Trump’s First Year: A Year in Review

The House on the Hill just passed the bill, which seems like a big deal.

Still, the media has decided it’s been a bad year for Trump. As the year ends, the hacks must splice together their annual scorecards. And yes, they confirm Trump did badly.

Well, except for ISIS. Getting rid of ISIS, that’s a good thing. We destroyed modern-day Nazis.

But other than that, it was bad year for Trump — except for the judges, Gorsuch and all those other strong appointments.

But anyway, terrible year from Trump — except for the economy and stock market’s on fire, consumer confidence, it’s soaring.

But beyond that, it has been awful — except for the new energy policy, the approved pipeline, the new drilling, the spread of fracking, gas prices flat as a pancake.

But I’m telling you, it is still a bad year. I would hate to be Trump. He has got no singular achievements. Well, OK, there is that tax bill which granted has been improved since its first draft.

But it’s just been a lousy year — except for the improved relations with China and Russia, India, the Saudis, Israel.

But it’s really been a downer for Donny boy. Did I leave anything out aside from deregulation, ditching the accords, repealing the mandate? Oh, and also, driving Eminem nuts? That’s kind of awesome.

So what’s the lesson from Trump’s bad year? That when compiling your year-end condemnations of Donald Trump, it’s a lot harder than it looks. What started out as evil was downgraded to incompetent, and now it looks pretty effective.

No wonder the media looked so sad, which has now been downgraded to miserable.

Advertisements

GOP Announces Sweeping New Plan To Lose All Senate Seats By 2020 (Satire)

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Inspired by the near-impossible loss of an Alabama Senate seat to a liberal Democrat, the Republican Party Wednesday unveiled a sweeping new plan to lose all of its Senate seats within the next four years.

Laying the groundwork for the plan, the GOP will select a slate of horrible candidates they will support from the primaries all the way through the final tally, no matter what awful revelations about their past come to light.

“If we just continue picking and backing terrible candidates, we’ll be sure to hit our goal,” RNC chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel said in an exclusive interview on Fox News. “We’ll stand by them all the way from the time they’re nominated through the moment we lose the Senate seat we could easily have won with any half-decent candidate.”

“This is the start of a big new relaunch for the GOP, in which we’ll alienate all of our constituents and lose all of our clout in absolutely no time at all,” she added.

According to inside sources, the Republicans have already floated several candidates to begin their devastating Senate loss campaign, with surefire losers like a resurrected zombie Adolf Hitler, former football star O.J. Simpson, and a half-eaten bag of pork rinds all getting full GOP support for Senate races in the coming years.


Disclaimer: The above story is satire. It is completely fictitious.

Feminist Lists 10 Questions Feminists Should Ask On A First Date…Allow Me To Answer Them

Thanks to the mainstream media’s love affair with modern feminism, I am constantly swamped with the chief social justice movement’s rhetoric, opinion, and asinine belief system. What should be a background group filled with insane ideas and beliefs is one that, given the choice, people would only look at when they need a laugh.

Take for instance the list of questions feminist Lara Witt came up with. Witt believes that in order to really like somebody, you first have to like their politics. Who they are as a person is not a factor, apparently.

In order to make sure that any good feminist can get close to anyone — if anyone is willing to undergo the labor of trying to get close to one — Witt came up with ten questions that must be asked of every date to make sure they’re a good “ally” in an article for the site Everyday Feminism titled “10 Things Every Intersectional Feminist Should Ask On a First Date.

“As a queer femme of color, I keep close relationships with people who go beyond allyship; they’re true accomplices in the fight against white supremacy, queerphobia, and misogyny,” wrote Witt. “If you’re not going to support marginalized folks, then we can’t be friends, let alone date. The personal is political.”

Witt can preemptively count on a hard “no” from me when it comes to having a relationship with her.

Regardless, I felt the need to answer her questions. I feel it will save her some time in the long run, seeing as how not many men — and I mean men in the actual sense of the term, not the “men” who subscribe to her intersectional Gestapo’s belief system — are going to answer the same way I do.

1. Do you believe that Black Lives Matter?

Yes, insofar as they’re included in the importance of the lives of white people, brown people, red people, yellow people, and purple people if they exist. I’m not going to play the game of holding up one race as more worthy of sympathy, handouts, or attention. No race will become a sacred cow for me.

But that said, I do believe black lives matter, which is why I analyze the problems in our obviously troubled black communities and withdraw facts that may be hard to hear. I then fashion solutions from these facts.

For one, I believe the black community suffers from a serious welfare dependency that breeds a whole host of problems. It encourages fatherless homes as mothers are rewarded for being single mothers with multiple children sans a husband. Seventy-two percent of black children are born out of wedlock.  These fatherless children are more prone to behavior problems, leading to becoming criminals that wind up incarcerated.

I care about black lives, so I’m willing to strip the welfare system and change it to reward work, not turning black children into cash cows. I’m for school choice so that black children have the opportunity to be taken to a much better school than the one they’re left to.

If you’re not for those, maybe you mean well, but the facts say I care more about black lives than our intersectional feminist does.

2. What are your thoughts on gender and sexual orientation?

What you do is your business. Just don’t make it mine. Don’t force people to bake cakes, or punish people for misgendering you. Don’t fashion mobs that attack people for not believing that you’re a man when you’re clearly a woman. Don’t go to schools to teach children about anal sex, or make LGBT focuses a lesson plan.

I don’t care about what gender you want to get busy with, just don’t make me applaud you for it. I won’t. Being queer doesn’t make you special.

3. How do you work to dismantle sexism and misogyny in your life?

I don’t. Being a good person to others should suffice. However, I’m not going to award special privileges to a female when I’m conversing or working with them. If they do something I find disagreeable, I’m going to either call them out or not bother with them. I’m not going to give them deference in everything first just because they are female. My being a male doesn’t mean I need to stand back because “privilege.”

I’m going to be as chivalrous as possible because the concept was cooked up with our differences in mind, and the concept has served us well for eons. Being a woman will definitely make me treat you differently, however being a woman doesn’t make you special. My sister, my mother, and few other female friends and family are special. Beyond those women, you’re just a person first, and a woman second.

This doesn’t make me sexist, it makes me a polite human being.

4. What are your thoughts on sex work?

Fiscally, I’m a libertarian. If you want to sell your body for sex, that’s your prerogative, but don’t make me pay for your birth control, STD tests, etcetera. I’m not your keeper.

5. Are you a supporter of the BDS movement?

I’m not going to boycott the one presence in the Middle East that has a capitalist system, holds free and fair elections, and does not support terrorists who have the murder of innocent people written into their mission statements. Also, Israel is the shining beacon on the hill in the Middle East for women’s rights. Why are you wanting to punish them in favor of cultures that believe women should have about as many rights as the goat they milk?

I thought you were a feminist. What’s up with your failure to support women in the Middle East?

6. What is your understanding of settler colonialism and indigenous rights?

I think people have been settling, colonizing, warring, and fighting for land since the Neanderthals. Before the Spanish, Europeans, and whoever else showed up to the Americas, indigenous American tribes were killing each other for all sorts of reasons, but one of them being territory. I’m not saying it’s good or right, but just because Native Americans were on the losing side of activities they also participated in, it doesn’t make the colonization of America wrong, especially today. I’m just as American as the guy living on an Indian reservation.

And if you really want to improve the lives of Native Americans, it’s those Indian reservations that have to go. Why? Because they interfere with property rights. Few residents actually have them, which lead to a whole host of problems, including the inability to improve their land or use it to make money. This leads to dilapidation and horrible conditions.  This is just one of the problems, but allowing reservation residents to actually own the land they live on as individuals would do some serious good.

7. Do you think capitalism is exploitative?

Yes, and thank God for that. Exploiting the market leads to innovation, improvement, and expansion. This results in more jobs, which lift people out of poverty. If people are willing to work for a lower wage to make a product, then they should be allowed to work that wage and improve their own lives little by little.

Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system the world has ever seen for lifting poor people out of poverty and improving the quality of life for everyone and everything it touches.

8. Can any human be illegal?

Yes. If they aren’t here legally, they’re illegal. If they are here illegally they should work to change that status if they want to be legal.

The reason they’re illegal is oftentimes that their non-integration into the American system while simultaneously benefiting off it creates a whole host of problems. None of it has to do with hatred of race, and everything to do with economics and safety.

9. Do you support Muslim Americans and non-Muslim people from Islamic countries?

In the regard that they’re here legally, peacefully, and usefully? Absolutely. However if that means open borders to anyone who wants to come here from Islamic countries, then let’s slow it down. I only need to look at Europe’s crime problem to see that importing from Islamic countries willy-nilly is a bad idea.

For instance, sex crimes by migrants in Germany doubled in 2016, and you’ll find similar stories in many countries that allowed open migration from the Middle East. Every place that has done that has suffered serious crime and sexual assault problems.

10. Does your allyship include disabled folks?

Firstly, I’m not an ally of any social group. Someone doesn’t get my loyalty and service simply because they’re disabled, or a woman, or black, so on and so forth. I operate on an individual basis, meaning if you’re a good person, you can rely on me to help you if I can spare the time or resources.

Secondly, I’m going to have to have you clarify what “disabled” means. I’m sure people in wheelchairs, the blind, deaf, and mentally challenged are included in this, but heading to Tumblr, I can see the social justice crowd likes to throw all sorts of additional maladies into the category.

I’ve seen people say they identify as having multiple personality disorder but just reading their blog, I can tell they far from suffer from that. They treat it like a fun game. I’ve seen folk say their transgenderism is a disability too. I’ve seen people who claim their being female is a disability.

Clean up your definitions, and I’ll see if I’m willing to help.

Insane Obsession of President Trump’s “Insanity”

Have you heard the one about the clinically insane commander-in-chief?

If not, you just haven’t been watching enough CNN and MSNBC.  Those networks, along with some anti-Trump print outlets, have been gleefully and repeatedly questioning the president’s mental stability.

This is another effort by hard-core leftists to somehow get Donald Trump out of the Oval Office.  Immediately after last year’s election there were allegations of voter fraud, followed by the absurd hope that some Trump electors would break faith and vote for Hillary Clinton.

Then Trump’s legion of enemies settled on Russia and “collusion,” which they believed would finally nail the coffin shut on Donald Trump’s presidency.  But barring something unforeseen, allegations of collusion are going nowhere.  That’s why the left has recently swung from collusion to “obstruction of justice.”

Throughout all this there has been another ominous undercurrent that the left believes could pull President Trump beneath the water.  That is the notion that he is insane.  Literally.

MSNBC’s Morning Joe and his merry band of armchair shrinks have been leading the way.  Joe Scarborough has decided that President Trump is “completely detached from reality” and perhaps in the “early stages of dementia.”

Co-host Mika Brzezinski and the regular guests, following Joe’s lead as always, also question the president’s mental fitness.

Not to be outdone, CNN’s Brian Stelter has tried to boost his anemic ratings by implying that the president of the United States is off his rocker.  He recently sat spellbound as a historian declared that there is “a sick man in the White House.”

TV hosts and publicity-seeking historians are free to think and say whatever they want, no matter how irresponsible.  But things get dicier when mental health “professionals” race to analyze the president from afar.

Last weekend, MSNBC welcomed psychologist Bandy Lee, who bandied about some truly reprehensible implications.  “We must act soon,” she warned, because “things will get worse.”  Lee actually declared that President Trump is “mentally falling apart” and warned that he will “likely become violent.”

Evidently the esteemed Dr. Lee has never heard of the “Goldwater Rule,” which was enacted by the American Psychiatric Association after scores of shrinks questioned the sanity of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.  According to that edict, it is unethical and irresponsible for a mental health professional to diagnose a person they have never met.

So who’s nuttier?  President Trump, who by all accounts commands the respect of his closest aides, or Bandy Lee, who smashed her professional code of ethics just to get a little face time on TV?

The goal of all this is, as always, to get President Trump out of the White House.  The best mechanism to do that, his antagonists now believe, is the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1967.

Under Article Four, a president can be removed when the Vice President and a majority of Cabinet secretaries deem their boss to be “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Donald Trump is certainly an unusual president, which is putting it mildly.  His tweets, jokes, and comments can be strikingly odd.  But he was making those same tweets, jokes, and comments during last year’s campaign.  His unconventional behavior was a major force behind his victory, and that behavior simply hasn’t changed.

His foes are desperately trying to find some way, any way, to overturn the results of the election.  Their efforts began last November 9th and they have not stopped.

Nor are they likely to stop any time soon.  If the Republicans hold the House next year, hopes for impeachment are pretty much gone unless Robert Mueller comes up with a smoking cannon.  Even if Democrats take the House, it will require two-thirds of the Senate to actually convict the president and remove him from office.

So if impeachment is nearly impossible, the bitter clingers only have the 25th Amendment on which to pin their fading hopes.  Trump-loathers in the media are trying to lay the groundwork with all this reckless talk about insanity.

Do they really think Mike Pence and the majority of the Cabinet will stage a coup against a man they genuinely seem to respect?

Now that is a true sign of insanity.

Robert Mueller and His Credibility Problem

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.

Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent.

There is no justification for withholding all of this from Congress, which is also investigating Russian influence and has constitutional oversight authority. Justice and the FBI have continued to defy legal subpoenas for documents pertaining to both surveillance warrants and the infamous Steele dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and relied on anonymous Russian sources.

While there is no evidence so far of Trump-Russia collusion, House investigators have turned up enough material to suggest that anti-Trump motives may have driven Mr. Comey’s FBI investigation. The public has a right to know whether the Steele dossier inspired the Comey probe, and whether it led to intrusive government eavesdropping on campaign satellites such as Carter Page.

All of this reinforces my doubts about Mr. Mueller’s ability to conduct a fair and credible probe of the FBI’s considerable part in the Russia-Trump drama. Mr. Mueller ran the bureau for 12 years and is fast friends with Mr. Comey, whose firing by Mr. Trump triggered his appointment as special counsel. The reluctance to cooperate with a congressional inquiry compounds doubts related to this clear conflict of interest.

Mr. Mueller’s media brigade argues that anyone critical of the special counsel is trying to cover for Mr. Trump. But the alleged Trump-Russia ties are the subject of numerous probes—Mr. Mueller’s, and those of various committees in the House and Senate. If there is any evidence of collusion, Democrats and Mr. Mueller’s agents will make sure it is spread far and wide.

Yet none of this means the public shouldn’t also know if, and how, America’s most powerful law-enforcement agency was influenced by Russia or partisan U.S. actors. All the more so given Mr. Comey’s extraordinary intervention in the 2016 campaign, which Mrs. Clinton keeps saying turned the election against her. The history of the FBI is hardly without taint.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, is also playing an increasingly questionable role in resisting congressional oversight. Justice has floated multiple reasons for ignoring House subpoenas, none of them persuasive.

First it claimed cooperation would hurt the Mueller probe, but his prosecutions are proceeding apace. Then Justice claimed that providing House investigators with classified material could hurt security or sources. But House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has as broad a security clearance as nearly anyone in government. Recently Justice said it can’t interfere with a probe by the Justice Department Inspector General—as if an IG trumps congressional oversight.

Mr. Nunes is understandably furious at the Strzok news, on top of the other stonewalling. He asked Justice to meet the rest of his committee’s demands by close of business Monday, and if it refuses Congress needs to pursue contempt citations against Mr. Rosenstein and new FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The latest news supports my view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible. The investigation would surely continue, though perhaps with someone who doesn’t think his job includes protecting the FBI and Mr. Comey from answering questions about their role in the 2016 election.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: LGBT Advocates Seek to Abandon a Vital Constitutional Right

phillips
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips cracks eggs into a cake batter mixer in 2014 inside his store in Lakewood, Colorado. U.S. Supreme Court justices will hear arguments December 5th on whether a baker who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

In 2012, two men asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop (a bakery in Colorado), to create a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex marriage. Phillips told the couple that he would gladly sell them any of the premade baked items in his store or create a cake for them for another occasion, but he was unable to create a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. The couple left the store and, shortly thereafter, filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

In 2014, the Commission determined that Phillips’s artistic freedom didn’t extend to a choice not to celebrate same-sex marriage (a strange and remarkable decision given the Commission’s subsequent deference toward cake artists who declined to create cakes expressing disapproval of same-sex marriage). The Commission ordered Phillips to celebrate same-sex marriages through his artistic designs to the same extent he celebrates any other marriage. This order forced Phillips out of the wedding industry, which has cost him about forty percent of his business and left him struggling to keep his family business afloat.

The Commission also instructed him to teach his staff, which includes his family members, that he was wrong to operate his business consistently with his religious beliefs. Finally, it directed Phillips to file quarterly reports with the government for two years, explaining to state officials when and why he declined any commissioned order. In other words, Phillips was ordered to provide a defense every time he exercised his First Amendment right to be free from compelled expression. The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the commission’s ruling in 2015.

Phillips is going to the Supreme Court to vindicate not only his own First Amendment rights, but also the freedom of other artists to decline to celebrate events or express ideas that they do not support. Thus, freedom for Phillips is freedom for all artists.

As the December 5th oral argument date for his case grows near, the drumbeat proclaiming Jack Phillips must be forced to create a same-sex wedding cake against his conscience grows louder.

The most important consideration in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, we are told, is eliminating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Finally, the state and its defenders claim, the emotional harm felt by prospective customers upon hearing someone disagrees with their actions for religious reasons cannot be tolerated either.

Yet none of what we are being told here is true. First, no “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” has occurred in this case at all.

Phillips is not opposed to serving people who identify as homosexual; he simply objects to the celebration for which he is asked to create a cake — the same-sex wedding.

This becomes even clearer when we understand that Phillips will not create a wedding cake for two men even if they claim a heterosexual orientation, but will create a cake for a wedding between a man and a woman despite them identifying as homosexual.

Thus, Phillips is not acting based on the sexual orientation of his prospective customers; he’s only opposed to what they are celebrating, and asking to not be forced to be a part of it.

The cost of protecting this freedom is minimal, only entailing some offense on the part of the prospective customers, who will now have to go elsewhere to find a cake, most couples inquire with multiple shops anyway, for their wedding ceremony.

The two men who initiated the legal case against Phillips could have visited any one of sixty seven other bakeries in the Denver area willing to create their cake, including one only a tenth of a mile from the Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Instead, they filed complaints against Phillips with the state, which followed up by suing him. But in light of all these providers happy to create the cake, is it really necessary to force Jack Phillips to be the one to do so?

The would-be customers, after getting over their offense at Phillips’s beliefs, could have traveled 500 feet down the street to obtain their cake from someone happy to provide it.

Instead, they want to force Jack Phillips to create it, meanwhile, they had already obtained one free of charge from another bakery by the time they filed charges against Phillips.

Unfortunately, this coercion comes with the heavy price of forcing Phillips to violate his conscience or shutting down wedding cake operations and possibly going out of business.

At a recent practice oral argument, the American Civil Liberties Union claimed that this case is about “full and equal participation in civic life,” and if Phillips wants to say “God blesses this union” for any wedding, he must be forced to say it for all weddings.

Yet if those who want the government to punish Masterpiece Cakeshop get their way, Phillips and many like him around the country will themselves be excluded from full and equal participation in civic life.

Allowing religious business owners to continue to operate their businesses according to their deeply held religious beliefs will not push those identifying as homosexual out of society. However, forcing business owners to violate their beliefs could force many religious individuals out of the marketplace.

The Supreme Court should keep this in mind as it decides this case in the upcoming months.

The Problem With Net Neutrality

When the idea was created in 2002 by leftist college professor Tim Wu, Net Neutrality was just four innocuous things:

  • Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
  • Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
  • Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
  • Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

But as with oh-so-many things devised by the left, Net Neutrality sounds good, but isn’t. It is, in fact, a terrible idea, for a whole host of reasons.

It is always a bad idea to have government enforce, especially what the private sector is already enforcing without government. You never want government involved, unless you absolutely can not help it.

All of these four Net Neutrality things were being adhered to at the time Net Neutrality was coined and created. And they have all been adhered to each and every day since.

So Net Neutrality was and is totally unnecessary. So any government enforcement thereof is totally unnecessary.

Net Neutrality is a solution running around, in chicken-headless-fashion, blindly looking for a problem.

But that’s not why Wu created it. The left saw the private sector Internet take off like a rocket, totally government-free. The left desperately needed a fairy tale to convince people to allow the burying of government hooks into the Internet, so as to then reel it back in.

That fairy tale is Net Neutrality. We’ll let another leftist college professor, Robert McChesney, explain what then:

“At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

How very Venezuela of them.

Net Neutrality’s “ultimate goal” is to have government be the only way you can connect to the Internet.

How very China-North Korea-Iran-Saudi Arabia of them.

Net Neutrality has always been the left’s Trojan Horse, to get the government into the Internet, with the “ultimate goal” of a total government takeover.

Which is what the Barack Obama Administration executed in 2015. Under the false rubric of “Net Neutrality”, the Obama Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pretended to be Congress and totally rewrote existing telecommunications law.

Congress had in the 1996 Telecommunications Act classified the Internet as Title I. Which leaves the Internet largely unmolested by government, no coincidence that the internet did so very, very well.

Obama’s FCC, without Congress, “reclassified” the Internet to Title II  which was created by the 1934 Telecommunications Act. Because we all know that 1934 Congressional intent was to regulate something that wouldn’t be created for another sixty years.

Title II is for landline telephones. The telephone network bears just about zero resemblance to the Internet network. The Internet network is significantly more complex.

So why did Obama’s FCC do this? Because the FCC has HUGE regulatory (and taxing) powers in Title II. They have just about none in Title I.

Having the government regulate the Internet like a telephone will cripple the Internet. And shrink it back down to phone network size, scope and power.

(See also: Obamacare driving private health insurance providers out of the Obamacare network.)

Which, again, is what the left actually wants. Kill the private providers, ultimately leaving us with government as our only one.

Thankfully, the Donald Trump FCC is in the process of undoing the Obama reclassification power grab. Which has led to this last fortnight’s left-media freakout.

Repeated again and again in the freakout is the “Net Neutrality” Trojan Horse lie, with endless mentions of the the harmless “Net Neutrality” but with zero mentions of the accompanying HUGE power grab.

Leaving out the HUGE power grab allows the left-media to dishonestly portray the Trump FCC as “tools of the Internet providers.”

Rather than as what the Trump FCC actually is: reasoned, reasonable steward of 1/6th of our entire economy.

Restoring the pre-Obama-power-grab status quo will allow the private sector to deliver us the free speech-free market, that is the government-free Internet.

This is really very good news – no matter what the leftist “news” media says.