Business as usual

To listen to liberals, nothing is ever their fault, nothing is ever their responsibility, and they are the ultimate authority on everything. When Obama admitted that DACA was un-Constitutional, but that Congress wasn’t doing what he wanted, so he was going to do it anyway, liberals cheered and praised his action to open the floodgates of illegal immigrants coming into the country. When Trump said the same, that DACA was un-Constitutional, so he was ending it and telling Congress to do their job, liberals demanded he not do that, saying he wasn’t allowed to, ignoring that their messiah Obama said flat out that it was an un-Constitutional move.

Over the last week or so, the topic is gun control, although they will happily lecture you on how “since Obama issued the executive order on DACA, it must be allowed to stand” they’re demanding that “something be done” with hashtags like not one more, or never again. What they don’t do, ever, is tell you what should be done. They demand that “assault weapons” be banned, while admitting they can’t define “assault weapon” they demand that certain people be prevented from gaining firearms, and ignore that there are already laws on the books doing just that, just demanding that “something be done.” I have personally said “OK, let’s say there’s a law saying it’s a felony, punishable by jail time, for me to slap you” they nodded and I slapped him, lightly. Naturally, he screamed that it was illegal, then I just slapped him again while a friend said, he’s breaking the law, how do you stop him? He ranted and railed that I should be arrested, only to be told “no, just do something, pass a law” at which point he just stormed off.

Confronted with the lunacy of “just do something” he refused to continue the conversation, and later I found that he’d been lying to others, saying it’s legal to walk in and buy any gun you want, no paperwork needed, and screaming at people who told him he was wrong. I realize this nut job is an extreme case, but it shows the lunacy of the liberal argument. You can tell them the law is already in place, so we need to fix law enforcement, reporting, etc and you’re called an idiot. You can prove it and they’ll storm off and lie to others.

You will not win an argument with a liberal, nor will they even admit that you had anything good to say but stood and lied to them. So the question now is simple, while Trump is demanding the actual work needing done is done (fix reporting and enforcement,) how do we fix the issue of the lies being told other than by pointing out the lies when they were told?

Just what is “common sense” reform?

Valentine’s Day 2018 was, as we can all agree, visited by tragedy in Florida, showing the best and worst of humanity. From a JROTC Cadet who died helping students get into a room, two other JROTC Cadets who saw a way to protect others and took it, to a Coach who sacrificed his life for his students. As happens after any tragedy, well most of them, the liberals in Congress and the media jumped on the gun control wagon, with their gunsense hashtag and demands to “regulate assault weapons.” There’s one glaring problem with that goal, the definition of “assault weapon.” A new twist though, is that yes, the term “assault weapon” was used in marketing many years ago, but not for any of the modern firearms that the rabid liberals want all but melted to slag.

Yes, marketing executives used that term to sell rifles, and yes, they stopped when the first “assault weapons ban” was introduced, but there is no standard of what liberals call an assault weapon is today, and worse, the glaring holes in their knowledge is staggering, and I’m not just referring to calling a magazine a clip, or a rifled barrel firearm a gun. We’ve had many press conferences from liberals referring to “ghost guns” and “barrel shrouds” and those are the least of the idiotic things said. When Shannon Watts became the public face of Everytown and Moms Demand Action, the lies and unintelligent drivel was instantly on public display. From claiming that “many of their members are gun owners” to her claim that no one needs a gun that fires ten rounds a minute. The tweet that got her to ban me was when I told her I can walk outside at any time, find and throw ten rocks, one at a time, in under a minute, should my arms be banned?

When confronted with a well reasoned and logical argument, there is also the standby tactic of either calling the person who shuts a liberal down a nazi, bigot, racist, or “literally Hitler.” I have a dubious honor though, as I actually fought that line with historical knowledge I worked years for in my undergraduate studies, to the point where the idiot actually laid hands on me, prompting me to use a simple hold until the cop in the common area took it over, but that’s a story for another day.

You see, I hold a Bachelor’s Degree in History, and specifically, military history since the American Revolution. My Great Uncles and Grandfather inspired that, as they fought in World War II, with my Great Uncle Coleman landing at Normandy and going on to fight Rommel in North Africa, while another died in the failed air drop on D-Day. You see, I know Hitler and the tactics he used well, and those very tactics are being emulated today, just not by those the screaming snowflakes claim. You see, “anti-fascist” was a group in the Nazi regime, used to fight anyone standing up to them. Before that was formed though, Hitler knew he had to garner national support, so health care, education, and such were first. By claiming to “have the best of plans” the people rallied to him, and he was among the most charismatic people to have wreaked havoc on the planet. Once he had them in the palm of his hand, he then moved to disarming the public, playing on the old standby that the Police and Military were there to protect them, they should be trusted. Once that was done, we all know what happened, from Krystalnacht in 1939, to Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and the millions killed before 1945.

Moving back to 14 February 2018, Cruz committed multiple crimes before he even left for his attack. You see, the federal background check requires disclosing many things, which had he been honest, would have meant no sale of any firearm. He threatened his ex’s new boyfriend, and even said he would be a “professional school shooter” in a YouTube comment, and his profile there was under his legal name. Police were called out to his home so many times one wonders why he wasn’t either in jail or a psychological institution well before his attack. So the question isn’t about gun control, it’s about mental health. When an actual professional says that Cruz displays classic signs of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, why wasn’t he already known for his crimes?

Now, being a student of History, I cannot sit idle while disinformation and blatant lies are spread, as I can counter them all. When people go on and on about how the AR-15 is the “weapon of choice” for criminals like Cruz, I point out that Oswald and Whitman used bolt action rifles, and in Whitman’s case, a sawed off shotgun. The only reason that Dallas in 62 wasn’t a mass shooting is that Oswald was only interested in Kennedy, but Whitman’s shooting lasted so long because he found excellent cover and with long range not an option, the Police had to get to him, which prompted the creation of the S.W.A.T Programs virtually every city has today. I’ve brought this up many times, and thus far, only one person has actually remained logical and civil in their conversation, and has now agreed it’s about the person, not the tool used.

To explain that last sentence, let’s look at the AR platform. The most common caliber for the AR-15, is .223/.556, which to be honest, isn’t that large a round. In fact, most hunters prefer either .30 .30 or .30 .06, or even larger. I’ve fired a 308 Winchester and a 300 Blackout rifle, and trust me, they are more powerful than my AR ever will be. To be honest, I bought my AR because I want to add a new competition to my belt. I’m already likely in the top 25% of pistol shooters, I’ve not been beaten at Skeet in 20+ years, so now I’m moving to rifles. The AR platform allows me to quickly change optics for short or long range, to add a flashlight if I’m in a room clearing stage, or to add a bipod for lane shooting. Even were I hunter, and I prefer to hunt with my debit card at HEB for my meat, although for chicken I’ll soon have a pen full of them, I wouldn’t use an AR to hunt.

Let’s look at this logically though, which requires looking at the Mini 14, which aside from the look, is just an AR-15 made of wood, as it fires the same caliber as most AR’s and can use a 30 round magazine as well. You see, the argument against the AR-15 is not about it’s capabilities, it’s all down to the look. The desire for an “Army Gun” likely started in the late 1960’s with Vietnam, as we now had live reports on the war, and saw the Soldiers using the M4 and M16, so the manufacturers came up with ideas to mimic it, just not completely. You see, the M4 and M16 can be Select Fire, or in some cases, Fully Automatic. Select Fire means you pull the trigger once and three rounds are released, while of course, Full Auto is where you “spray and pray.” An AR-15 is Semi Automatic only, as when you pull the trigger once, one round is released. This is true for a high percentage of firearms today, from pistols to rifles to even shotguns. Only bolt-action, pump, and single action revolvers are not Semi-Auto, meaning you must manually chamber a round, or cock the hammer, to fire again.

So, with the massive evidence, complete with legislation from the 1980’s which means only the “ultra rich” can buy a true machine gun legally, the question has to be, what true common sense reform can be done. It’s ultimately a simple answer though, and one those screaming don’t want to hear, it’s not about guns, but the users. Cruz, Lanza, Whitman, Oswald, all were mentally unwell, and honestly, should have been under treatment for a good while, possibly their entire life, but the focus on the failures of an industry that makes so much money they can literally buy legislators, isn’t one that is wanted. Cruz was on psychotropic drugs, but HIPPA means that it’s very rare when Doctors report this, at least to the level required to flag a background check. The Sutherland Springs shooter received a Dishonorable Discharge from the USAF, and had a domestic violence charge, but neither were reported in time to stop his purchase. So, as the background check already addresses both situations, they had to lie to get their weapons, and only the lack of reporting and lack of regulations allowing Doctors to legally break Doctor/Patient confidentiality failed here, not the laws in place.

To wrap up, we don’t need to regulate the tools used, but the users. President Trump has undone an act that simply said if you received Social Security Disability, you’re a prohibited possessor, as that could mean if I lose a leg and can no longer work, I’m now disarmed, while if you’re in a psych ward, you also lose that right. This is of course, touted by liberals as “President Trump made it easier for criminals to get guns” which is a bald faced lie. We have the laws needed to ensure you cannot purchase a weapon if you are a felon, domestic abuser, or the like, so we need to look at how those things are reported. When these things are not reported correctly, the person who was to report them should be charged as an accessory, even lightly, to any crimes committed. Doctors should be able to, confidentially and only to law enforcement, report those they feel are not mentally stable to own even a staple gun, perhaps via an office that will include medical experts who can help determine when it should go to law enforcement. I’m not an expert on public policy, or writing laws, although were laws written in layman’s terms, I’m sure I could craft a good many that would help the world. The final step is twofold, dumping most, if not all of the career politicians in Congress today, and enacting term limits and possibly even a mandatory retirement age for the House and Senate (and definitely a retirement age or allowing Doctors to force retirement on SCOTUS, as Ginsberg isn’t able to stay awake now) so that we have turnover to keep new blood and new perspectives among those we elect to lead.

So, my question to you is, what would you do other than jumping on the gun control, ban this or that, bandwagon? Oh, an keep in mind I hold a degree in history, am a politics/history buff, and will find any and all source material to destroy anything that I can, even if I end up destroying my own argument when pushed to start research.

It’s not fiction, it’s prophecy

We’ve all seen things were we think of a painting, movie, or book, and we generally just say that life imitates art. Well, it’s not as uncommon any more, nor is it as easy to just say “huh” when we see it. It’s all well and good to joke that The Simpsons has predicted this or that, but what happens when we see far more dangerous aspects of a movie, book, or show happen in real life? The Hunger Games shows a bleak future where Americans rose up against the government, were roundly defeated, and now truly live only to serve the well off in the capital. While it’s a good read, and not horrible movie series, it’s not that impossible to think it may happen.

Look at Los Angeles in the 60’s/70’s and sporadically since then. From the riots in Watts, to Rodney King, and now UC Berkeley rioting and destroying the campus over a mere invitation, is it that crazy to think those are all that will happen? We’re seeing the cowards in masks known as antifa call for armed uprisings, although for now they end up crying as they’re arrested, just because they can’t demand the country ignore the Constitution and put their candidate in office. More recently, we saw a clear case of election fraud in Alabama, where people bragged about coming in from “all over the country” to vote for Doug Jones. Cities with populations of 1000 saw tens of thousands of votes cast, yet suggesting that the election be voided, and ID be required is treated as if you just bombed Disneyland.

A lesser known movie trilogy, the Cube trilogy, shows a more likely scenario though, rather than the future where the government wins a war against it’s people and then keeps them down, this one shows threats just disappear. In the prequel to Cube, Cube Zero, we see a political agitator captured and put in “the cube” where entering the wrong room means death. One of the workers learns this and goes in to help her, only to end up a prisoner by the end of the movie. We also see a soldier on the inside, although by the end he’s little more than a robot, as in this world, all soldiers have a microchip implanted in their head which allows a remote user to run them like a drone, eliminating all possibility of resistance to an illegal order, such as killing someone for their speech.

We’re inching ever closer to something like these every day, as liberals demand they be allowed to “speak” through violence and vandalism, while also demanding all dissent be silenced. Universities are actively censoring conservative groups out of fear of the liberals rioting, saying it’s for “security,” while the liberals cheer from their safe spaces, waiting for the next person to violate their demands so they can once again violently silence someone. Oddly enough, as it seems that religious freedom and freedom of speech isn’t held too dear, the UK has begun to take steps to stop Universities from stifling free speech, although it’s just fines for now, and I’ll not be surprised if some decide the fine is cheaper and easier than paying for security, or repairs after a riot.

I understand that some speech shouldn’t go unpunished, the old story about being free to say what you want, but also being free to be held accountable for the riot after yelling fire in a crowded theater, is a perfect parable. Yes, you can say what you want, you are just also accountable for it. The problem is, however, that when I state that I believe homosexuality is a choice, and a sin, is not equivalent to yelling fire in a theater and causing a riot. More extreme, is simply saying “I disagree” and getting death threats. Many people today firmly believe they have a “right to be right” or a “right to happiness” which are both patently false. If I had a “right to be right” I could demand you be arrested when I say 2+2=6 and you say I’m wrong, but there are people so assured of their perfection that they will demand you be arrested for daring to challenge them. I’ve been told I should be shot for denying someone’s “right to happiness” only to be told someone needs to shoot me in the head with my own gun when I pointed out there is no such right.

Sadly, it’s going to get worse, and can’t say if it will then get better or not. The cowards in masks tried their BS in Austin recently, and were roundly shut down by APD and other Tx law enforcement, but they’re now suing for “Police brutality” and other idiocy, and precedent has been made in other states which may seen some liberal judge agree and set them free. If that happens, Police will stop helping, or will react to everything with S.W.A.T. tactics, which will be the first step toward martial law, which the left thinks they want, but will not be good for anyone. So the only real question now is simple, how long before we get to the end game, and what happens after?

The myopia of the left, and how it hurts everyone

Starting in November 2016, there has been no end to the screaming from the left side of the aisle, from Russia to sexism to racism and more. But what they ignore is what is going to end up hurting them the most, that their own heroes are often the most guilty of the crimes. The latest in their arsenal of complaints is Net Neutrality, and how it’s repeal is going to “end the internet.” This is just par for the course, as ending only the mandate in the ACA will “kill millions,” lowering taxes will “bankrupt” various groups, and now this. At this point, I’m not going to be surprised to hear that enforcing the law “disenfranchises millions,” or some other idiotic claim.

Simply put, removing regulations does not “end anything,” rather it’s going to be a good thing. The internet has been around for 20+ years, and Net Neutrality only 2, but this is ignored because Net Neutrality allows the left to call anything offensive, or racist, or what have you, and with it being “wrong,” social media and other online services are running to ban and block so as not to be accused of being that. By removing regulations, there is no government presence waiting to hit a provider or online service with a fine or punishment for anything the left hates, meaning that they can’t scream “racist” at the drop of a hat and get someone banned, and they hate that.

There’s an old saying, “If you want more of something, make it illegal. If you want less, tax it.” This works here too, as if you want more innovation and creativity in an industry, get the government out of the way, while if you want less, regulate that industry. Internet access is not a human right, nor is having a cell phone, but those can be used to control a population, as it will become “oh, you don’t have the health care plan we approved, well that means you don’t get 4G speed this year.” Or, if you’re a “known agitator” (read, conservative) who they want to silence, your “crimes” go public and you’re not allowed to be online as much as those who tow the party line. It’s a simple process and couched in “neutrality” so as to not be recognized.

Simply put, Barack Obama appointed the man who just voted (along with another person) to end a massive government regulatory practice, so it’s all because of Trump. Barack Obama named the seven countries we are currently not accepting travel from, but because Trump signed the order, it’s a Muslim ban. Trump could follow Obama’s playbook to the letter, and because it’s not their savior doing it, all would be horrible. This is what we see every time government moves to lessen restrictions, taxes, etc. Because we now have less of big brother, the left loses their mind because they can’t control us. They know that the vast majority of Americans actually paying taxes aren’t liberal, so the “charitable” work they do (Planned Parenthood and other liberal organizations) will be lessened, and actual charitable work (soup kitchens, food pantries, etc) will go up, but those are “bad” because they’re run by Churches. You know, those evil organizations that teach you that your actions have consequences?

Look back to the 1980’s and Reaganomics. I was only 4 when he was first sworn in as President, but I do remember that gas was cheap, food was cheap, we didn’t want for much at all, and what I did “want for” were things my parents said no to, not due to money, but because they decided I didn’t need it. This, however, is the perfect example, as being told no is what liberals can’t stand. They are the eternal toddlers, screaming for ice cream for breakfast, then crying and throwing a fit when given anything else. They’ve grown up being told that conservatives are evil because they don’t “tolerate alternative lifestyles,” when in reality tolerate is the perfect word. I count myself a rather conservative person, and while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and thus, without repentance and working to no longer choose that lifestyle, will result in the person spending eternity in hell, I don’t let that color my judgement when I look for people to hire, contractors to use, etc. I’ve worked and gone to school with people I know are gay, I’ve supervised them and been supervised by them, and never had any trouble, as them being gay never affected work.

What I have had happen is I’ve been propositioned by men, only to be told I’m homophobic because I said “I’m not gay” because I wasn’t willing to “try it.” I looked one in the eyes and said “I thought it wasn’t a choice? I thought you just are or aren’t, but you’re telling me I need to try it? Are you saying it is a choice?” When I threw the big argument back into his face, he hissed and almost attacked me, but eventually lied to try to get me fired, only to be fired himself because he’d been coming on to all guys in the store since his hiring. He then sued for “homophobia” and ranted when the evidence proved him wrong. His attitude is that the world must do all it can to make him happy and damn everyone else. When told no, he couldn’t accept it, and did all he could to force those telling him no to change their course.

This is the same with Net Neutrality, liberals got a golden ticket to report everything they hate as “hate speech,” or “offensive,” or “racist,” for two years, and now they can’t handle that the government is saying they can’t. They’re screaming that it’s the end of the internet, when in fact it’s a new beginning, as without it, sites like Gab can actually compete with Twitter (I know I didn’t link Twitter) rather than be choked by government regulations, meaning their safe haven is now in danger of being driven down by a competitor, and they can’t have that. Oddly, the very people driven away by their reports are the ones going to competitors, but that’s only bad because they don’t just want us gone, they want us completely silenced, and without big brother to help, they can’t.

So, the ultimate question here is simple, if you own a business of any kind, do you want more government intrusion or less?

Hate Speech/Fighting Words

We already know the Supreme Court has ruled that “hate speech” is not a thing, and as predicted, the snowflakes at UC Berkeley promptly kept assaulting people for daring to invite, or even consider inviting, speakers they don’t approve, to groups they aren’t members of. The UCB College Republicans are, finally, getting tired to it, and calling on the college to protect them as they protect the criminals assaulting them.

Well, I’ve recently started doing two things, if the left is doing something they demand others not do, I make sure they see me doing it as much as possible, just as anything they say no one can do, I do it. We are fighting for the future of our country, against people who won’t just change things a bit, but who will utterly destroy everything about it, replacing it with a communist nation where all who don’t bow to them are killed, those who do, but aren’t the right type of person are forced to work to pay for the “free” things they say are rights. We’ve seen that in the USSR and still see it in North Korea, and trust me, no one in their right mind would ever support that.

As they are showing their disdain for the law, by demanding “sanctuary cities,” by praising a verdict where an illegal immigrant who killed an American was not convicted, and where they assault people for speech while screaming about the Bill of Rights, and far more. Well, here’s my plan, and I personally see it scaring the hell out of anyone I use it on.

The next time I’m told, in person of course, that Trump is Hitler, or any of the other talking points, I’m going to immediately tell that person they’ve just used hate speech, or fighting words, to assault me and I’m just defending myself. Now, as I’m six foot one, about 240lbs, and don’t look “fat,” you can imagine the reaction. When they scream about their rights, I’ll ask about the rights of those being forcibly silenced. If the idiot is wearing or otherwise showing support for the antifa cowards, I’ll bring up UCB.

This crap has to stop, about 10 years ago, I was debating economic models, for an assignment in Economics, when an idiot called me racist. I told him to get lost, we were discussing a class assignment, and he grabbed me. I quickly had him in a “very uncomfortable” hold and told the Campus Police officer who came over that yes, I’d been assaulted. This was the start of the “you can’t say anything I don’t approve of” mindset, as he argued I was racist and assaulted him even after the video of him starting things, him grabbing me, and me using a very mild hold. You could show video of MS13 thanking Hillary for letting them in illegally as they go down a line of children shooting them, and the liberals would rant about the need to disarm the law abiding or the need for the “dreamers” to be made citizens so they can make something of themselves, ignoring all that proves them wrong.

So, who’s with me? Who thinks we can maybe convince a few of their idiocy, or at least get them to shut up, if we start using their tactics, or will they demand we be arrested for what they routinely say is their right?


Today the FCC voted 3 to 2 in favor of reversing regulations put in place just over 2 years ago. Just as with any attempt to repeal the ACA, the left is going overboard on their predictions for what will be next. This time, rather than MILLIONS WILL DIE, it’s THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT IS DEAD. Personally, I am a fan of as little government as possible, and this, so far, has proven to be the best course of action as long as I’ve watched. Health care existed long before the ACA, and will exist after it, just not funded by tax dollars. In the early 1970’s, my parents had my Sister, later I came along, then my Brother. I don’t remember ever hearing about my parents having to pay off their bills from the hospital from this, nor was it horrible if I chipped a tooth, got sick, one of us got hurt, we just went to the Dr/Dentist, our insurance covered a huge portion of the bill, and we paid the rest, normally out of pocket, not being billed. For example, I had to have my wisdom teeth removed around 2003, and while the procedure was very expensive, needing an oral surgeon and anesthesiologist, I paid under $100 for the entire thing, including the pain killer I was given for the first few days. Fast forward to 3 years ago, I needed 2 teeth extracted, no surgeon, but I was knocked out, and I was billed, after insurance, over $500. The only real change, the ACA passed in 2012, and as many predicted, costs went up for the consumer.

Now, look at 2015, when Net Neutrality was enacted. At the time, we didn’t have any option but a small cable company, but we paid about $30 a month to our ISP, now it’s almost $60. Regulations put a burden on the provider, and they will always pass costs onto the consumer. Yes, it’s possible that ISP’s may decide they don’t want to make it easy to watch Netflix, or that they don’t like certain websites, and I don’t agree with that practice, but the market should decide, not government, what a business may or may not do. What if the provider notices that between 5 and 8 at night, their speed is killed, and most customers are on Netflix. They see that they don’t have the ability to handle that traffic, so they limit speed to compensate, choosing to limit so as to not burden those working, or doing other things. What if a college is their own ISP and chooses to limit Netflix so the library and other public terminals don’t see a slow down? In this case I’m for it. The common thread, their customers should be who decides what happens. In the first case, their customers complain, the company gives the equivalent of a shrug, their customers start switching to another provider. This ISP sees their actions losing them money, they either reverse the change, or they suffer and eventually go out of business. Think back to AOL. They censored e-mail messages critical of them, blocked some competitors’ sites/apps, and more. They are now gone, with only the holdouts with e-mail addresses as proof they once ruled the internet. Comcast decided they wanted to limit Netflix so users had to use their VOD service, now customers, instead of whining to the government and getting them to force Comcast to do what they want, will just need to switch. The advent of fiber and other technologies, simply put, means no more “we’re your only choice” for customers. The second option? The college says they are giving free internet access to help with course work, with Net Neutrality in place, the government tells them they aren’t allowed to block or limit sites even though they don’t charge, students force a college that gave them free connections to reverse a good practice. Without Net Neutrality, the college can say “we’re giving you free internet to use to study, you want Netflix, you can pay for the connection” and the students can whine and moan, but the college keeps a good practice.

Simply put, deregulation is a good thing in my mind. It always starts small, by the government simply getting out of businesses’ way, but look at the two industries most affected by past deregulation, telephone (not cell phones) and power. Growing up we had no choice but to use Southwestern Bell and TXU. Our bill could go up without notice, and they just grinned and said their costs went up. Deregulation happened, and now we have one company running the infrastructure and many running the service side. SBT, ATT, and others pay the line company, just as TXU, Reliant, and others do with Oncor in North Texas, and then sell that to consumers. As they have to compete, and the delivery company doesn’t have to worry about pricing and such, both sides benefit. TXU sells at a price low enough to entice people away from the other guys, just as SBT or ATT does, and they make some profit in the process.

Well, cable TV/Internet is the dinosaur in this scenario. Fiber is still very new on the scene, and DSL or other telephone delivery options are dying, as they should, as a technology. Sadly, only one cable provider is available in an area, for my area it’s a tiny company, while the majority of my county is Charter with a portion of it being Time Warner. As there is no competition other than Satellite/Internet for TV, they’re pretty safe. They lose my $40 or $50 a month TV plan, they still get my money for internet, which I need to watch my new TV provider. Google is working to come into new areas with Google Fiber, but having to install all the infrastructure, they’re putting out a lot of money, so they aren’t really competitive. They also are doing the same as cable companies, charging based on your speed. If Net Neutrality happens the way it’s cheerleaders want, they’ll all be told you can only charge one price, and have one package. Do you think they’ll choose the highest speed at the lowest cost? Of course not, they’ll find out the lowest speed they can get away with delivering, and charge as much as possible for it.

Yes, there will be growing pains, such as Congress having the ability to tell the FCC they can’t remove a regulatory and financial burden from companies, or those companies deciding to limit what is the most taxing on their servers, but rather than tell the government to “make it better,” why not look to the Elon Musk’s of the world and ask for a better option. In a climate so totally controlled and locked down by the government, ingenuity is stifled. Why come up with a better way to do things when you’ll not be able to afford to sell it? With this move, Musk is free to come up with a better option and sell it cheaper, which means the other guys start trying to beat that tech and sell it cheaper. The free market works people, it always has. Health care before the ACA was as cheap as possible, because Aetna knew if they didn’t treat me right, I’d switch to BCBS or another provider. ATT did me wrong on my cell plan, so I went to Sprint for 20 years, until they did too, and I moved to another provider.

Aside from wanting the government out of as much of my life as possible, I can also attest to the fact that it works not only socially, as I don’t like being told I must buy an approved health care plan, which is all but useless, but also the plans cost less, and have the needed amenities. Net Neutrality being gone means your provider must now earn your continued business, the crutch of “regulations require us to do this” is gone, and now they have to prove they’re going to do what the customer wants.

I’ve said it on every thread and story I see about health care or Net Neutrality, socialism fails every time, not because the idea is flawed, but because mankind is, and whenever you have anything socially controlled, someone at the top decides that because they’re running the show, they deserve more. Huxley warned us about dependence on technology, while Orwell warned of socialism and big brother. Sadly, both were right. We’re now so hooked on our devices for everything, that we believe the socialists when they tell us we have a “right” to be equal, so they regulate the crap out of an industry, while of course none of the rules apply to those running things. They don’t apply to the “leaders” because, simply, the “all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others” mantra has become entrenched into the minds of those in power.

We need to get a completely new group of Representatives and Senators, and keep them as short a time as possible, to avoid that mindset, and we need to tell those selling us our daily fix of entertainment that we can get along without them, showing them that if they want us to pay, they need to make it very enticing. I’m perfectly willing to go back to books and music for a year or so, to show the Comcasts of the world they aren’t entitled to my money, only to sell a product, and hope I buy it. I’m just sadly fighting an uphill battle where the stone slips every time against a population of people half my age, dead set that I’m wrong, and evil for not agreeing with them, in fact some days, trying to inject common sense and logic isn’t preferable to pushing that rock and failing every time.

And yet again, the reaction to everything is…..

We saw it with the ACA and now we see it with Net Neutrality, and even more telling in the push to rule the U.S. as tyrants is shown in Alabama as what the left wants is demanded at all costs.

Starting last November, as we saw in 2000, only louder, was an instant demand to do away with the Electoral College, which would allow NYC, LA and a few other cities to decide for the entire country every four years. When the GOP led House and Senate began introducing bills (that failed until recently) which would repeal the ACA, especially after the election which gave the GOP the House, Senate and White House, the screaming was intense that they “weren’t allowed” to do it.

Tuesday’s election in Alabama is rife with corruption, such as a city with barely 1000 people seeing 26,000 votes cast, yet any attempt to get the fraud out, and allow the people of Alabama to elect who they want is called “voter suppression” or “denying the voters who they wanted.” Videos are all over social media where people admit they came from out of state to vote, but as the left wants Jones, they scream that it’s over, get over it, let them have what they stole.

Move to Net Neutrality, which is NOT going to be the FCC doing anything than taking the reigns off, and they are already emailing out “the FCC voted, let’s overrule it.” That’s the exact subject of one I just received, blatantly saying “let’s change what they did legally to what we want.” I’ve said it many times, but I’m likely nowhere near done as people don’t listen when the message isn’t “here’s everything you want” so I’ll keep saying it. The internet was around before 2015 and no ISP banned sites or gouged on price based on what sites a customer visited, at least not in the U.S. What didn’t happen though, was what we’re seeing on sites like Twitter or Facebook, where conservatives are targeted and “shadow banned” or outright banned from the site, because liberals report them for “hate speech” while ignoring people actively calling for assaults and worse. With the regulations in place, Twitter is free to stop me saying I’m pro-life because some snowflake decides that’s “a violation of their first amendment rights” or some other idiocy. With the regulations gone, the FCC is not going to just say “good luck” and leave, but rather will do what they were created for, actually working to police censorship and abuse, which comes almost completely from the left side of the aisle.

But of course, any deviation from the liberal mantra is cause for your death. I have been with my company for 5 years, and in that time I’ve learned one thing, I don’t discuss much at all at work. I’m fairly sure that 99% of those I work with voted against President Trump, and are in complete agreement with all that the DNC says, as I’ve been hearing nothing but “now they’ll charge you more to use Netflix” and the like. Only one person has spoken in defense of the decision to shrink the government, and he was all but laughed out of the building. So, I’ll say it one more time before I end, ending “net neutrality” is NOT going to mean that your bill will be 10 times higher because you want to watch Netflix, you will not be censored for being a non-white non-male. This is not the end of the world, we had internet for years before this, now we’re just going back to it, which will be a good thing!