Net Neutrality

Erick Erickson of Redstate.com has sent an e-list email encouraging his readers to protest to Congress about Larry Lessig of Google and Barack Obama.

His complaint is threefold.

1.     Larry Lessig is pro-Net Neutrality.

2.     Larry Lessig is virulently anti-Christian and moves Google in that direction.

3.     Lessig is a huge political supporter of Obama; thus Obama has another guilt by association by allowing Lessig’s support of his campaign.

I am not sure if I understand Erickson’s anger about Lessig being for Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is like the sun, it shines its light on the good and evil at the same time. Net Neutrality certainly allows the evil in this world to exploit a form of communication; however Net Neutrality offers the same exact ability for good to be on the Internet.

I am guessing Erickson’s ire is because Google under Lessig’s direction may be guilty of not allowing pro-Christian websites to be accessed via the Google search engine. If the allegation is true (and I don’t doubt that it is), then Lessig’s defense of Net Neutrality is Leftist hypocrisy. In essence Lessig is promoting Leftwing pro-Mohammedan websites and ridiculing Christ and Christian websites as well as definitely NOT providing neutrality for all users of the Google search engine.

This is a revelation that saddens me. I like using the Google search engine. Unfortunately I am finding out when I place a search for some Christian specific information, Google may be biased as a guide.

Then there is Barack Obama. Obama openly receives support from anti-Christian Lessig. Could this further expose light on Obama’s other associations with Nation of Islam racist Louis Farrakhan and Black Supremacist Christian Jeremiah Wright?

Couple this with Obama’s recent denigration of Pennsylvania rural dwellers (ergo all rural dwellers) as ignorant gun-toting individuals that rely on religion for solace on and comfort and what do you have a picture of?

It is a picture of an anti-Christian candidate running for the Democratic nomination for President.

JRH

************************

Obama Adviser Denigrates Jesus. Don't let him get away with it.

Redstate.com Email Alert

Erick Erickson

April 21, 2008 7:04:14 AM

ACTION ITEM: Call the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee at 202-224-5115 and protest Larry Lessig and Google denigrating Christ while Google censors Christians online.  Details below.

A friend and adviser to Barack Obama, Larry Lessig, is going to testify before Congress on Tuesday to advocate for "net neutrality," a position strongly supported by Google,Inc.

Google, recently allowed Larry Lessig to talk to Google employees.  During his talk, Lessig showed a video of Jesus, depicted as gay and wearing a diaper singing the song "I Will Survivor" until Christ is run over by a bus.  You can see for yourself here.

Lessig told Google's employees, "This is a little bit touchy to some people. I don't get it, so just chill."

Google and Lessig believe that intellectual property rights should be curtailed and internet providers should be forced to allow anyone and everyone to use their networks.

While Google is pushing net neutrality and blaspheming Christ, Google is also censoring Christians online.  As I document here, Google has censored a pro-life group online.  Google has also been sued for anti-Christian discrimination in the United Kingdom.

Of course, while Google is happy to censor Christians while denigrating Christ, Google has gone out of its way to censor content that might offend muslims.

Google should have no right to demand open access to your internet while censoring and denigrating Christians on its network.  And the Senate should not give Larry Lessig a platform to advocate Google's position while Google behaves in that manner.

Call the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee and tell them you find it disgraceful that Google could advocate an open internet while censoring Christians and laughing while Larry Lessig denigrates Christ.  The number is 202-224-5115.

Also, please forward this to your friends.  Have your friends join this list.  We should not let the left get away with denigrating Christ and sending those who do to Congress to advocate for companies that routinely censor Christians.

Together, we can stop this.

All the best,

Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com

Forward This Email to a Friend

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Rich Dems Taxes- to raise or not

Many of you that read this website probably writes or blogs at more than one place. I know I do. I also post at various social network blogs to get a feel for the feed back of that which I post or write. It is amazing how I am a hero at one social network and considered a pariah at another.

Anyway I was given a heads up from a Vox social blogger (United States Military Men and Women of Valor) about a blog post from a person that calls himself The Historian and his blog The Real World. The Historian also has a blog of the same name at Blogspot.

The post you have just got to read is about taxes. To be more precise, it is the hypocrisy of the Leftist Democrats who call for more taxes to collectively share America’s wealth for the poor and Middle America.

Here is the hypocrisy: Ironically there is as many wealthy Democrats as there are Republicans. In fact “The Historian” believes most of America’s wealthy elite are Leftist Democrats rather than Republicans. When it comes to wealth, the rich elitist protect their wealth just on the same scale that wealthy Republicans do. The hypocrisy is that Leftist rich Democrats call for a distribution of wealth via taxation; however the tax payer is Middle America and NOT wealthy Leftists any more than wealthy Republicans.

READ THE ESSAY.

JRH 4/19/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Obama-Advocate Interview (Gay Rag)

Well there is no doubt whatsoever the agenda for American Society if Obama is elected President. In an interview with a Homosexual rag, Obama promised the moon for the Homosexual Lifestyle.

God have mercy on America if voters place Barack Hussein Obama in the Office of President and a probable Democratic Party dominated Congress.

One extra comment: Sally Kern for Vice President!

JRH 4-11-08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Gen. David Patraeus

Bradley A. Blakeman of Freedomswatch.org has sent out an email exposing the defeatism of the Left and the Democrats in particular. The left are garnering forces to attempt to discredit General Patraeus in his second report to Congress on the progress on the War in Iraq.

Remember Moveon.org’s treasonous and malicious full page ad ran in the New York Times? The infamous “General Betrayus” was utilized.

Here is the email Blakeman sent out:

JRH 4/8/08

*************************

Stand With General Patraeus

Bradley A. Blakeman

Freedomswatch.org Email

April 7, 2008 9:59:37 PM

Dear John,

General Petraeus is delivering his second report on progress in Iraq to Congress this week, and once again those in Washington opposed to the war are pre-empting his report with defeatist nonsense.

Democratic Senators Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Jack Reed, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have decried the lack of political progress and called it a sign of "failure." Apparently they're unaware of the Iraqi government's passage of key legislation, including a vital de-baathification law, oil revenue sharing provisions, a national budget, and granting limited amnesty to thousands of detainees.

Now, a new group of liberals wants to get in on the act, setting up a new coalition called "The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" - but their plan is anything but responsible.

It calls for an end to all military action in Iraq, and instead encourages the U.S. to end the conflict using "diplomatic, political, and economic power." There's a word for this strategy: surrender.

When General Petraeus was in town last year, Hillary Clinton said his claims of progress required a "willing suspension of disbelief." If anything requires a suspension of disbelief it is the notion that Islamic extremists, suicide bombers, and dead-end insurgents will lay down their arms if we just leave - a strategy so naïve only a liberal could believe it.

Call your member of Congress today. Tell them the only responsible plan to ending the War in Iraq is through victory. A good first step toward that goal is for Congress to listen to the advice of the military commanders on the ground - qualified and capable men like General David Petraeus.

Your friend,

Bradley A. Blakeman
President and CEO

_________________________

Paid for by Freedom's Watch
info@freedomswatch.org
Copyright (c) 2008

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Moral Exhibition of the Left 1 DT Devareaux

I operate many blogs, some of a social nature and a few are just blogs for anyone to show up. My pet blog is SlantRight.com. My son has purchased the rights to the name and operates it on his servers for me for free. It is the Dad discount.

I rarely spread comments from one blog to the others; however I received a comment from “More Democrat ‘aid and comfort’ to the enemy” on my Mindsay blog which is more of a social blog. The comment was made by a person that goes by the moniker of Moralnihilist. Moralnihilist said little but it irked me a lot. So I am sharing my distinct charm around in my reply.

Moralnihilist said:

The purpose of the Iraq war was to line the pockets of George W Bush's oil buddies, nothing more.  There were no weapons of mass destruction.  Iraq was no threat. ...

We've already spent 10 times what we spent in Vietnam, and the cost in lives has been tragic.

I guess Ann Coulter is correct: Liberals Lie!

The Dems and Bush reacted to the same Intelligence of the time. Even President Clinton understood that Saddam Hussein was dangerous but did not have the cajones to do what GW did. Clinton's awareness of Iraq and transnational terrorists may never be completely known because the treasonous Dem used his security clearance to destroy classified material related to Clinton.

Whether or not the validity of WMD in Iraq is actual or mystified is irrelevant. The fact remains Hussein has shown in the past no hesitation to attack his neighbors for hegemonic gain and profit (with Iran the US aided him and with Kuwait we were against him). This is not to mention the brutality that Hussein and his psycho-sons inflicted on Iraqi citizens. Even now in 2008 mass graves of slaughtered men, women and children are haphazardly stumbled upon.

The only reason the U.S. does not send a military force to remove the butchering Arab Muslims from Sudan is the Islamic world would wrongly perceive it as an attack on Islam. Western nations even with the potential of their combined power to remove the current Sudanese government fear the Islamic reaction (The West is dominated by Left Wing cowering dhimmis). The genocide against Black Muslims in Darfur and Black Christians in Southern Sudan is enough reason to take out the regime. It is a demonstration of dhimmification of the U.N. and the protection of Communist Chinese that such action is not even close to being a consideration.

As far as oil goes: duh!! Are you an American or a dimwitted American? Islamists (though a growing minority in the Middle East) run the perceptions of America. If Islamists control oil in Iraq as well as oil in Iran and the Saudi Monarchy is a sneeze away from joining the Shah of Iran's fate. How do you think the National Interests of America would be affected if Islamists controlled the life blood of the World's economy? Can you say convert or no oil? That would mess up the Dems utopian delusional vision on how we should respect what happens in another nation's internal affairs.

As for the Iraq and Vietnam comparisons, the only thing valid that you have asserted is the unpopularity (forged into the minds by a Leftist MSM ignoring other facts and the Dems exploiting the non-reported facts) of the Iraq War in America.

So in essence Moralnilhilist, you are full of manure. I leave it to you decide what kind.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Mark Alexander 2

Mark Alexander is an awesome Conservative writer and U.S. Constitutional analyst. Alexander writes (or at has written) for many blogs; however if you want insight on what Constitutional Intent is, go to Alexander’s Patriot Post and visit his commentaries at the Patriot Post Blog.

I just read an Alexander blog post in which he utilizes an Ivy League Leftist University Study as a starting point of the theme that the Democrats and the Left Wing Mainstream Media by publicly saying or writing that the War in Iraq is a lost cause is aiding, abetting and providing comfort to the enemy.

It is an awesome analysis!

JRH 4/3/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

TUCC Support of Hamas (Obama's Church)

I continue to wonder how Obama can condemn racist statements and support a church that supports terrorism (viz. Hamas) and can still say he is above the racist anti-American beliefs of those associated with for years.

In the midst of all the Obama denials and condemnations of past and present associates, there is an amazing amount of evidence emerging that the eloquent Barack Obama is merely just another two-faced fringe Leftist trying to deceive his way into the White House.

JRH 3/22/08

************************************

Obamacide – Obama’s Church Reprinted Hamas Manifesto

CreepingSharia.com

March 18, 2008

If this isn’t Obamacide then we may have to start calling him Teflon Barry.

From BizzyBlog comes evidence that Obama’s church not only has anti-white, anti-American feelings, but may also have a pro-Hamas bias. The July 22, 2007 Trinity United Church of Christ bulletin reprinted an article written by Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy of the political bureau of Hamas. Originally printed in the LA Times as “Hamas’ stand“, Pastor Wright added a new title, “A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle”. The Times was criticized for giving a “Platform To Genocidal Terrorist.” Where does that leave Obama’s church? Marzook is a known terrorist and created an extensive Hamas network in the United States.

The smoking gun is here in Obama’s church bulletin. Was Obama there? Does he support Hamas? Expect Obama and his supporters to simply ignore this tacit if not direct support of a terrorist organization.

Update: Obama Foreign Policy Advisor Robert Malley an Avid Hamas Supporter - Father was Confidante of Yasser Arafat.

SlantRight Update from BizzyBlog – 3/22/08

_____________________________

“Creeping Sharia” is a phenomenon occurring across the free world. We’ll define it as “the slow, deliberate, and methodical advance of Islamic law (sharia) in non-Muslim countries” (literal definitions below).

To the general public, justifiably pre-occupied with work, family, pleasure, dreams, hopes, goals, and the stresses of each, “creeping sharia” goes mostly unnoticed. Until, that is, a particular event generates enough concern from those who focus on the “creep” that the general public takes notice. These singular events are sometimes less worrisome, but taken in whole, the uncoordinated yet explicit goal of the ummah and worldwide caliphate become obvious and alarming.

Hence the birth of the “creeping sharia” blog.

The blog will focus on “creeping sharia” in the United States however major events in other … READ MORE ON THE ABOUT PAGE.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Malik Zulu Shabazz (née Paris Lewis)

Here is a news item from Aaron Klein billed as the racist New Black Panther Party (NBPP) has endorsed Barack Obama for President. I am certain Klein is working the connections Obama has had with Black racists Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.

It is the kind of path the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) method to hammer on Conservatives (for example President Bush, VP Cheney, Scooter Libby, Tom DeLay, etc.). So I am undecided if it leaves a bad taste in my mouth or if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander.

Klein actually focuses more the NBPP leader Malik Zulu Shabazz establishing his credentials as a full blown racist hater of white people and Jews. I actually did not know much about Shabazz until this article so I am grateful for that.

JRH 3/20/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Obama - truth or lie

Did you believe Obama’s simultaneous condemnation and affirmation of his Pastor Jeremiah Wright?

Read what does not add up.

JRH 3/19/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

NAFTA

NAFTA is becoming a cause that is full of irony. It is actually an issue that many Republican Conservatives have decried and now the two Democrats fighting for their nomination are condemning.

NAFTA is something that actually divided Conservatives before it became a ratified treaty between Canada, USA and Mexico. Some Conservative supported NAFTA because of the implication open markets and free trade. Other Conservatives deplored NAFTA because they perceived it a threat to National Sovereignty and National Security (and this was long before the Islamist terrorist escalation of 9/11).

Here is where the fringe Left and the Conservative Right find agreement on dumping or renegotiating NAFTA though for different reasons.

The Democrats decry NAFTA because big corporations have taken advantage of the treaty to move operating plants to foreign nations, particularly Mexico. In Mexico the labor is cheaper.

The Conservatives that join the Leftists in decrying NAFTA assert they were correct all along. Since 9/11 NAFTA has become a cause in which America’s National Security has big holes in it. And the fringe Right Conservatives fear the Conspiracy Theory of the North American Union (NAU) which has mysteriously been in talks without particulars officially made public. The fringe Right believe a movement toward a NAU will terminate the U.S. Constitution and muddle the rights and privileges of American citizens. Since there is no actual smoking gun proof of the fringe Right that fear is still labeled in the realm of Conspiracy Theory.

Because of the big Primaries coming up in Texas and Ohio NAFTA is getting a lot of play from the remaining Democrat nominees for President.

Read the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) analysis of NAFTA and the current elections. (Yeah I know the CFR is supposed to figure into the Conspiracy Theory of the New World Order; nonetheless they are still a decent source of information.)

JRH

Read and post comments | Send to a friend