously claims that he “continuously sees parallels between his show and the U.S. under Trump.”

“The Handmaid’s Tale” is a dystopian story about the United States being overthrown by a patriarchal government that enslaves women and forces them them to bear the children of their male masters.

I think The Handmaid’s Tale is actually an allegory about Islam, and it is likely that the people involved with the show mention Trump as some sort of an “inside joke” because he’s actually someone who is “protecting” people from the potential of such a situation happening.  That seems to be the most logical explanation, I can’t imagine how any rational person could think that the show is an accurate representation of “Trump’s America” or what it could become!  I think only an Islamic society would be able to degrade into a dystopia of that sort.

I think it’s likely that the author Margaret Atwood and others involved with the show aren’t willing to admit the story’s connection to Islam because they don’t want to deal with the potential of being attacked in retaliation for being involved with the story.

There are also Establishment media articles that try to deny the connection between Islam and the show while trying to reinforce its connection to Christianity, such as this dishonest “Atlantic” article that makes the following statements:

“.. Saudi Arabia, for example, might be an authoritarian theocracy—state law requires citizens to be Muslim and prohibits non-Muslim public worship—but it is not totalitarian ..” (However, in truth Saudi Arabia is absolutely totalitarian, and it is one of the most flagrant abusers of human rights in the world.)

“Even the Islamic State [ISIS], which does engage in sex slavery, otherwise diverges from the model of Gilead’s Christian fundamentalists.  Gilead’s biblical judgments often seem laughably arbitrary and primitive (noncompliance is punished with eye-gouging, for example).  ISIS is similarly comfortable with performative brutality, but it set up fairly complex and elaborate judicial and legal structures, including detailed tax codes and counterfeit statutes.”  (This statement actually tries to create the perception that ISIS’s “fairly complex and elaborate judicial and legal structures” somehow negates its horrifying behavior.)