Inside the King Hearing

Lisa Piraneo

This ACT for America update about Rep. Peter King’s (R-NY) inquiry into the radicalization of Muslim-Americans and/or homegrown Islamic terrorism is written by Lisa Piraneo. Piraneo managed to barely make it into the overflow room to witness the questions of Democrats and Republicans of the hearing in question.


Piraneo’s observations show me the Democrats are hell bent to turn a blind eye to what is happening with Islamic radicalization in America. The Committee Democrats were just plain hostile and rude to testifying Muslims who do not appreciate the cruelty of Sharia Law.


JRH 3/11/11


Garfield cup coffee lg

A lot of folks can’t understand how we came    to have an oil shortage here in our country.
Well, there’s a very simple answer.
Nobody bothered to check the oil.
We just didn’t know we were getting low.
The reason for that is purely geographical.
Our OIL is located in:
Coastal   Florida
Coastal Louisiana
North Dakota
Our dipsticks are located in DC
Any Questions?  NO? Didn’t think So.


JRH 3/10/11 (Hat Tip: Stephen)


I received this as chain email. I may have even seen it before; however I enjoyed the humor. I hope you did as well.

Government Regulation of Net Neutrality Can’t be Good

John R. Houk

© December 3, 2010


The concept of Net Neutrality at face value is something that any Internet addict as I am would embrace as the last frontier of freedom in the 21st century.


The difficulty I have run into recently is that there appears to be a huge chunk of deception around the term “Net Neutrality”. There are the people that say Net Neutrality is an unregulated Internet free of government tentacles governed by the principles of Free Market competition. The idea of Free Market competition would be that Internet Service Providers (ISP) will charge based on the concept of supply and demand. The supply would be the Internet and the demand would be the consumers wanting availability to the Internet. In the days when the demand was smaller there was not a lot of options in creating markets to create diverse kinds of demand. Because of this the Internet has been neutral treating all users with equal access. The only market creation dial-up and broadband access to the Internet. Dial-up is typically slower and broadband is typically faster. The greater the demand for faster broadband became the first hurdle of ISPs to raise the price in a static market available to all.


At broadband’s first arrival its cost was a bit more than most consumers were willing to pay. However, the problems inherent in dial-up were more than just a slower speed. Dial-up encounter situations in which connections were dropped from the increasing growth of users on a dial-up line. Users were getting bumped from their connection because of the number of people online. As music and movie downloads became more popular (Does anyone remember Napster freedom?) it was discovered that slow dial-up was inadequate for downloading. Something might take a half-hour, an hour or hours to download. In some cases the download was interrupted by the evil of being bumped off line.


Demand then became greater for broadband. The increasing popularity of broadband made it affordable to many relegating dial-up to dirt cheap as the dial-up became less and less in demand. Then other market possibilities were developed by ISPs. High speed Internet began to be divided into slower high speed to faster high speed brackets. ISPs began to exclude competitors from what might take away from money making projects personal to an individual ISP.


This kind of market creation is the very thing that has made the term Net Neutrality a stinker.


The Obama Administration and BHO’s appointed Chairman of the FCC Julius Genachowski believe that the Internet should be regulated to keep Net Neutrality. Is government regulation good for Internet Net Neutrality? The best neutral analysis I have read about Genachowski’s Net Neutrality rules he wishes to implement have pluses and minuses:


Today, the FCC’s chairman will deliver a speech essentially outlining the agency’s stance on net neutrality—and making an exciting push in its favor. The news isn’t entirely positive though—net neutrality might be preserved, but it’ll be expensive.


FCC chief Julius Genachowski plans to back new government rules that would prohibit your ISP from blocking legal content. That means that Comcast, for example, couldn’t block Netflix, in an attempt to bolster its own streaming video offerings. The Washington Post is also reporting that Genachowski’s proposal would block Comcast from even slowing down Netflix. So, basically, these are the prime tenets of net neutrality. So this is good news! No anti-competitive behavior from ISPs.




In what appears to be a pretty major concession to the companies carrying your data, Genachowski’s speech will give the thumbs up to tiered internet service, establishing cheap-o plans for those leaning most on email and other data-light activities—and potentially gouging bandwidth-hungry users. Under this rule, ISPs would be able to restructure their business along the lines of cell carriers—buy more to get more.


Interestingly (and to some, disappointingly), the FCC has chosen not to throw down and impose its sole authority to regulate the internet by reclassifying its legal status as something similar to telephone lines. It’s a weaker approach—surely one easier to swallow for the ISPs—and one that’ll open up the push to attacks from courts and an anti-regulatory lawmakers.


As well, Genachowski will support separate, non-public internet channels—what many feared would become “second internets”—but says they must be justified to the FCC and shown to not undermine the real internet.


For wireless broadband—the frontier of the speedy net—things are a bit murkier. Genachowski says there are “differences between fixed and mobile broadband,” and will “address anticompetitive or anticonsumer behavior as appropriate.” Whatever “differences” and “as appropriate” means remains to be seen, although he’s still promising a basic ban against wireless broadband providers blocking rival content entirely. But weasel terms in policy making are never good news.


… (The FCC’s Net Neutrality Announcement: The Good, The Bad, and What It Means for You, Sam Biddle)


The neutral analysis seems to point out that FCC regulation is not so neutral for the Internet. The “preserved by expensive” explanation should be read more like, ‘preserved with some qualifications and expensive.’


Biddle’s explanation of preserved is that an ISP will be prohibited from blocking content from a rival ISP or a rival ISP’s subsidiary. However, data equality comes with broadband impositions of tiers that relate to how slow or how fast data is streamed to your connection. It sounds a bit like a compromise of equal access for Internet users but the users have to pay more for faster data such as data downloads or perhaps gaming. From a market stand point that really doesn’t bug me since I am a Net surfer for information more than downloading data or a data streams. I can see how gamers or those dependent on Entertainment downloads such as movies might be a bit disgruntled with institutionalizing higher priced tiers to effectively acquire the desired result.


My greatest concern with Government regulation of the Internet is the end of real Net Neutrality. Leftists and Democrats have been trying for a decade to end Conservative editorializing via Conservative blogging and Conservative Internet News. The Left has a near stranglehold on the Mainstream Media (MSM) of the traditional sort: Newspapers and Television. The Left realizes that Conservative resistance on the Internet has become a major cog in exposing Left Wing transformation that alters American society from its Christian/Founding Father roots by chipping away at the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. Silencing the Right greatly slows down the Left Wing agenda of making Biblical Christianity irrelevant and making the State the focal point of every American citizen’s life rather than allowing individuals to be involved in the decisions of their life.


The irony for me is that it seems that the Left is the prime mover against Government regulation within the concept of Net Neutrality.


Here are a couple Net Neutrality articles that I sense express my concerns of the entrance of Government regulation into the Internet: EDITORIAL: Wave goodbye to Internet freedom and “Fake Net Neutrality” Scheme Threatens Internet Freedom.



Homosexual Activists to Pound Lame Duck Congress

Lame Duck Toon

John R. Houk

© November 15, 2010


Homosexual activist are going to pour immense time and money into lobbying the Democratic Party lame duck Congressional majority to pass (or repeal if it has a pro-homosexual outcome) legislation before the Republican dominated House and the now highly strengthened Republican minority in the Senate can block morally bankrupt laws. Moral bankruptcy has already drawn a pall of darkness of this nation’s once mighty Christian heritage. has posted some information gleaned from Public Advocate for the United States which is a Pro-Family and Christian Values organization. The post is a call to rally for resistance to the Homosexual lobby from prevailing in their agenda to make a morally reprobate nation.


If you wish to fight for Pro-Family values and Christian Morality it is highly suggested you read the post and participate in the online petition and keep in touch with what other actions you can do for America.


JRH 11/15/10 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)

Rep. Elect Allen West Knows Islam

Allen West - Florida 22

John R. Houk

© November 14, 2010


I received an email from Keith Davies the Executive Director of the Walid Shoebat Foundation pointing Representative Elect Allen West (Lt. Col. U.S. Army retired) simultaneously became the poster boy of the Left and the Right. In the eyes of the Left Lt. Col West was the embodiment of all that is evil in the American Army. In the eyes of the Right he is an American hero protecting the lives of the soldiers under his command and striking fear into the enemy.


What was Lt. Col. West’s moment of notoriety?


West spent 22 years in the military, serving in the Gulf War, serving in the Iraq War, and earning a chestful of medals. In 2003, he was commanding a battalion in Iraq when a “career-ending incident,” as they say, occurred. In brief, West was interrogating an Iraqi who he believed was involved in an imminent plot to kill him and his men. He fired a couple of shots, scaring the man, who then sang.


West had departed from rules and regulations, and was hauled before a hearing. He said, “I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers.” He also said, in a much-quoted line, “If it’s about the lives of my men and their safety, I’d go through hell with a gasoline can.” West could have been court-martialed, but was allowed to retire, paying a $5,000 fine.


Back home, he became a symbol: of military roguery to some liberals, of heroism and loyalty to many conservatives. FrontPage Magazine made him its man of the year, saying, “Col. West is the model leader, precisely the kind of man any soldier would want watching his back in combat.” Asked today whether he has any regrets about the “incident,” West says, “The thing is, every day of my life, I can look at myself in the mirror,” knowing he did his utmost to protect lives. (National Review Online)


Col. West was bounced out of the military for the aggressive 2003 interrogation of a civilian Iraqi police officer who was suspected of having information about an ambush on American soldiers. When the officer wouldn’t cough up information that would protect American lives, Col. West fired his pistol past the detainee’s head into a clearing barrel. It did not harm the detainee in any way, but frightened him into giving Col. West information about the planned attack.

Not only did this information enable the military to thwart this particular ambush, there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in this area until Col. West was relieved of his leadership post.

Col. West was asked at his hearing if he would do it again. “If it’s about the lives of my men and their safety, I’d go through hell with a gasoline can.”

In other words, Col. West is a genuine American hero. He should have received another medal for his actions instead of being driven from the U.S. military. He is exactly the kind of officer I want protecting the lives of my wife and children. (Renew America)


West beat an incumbent Democrat in the November 2 election representing Florida’s 22nd District. Incidentally the Florida 22 has a majority of Democratic Party registered voters of which some must have voted for one of most Conservative members of Congress elected this year.


None of that piqued my interest in Rep. Allen West Elect, rather my interest in West is in the politically incorrect public stand he has taken pertaining to the theopolitical religion known as Islam but should have the better appellation of the old Western term known as Mohammedanism after its founder.


The email from reads as follows:



Progress at last!

First member of Congress (elect) to express the truth publicly loud and clear, with a full grasp of the history and issues which so far all our other members of Congress skirt or use PC words and flowery language including the Republican caucus


Col Allen West is a war hero, served in Afganistan, is articluate, knowledgeable and I as most other conservative thinking people would be proud to have him as our second black president one day. It would sure give me a better thrill up my leg than what we got in the White House today.

G-d Bless Col Allen West, may we wish him the best in his first term as a Congressman.

Please share the link below with as many as possible, it is very important!

Keith Davies
Executive Director Walid Shoebat Fdn


The link is to a very short video of Allen West publicly speaking the truth that Islam is not a religion of peace. Be sure to watch it.


JRH 11/14/10

Newbill on Banks, Government, China, Economy, Union and the People

Stimulus CK-  Chinaman giving & Demanding

Below are a series of emails sent to me by Tony Newbill. Newbill has a habit of writing his thoughts in a random manner which sometimes makes for difficult reading. Newbill’s thoughts are fascinating though. I believe the best description I can provide for the thoughts are a huge dose of Capitalism merged with some collectivist ideas on a community level rather than the typical the typical Socialistic international utopianism. I need to be clear: I also believe Tony Newbill is very anti-Leftist. This loose description is the very thing that makes Newbill’s thoughts enticingly fascinating.


Of great note is that there are two emails that were sent with the same message. Newbill felt the second clarified a prior email. I include them both because there are slight variations probably due to my editing than to Newbill’s clarification. Also note that the links are in plain text except when I link a phrase or word. Copy and paste the plain text links in order to discover Newbill’s reference. Below is the post.


JRH 10/4/10

%d bloggers like this: