Why The Left Hates The Internet…

I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.(John 9:4)

The internet is an amazing phenomenon. In spite of all of it’s many uses for evil, the cyber-world is the last bastion of free speech available to the world, a kind of international “town square” of communication, inviting one and all into the various ‘conversations’ breaking out since it’s inception and explosive growth.

Anyone who can type has a voice on the internet. Because of that some truly great writers and journalists have emerged, who never would have gotten past the cultural gatekeepers in the old (leftist dominated) media, successful such as Matt Drudge and Michelle Malkin.

I am truly amazed at how little official opposition there seems to be to the relinquishing of control over the internet by the Obama administration.  The internet is virtually a “made in the USA” phenomenon, having been financed at first by the US taxpayer, utilized by the military and eventually opened up to “whosoever will”, but under limited administration of domain names by the US  Commerce Department.

U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.

Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade and was supercharged by the backlash last year to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance.

The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.(US to Relinquish Control Over The Internet, by Craig Timberg, Washington Post, March 14, 2014)

The handover is supposed to take place on October 1st, 2016, and is being ignored by the ‘legacy Media’. There has long been an international call for International authority to monitor the content of the internet by foreign nations,  but the pressure on the US to relinquish control of the internet has intensified with the revelations of the National Security Agency spying on foreign governments.

The present system is US operated, licensed and with limited content oversight.It is true that people can literally say anything, every point of view can be aired and debated. Under US supervision, this amazing means of communication has remained basically a free speech forum.

The turnover to foreign entities will change all of that, no doubt. Most of the world languishes under heavy blankets of censorship, for example, try criticizing Mohammed in any way in the Muslim world, or write an editorial against the Russian government, or the Chinese chairman, in Russia or China. In those places speech is uniform, no one can freely dissent without paying a heavy price for speaking out, even the ultimate price.Only the Religio/political elite can speak their mind in most of the world.

Leftists like Obama love this, they actually envy the absolute power dictators have over their own people, particularly the power to stifle dissent and criticism.Obama once wistfully opined, “It would be so much easier to be the President of China…”  . He also once prophesied that the future ,”would not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam!”

The internet as it has grown and developed, flies in the face of all of this suppression.Thankfully, as in the recent Brexit vote in the UK, the people can actually side step the will of the ruling elite, and get alternatives to the official narrative, dutifully spoon fed to us for decades by the alphabet clone networks, ABC,CBS,NBC, CNN, NPR, and rags such as TIME magazine, NEWSWEEK, and the NEW YORK TIMES, the so called “legacy Media”.

Time and again we find that far from the “objective journalists” that they pretend to be, the Walter Cronkites, Peter Jennings, Sam Donaldsons, Wolf Blitzers and George Stephanopilis’s of the world are nothing more than highly biased partisan hacks.

How many times have we made the discovery that NBC or some other legacy organ has actually rigged stories, and outright lied to the American public? Brian Williams and Dan Rather come to mind.  These people are not above this, they hold the average person in contempt, and are sell out leftists for the most part.

At one time, in my lifetime, this is virtually all we had for “news” and “information”.

As the internet has exponentially expanded and grown, so also has an entire “alternative Media”, such as the DRUDGE report, FREEREPUBLIC, FRONTPAGEMAG NATIONAL REVIEW and TOWNHALL, not mention the untold thousands of truly valuable bloggers who have undertaken the important journalistic work that the ‘official media” has refused to do,( to the immense harm of this nation). Pajamas Media and Bill Whittle have done so much to counter the lies and spin also.

Our nation has been virtually betrayed by the traditional Media. There would be no 8 hellish, horrible, destructive years of Obama had the media even pretended to do it’s job of being true investigators and watchdogs, rather than the shameless political hacks that they have proven to be.

The relentless whitewashing and cover up of Islam by the Media is another treachery perpetrated against the American people. We have to put on “Anger management” after every massacre  or horrendous outrage perpetrated upon us by the followers of Mohammed, for the Media pushes constantly the myth of the nonexistent “backlash”which Moslems supposedly fear so much. (I really wish there was some backlash to some extent).

Thankfully there are Robert Spencer or William Warner and countless others , ignored for the most part by the traditional Media, but through the Internet they have a vast constituency of people sick and tired if being “gaslighted”  and lied to about Islam, and who rant to inform themselves about the truth of this plague which has come to confront us.

The Media lies in its coverage about crime and race and those lies have brought this nation to such a toxic situation, people are dying because of it. The rage and sense of injustice carefully stoked in great part by the media, among minority communities has poisoned our nation’s racial environment , setting back relations sixty years.

You would never know by the legacy media, that there are black conservatives, who hold to a different point of view than the racial arsonists such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the many newer exploiters of the black rage industry. They are carefully avoided, and treated as oddities or non-entities. But not on the internet, their voices are heard.

Finally through the internet the Word of God goes everywhere, even into the “closed world”.Christians have jumped on the internet to use it for evangelism, discipleship, publishing, teaching and examining the prophecies. I thank God everyday that I live in this time when we can do it, for I am sure none of my seven books would be read by anyone , had I had to go through the compromised bottleneck that is Christian publishing.

People are getting saved, lies are being challenged, Islam is being criticized (This almost has never happened, because people would be killed for daring to do so).

With all of it’s flaws and vanities, I believe that we are in a period of light, while the internet remains under US supervision. It is still basically free. People can express themselves openly.

Obama, like all of the other elite State worshippers, is very uncomfortable with that.

After all, there are too many people dissenting the weaponizing of immigration as a means of destabilizing the west, there are too many people calling out the Satanic cult that is ISlam, there are too many people pointing out fake documents such as Obama’s birth certificate and Dan Rather’s fraudulent attempt to slander George Bush. It is too obvious that the emperor is not wearing anything, and that the New World order is a fascistic nightmare coming at us.

I don’t know what will happen but I think if the internet is relinquished to the UN or to Russia, China or the Muslim world, (or some combination of the above),Websites are going to be shut down, and we will be back where we were in the 1990’s and before, with only the viewpoint of the left as our form of “News”. Night is falling.

If they shut down the internet, a light goes out. I will then be relieved of the responsibility to write as copiously as I have (1000 articles, 4 books) . I will know the darkness is descending and that soon the Lord will return…we must work while it is light…Maranatha!

I am of course confident that I will fulfill my tasks as a writer in all circumstances – from my grave even more successfully and more irrefutably than in my lifetime. No one can bar the road to truth, and to advance its cause I am prepared to accept even death. But may it be that repeated lessons will finally teach us not to stop the writer’s pen during his lifetime? At no time has this ennobled our history.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn



This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Why The Left Hates The Internet…

  1. Hope Wingo says:

    Reblogged this on 1 Way 2 Yahweh.

  2. Evelyn says:

    Thank you Bill, for this article and for all the others. I live in the UK, could you please write an article describing and explaining ‘the new world order’. I would appreciate your view point on this. I am sorry if you have already done so and I missed it, if so would you please forward, thanks.

  3. Armand says:

    Personally I think he’s setting this up for his next plan. Rumers are he might be the next head of the UN when Ban Ki Moon steps down in January or around that time. If this happens he could do a lot of damage. God help all Christians and Israel. What I don’t understand is why congress is not shutting him down on this issue (and many others). More things to pray about….

  4. Hope says:

    I am very thankful for your posts. 😀 I just found you a couple of weeks ago.
    Regarding the new world order, i recently found (via another blog) biblical worldview teaching on this using short videos: it is called “the fuel project” and the videos are the series “know your enemy.” You can find them at thefuelproject.org or on youtube. God bless you!

  5. Yes, I have heard of those videos too. There have been many good sites and I had made a long list of about 20 great discernment websites. Many are not updating any more. Among the best are:
    Lighthouse Trails
    Kjos Ministries (many articles on NWO and UN)
    Rather Expose Them
    Emergent Watch
    Soul Refuge
    Apprising Ministries
    New Jerusalem Chronicle – see ‘wolves in sheeps clothing’
    Fanatic for Jesus (like the one above it)
    The New American

    I would search out what you can before it all disappears with this new internet take over.
    It’s all just part of their NWO plan to suffocate free speech. Ironically, the pope just called journalists ‘terrorists’ after a man was discussing Hillary’s health problems on a radio broadcast that was shut down by the powers that be. He claimed that all they do is ‘gossip and slander,’ which is exactly what he himself does against the true church! All of that can be seen by googling… for now.

    On another note, the UN just appointed their lgbt czar yesterday as their ‘rights watchdog’. One is inclined to wonder if these two events are connected? Surveillance is everywhere now. They are making watch lists on us and it will closely follow the nazi pattern, only this time under the rainbow flag. They just suspended an Alabama judge for not going along with gay ‘marriage.’ It has already begun. As for the free speech on the internet, I suspect it will go in pieces until there are no more truth proclaiming sites left. I will continue to use the platform for as long as I can.

    God bless!

  6. Onesimus says:

    Obama has been a secular leader presiding over a secular nation, a sinner no worse than any previous president. What HAS been different is the extreme hatred directed his way by the “evangelical church”.

    America and American “evangelicals” are soon to be given the president they deserve – reaping what they’ve sown with their constant Obama hatred.

    • Jeanne T. says:

      “America and American “evangelicals” are soon to be given the president they deserve – reaping what they’ve sown with their constant Obama hatred.”

      What sort of punishment are you proposing for “evangelicals”? What would that look like?

  7. Marleen says:

    It’s not wise, constructive, or true to say that the left hates free speech.

    Or is it just a tautology? Anything bad is “left” — so evangelicals are right and good (and never ever left or liberal in any way or outside the politically-correct right).

    So, now we will have to say Liberty University is part of the lefty godless Republicans. Wait. Would it be because their overlord isn’t for free speech or because he can’t think straight or because the students who can think with some consistency should get over themselves?


    Student: Jerry Falwell Jr. Axed Anti-Trump Story from Liberty University’s School Newspaper

    Despite touting how his school ‘promotes free expression of ideas, unlike other universities,’ Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. allegedly killed a Trump-focused anti-sexual assault story in the student paper this week. Here it is anyway.


    Ben Collins
    10.18.16 4:26 PM ET

    And as for wishing that the government would regulate the internet/Internet?
    Totally ironic.

    I read a bunch of stories on the topic (not from your type of sites, as in not from the alt-right). I concluded, from the information I found, that I am in favor of the government keeping the contract with ICANN (renewing or whatever, not sure if that can be returned to — I am in favor of the government regulating, as it had before). Then, I read one more article (from the alternative [to reality] right). I had, prior to that one, seen, because I have a brain that doesn’t have to be told what to think, in part due to my decades in the conservative movement — including the part that always said Republicans are lefties, even Reagan wasn’t conservative enough — that sticking to the status quo on the matter involved government regulation by definition (through the Commerce Department). This last article I read (the righty-right-right one) included a gaslighting bomb at the end with no backing: just said no, basically, that it’s not true about regulation. Of course, you don’t have to use the word regulation or the like or see the connection to see the irony.

  8. Marleen says:

    There’s always been an alternative information or indoctrination machine (even if it wasn’t specifically called the alt-right). It was able to function before the internet. That (as in without the internet) is how I was “conservative” before Reagan and before the “Moral Majority” push. [Not before Reagan switched [1950] to being Republican instead of Democrat, I wasn’t born yet.]

    There are plenty of issues and events that really matter but which would tend to be called “left” and ignored by many who think of themselves as “right” and tend to vote Republican and just don’t go outside the prescribed boundaries of “acceptability.” Free speech (and functioning internet) is actually a “left” or liberal topic. Clean water should also matter to everyone, but sits left.

  9. Jeanne T. says:

    The quote by Solzhenitsyn is very pertinent for our times.

    • Onesimus says:

      But Bill Randles statement about “pointing out fake documents such as Obama’s birth certificate” is not so pertinent at any time. Perpetuating blatant lies is not helpful for Christian ministry.

  10. Jeanne T. says:

    FTA: “The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.(US to Relinquish Control Over The Internet, by Craig Timberg, Washington Post, March 14, 2014)”

    ICANN’s CEO has also acknowledged that ICANN is not bound by the First Amendment.

  11. Marleen says:

    Being under the jurisdiction of the U.S., which does have the First Amendment (which is definitional of the The first Amendment), furthers freedom of speech (if we are watchful) and helps mitigate any possible concerns that could come up with a utility like a monopoly.

  12. Marleen says:

    Hope it’s been noticed Trump has said laudatory things about leaders of Russia, North Korea, China, and so on (while putting Obama down for not being more dominating). Trump’s even praised Saddam Hussein.

    Also, you can name Dan Rather and Brian Williams, but we can also mention Bill O’Reilly (who is very “good” at not acknowledging). And Matt Drudge? We’re not even in the land of reality. Bret Baier just apologised though.

  13. Marleen says:


    Republicans/Conservatives have long been talking about getting rid of Commerce.

  14. Marleen says:


    It seems to me that some people are mixing up “net neutrality” and this more recent occurrence.

  15. Marleen says:


    Internet is very complex, and it wouldn’t hurt to learn more about its mechanics.

  16. Marleen says:


    Ted Cruz incorrect about Obama giving control of internet to UN-like body

    By W. Gardner Selby on Wednesday, September 14th, 2016 at 1:54 p.m.

  17. Marleen says:

    I appreciated listening to Mike Daniels, br. As I said earlier, I tend to think we should not let go of oversight. [And I decided this based on reading regular news articles; I didn’t need to restrict myself to right-wing disseminators of “proper” (pre-packaged supposed) intellect.] I’m glad to hear (from a later guest, who overall I’m not as sure about but who I have no reason to doubt on the point) that the subject matter is going to be challenged in court.

    Well, I have an update. I did some searching since I typed in the above paragraph: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/17/us_states_drop_internet_transition_lawsuit/

    I ordered a book on internet governance a couple days ago. Will probably want to read more than one. Mike Daniels’ sounds interesting (concerning the beginning of privatisation).

  18. Marleen says:

    …. Bartiromo, a moderator in Tuesday night’s primary debate on Fox Business Network, tried to draw out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) on …. his proposal to cut taxes… without accounting for effects on economic growth.

    Cruz replied that … he has a plan to reduce federal spending. That plan, he said, has “… specific cuts.” He also said that he would eliminate five federal agencies.

    Cruz didn’t list all five, though, instead naming the Commerce Department twice. And … how he’d achieve … $500 billion … is short on specifics.


  19. Marleen says:

    To support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking and governance, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announces its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.


    From the inception of ICANN, the U.S. Government and Internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary. The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government “is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.” [NTIA.gov, 3/14/14]

  20. Marleen says:

    It is hard to tell what the Republicans hate most about the Commerce Department, which Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, with an eye to staying abreast of other contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination, today called “the basement of the Federal bureaucracy.”

    [This, Dole, happens to be the only prior Republican nominee who was fully backing Trump.]

  21. Marleen says:


    … Instead of appointing a person to lead the Commerce Department, President Obama and Congress should work together to eliminate the department completely and use the savings to pay down the debt. …
    The department has almost zero impact on actual commerce, job creation, or anyone’s daily routine.

  22. Marleen says:

    Okay, I hope you’ve been noticing that I’m demonstrating Conservatives/Republicans have been talking about getting rid of Commerce, entire, for a very long time (as well as other departments/agencies). My quoting people like that is not to say that I agree with that desire. I could quote a lot more of them; it seems to have been a requirement involved in running for President as a Republican, for decades. It’s been part of the “small government” talk, the bill of goods we’ve been buying from them for decades and getting nowhere better. They talk about it; they don’t do it. It’s supposed to be part of the mix of how we can cut taxes. Instead, we cut taxes and start wars. And this then is blamed all on lefties, that they like to spend money and put hope in the government. Like I said, from what I’ve read, I’d rather the government of the United States continue to oversee the Internet (at the very least, here in our country); that is in agreement with the owner of this billrandles site. At the same time, I’m not against executive agencies being streamlined (not the same as wholesale eliminated ala Republicans). But apparently, Republicans weren’t into streamlining and voting on what could make sense.


    Sounding like a manager of a disorganized company, and looking like one by pointing to slides as he spoke, Obama asked Congress to give him a kind of reorganization power no president has had since Ronald Reagan. It would guarantee Obama a vote, within 90 days, on any idea he offers to consolidate agencies, provided it saves money and cuts the government.

    His first target: Merging six major trade and commerce agencies into a one-stop-shopping department for American businesses. The Commerce Department would be among those that would seek to exist.

    Congress would keep the final say, but Obama would have a stronger hand to skip much of the outside lobbying and fighting and get right to a vote.

    Attacking senseless duplication across the executive branch he runs, Obama said: “Why is it OK for our government? It’s not. It has to change.”


    In making his case, the president sought to target the design of the bureaucracy as the problem, not the employees who serve it.

    Congressional reaction seemed generally favorable, but cautious.


    Obama had an imperative to deliver. He made the promise to come up with a smart reorganization of the government in his State of the Union speech last January.

    The White House said the problem is serious for consumers who turn to their government for help and often do not know where to begin.

    Not in decades has the government undergone a sustained reorganization of itself. Presidents have tried from time to time, but each part of the bureaucracy has its own defenders inside and outside the government, which can make merger ideas politically impossible. That’s particularly true because “efficiency” is often another way of saying people will lose their jobs.

    … Many lawmakers of both parties expressed support in principle but wariness about how programs and the prerogatives of Congress may be affected.

    Beyond the politics, the merger Obama offered would have big implications for trade and commerce in America.

    Presidents held a fast-track reorganizational authority for about 50 years until it ran out during Reagan’s presidency in 1984, the White House argued.

    Obama wants to merge: the Commerce Department’s core business and trade functions; the Small Business Administration; the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and the Trade and Development Agency.

    The White House says 1,000 to 2,000 jobs would be cut, but the administration would do so through attrition. The administration says the consolidation would save $3 billion over 10 years by getting rid of duplicative overhead and programs…


  23. Marleen says:

    The Facebook guy, yesterday or at a conference, Zuckerberg, said world leaders (like him) should put more into connectivity all over the world. And infrastructure for that.

    [I don’t know whether or not he said anything there about fake news. I don’t use Facebook, so I am not very familiar with its leader or the “stories” that get out in that venue.]


  24. Marleen says:

    [There is such thing as a U.N. body that considers telecommunications, but it’s not what “the Internet” has been turned over to as of the beginning of October this year.]

    This article talks a bit about SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, and what they’re looking at.
    More than half of the world’s population lacks Internet access, according to the International Telecommunications Union, an agency of the United Nations. And the success of a satellite venture providing Internet access at a fraction of the price would have broad implications, especially for the poor living in remote locations.


  25. Marleen says:


    It’s kind of interesting to look at the timing of various statements from a variety of people looking to compete or cooperate in that (internet) realm. It’s also interesting that we moved to largely privatizing our space explorations and learning and enterprises. I remember Newt Gingrich talking a lot about the importance of privatizing in one of his presidential bids. Of course, they almost all talk like that. But he had gotten pretty specifically enthusiastic about, for instance, inhabiting the moon. I think it’s Elon Musk who has moved on, in that regard, to Mars.

  26. Marleen says:

    Oh… yes, I’ve found that Mark Z. has made a statement indicating he will “take misinformation seriously.” But he might get out of being held to any standard, like Trump, not feeling anyone has any right to hear the words coming out of his mouth “literally.”

    (One of Z.’s peers has pointed out Z. sold advertising based on the idea of winning elections. But more recently he’s been saying the idea of influence is ridiculous.)

    Ford has repeatedly said no U.S. jobs will be lost because of the move, noting it has even moved jobs back from Mexico to the U.S. Trump called Ford’s decision “horrible.” He has criticized Ford’s Mexican investments for more than a year and vowed to pressure the automaker to reverse course if elected. “We shouldn’t allow it to happen,” Trump said.

    Trump has also repeatedly misstated Ford’s plans at times, wrongly suggesting last month Ford would “fire all of their employees in the United States.”

    A spokeswoman for Trump did not immediately comment.

  27. Marleen says:

    There is, at least currently, a picture advertisement,
    on the above page link I gave, for a different kind
    of conference. I don’t know how to copy graphics,
    so I’m copying the link that clicking on there goes to:

  28. Marleen says:

    Breitbart: The web that connects Trump and Farage
    By Mike Wendling
    BBC News, Washington
    20 November 2016

    A once-fringe online news site has deep connections with Donald Trump and the UK Independence Party. So what’s the story behind Breitbart?

    Just days after the US election, an ebullient Nigel Farage made his way to Trump Tower in New York …. “We’re just tourists!” Farage joked to waiting reporters.

    By his side was his former aide and the London editor of Breitbart News, Raheem Kassam. And Kassam’s ultimate boss, Stephen Bannon…


    The site … scored a major scoop when it exposed former Democratic congressman Anthony Wiener’s sexting scandal.

    In 2012, Andrew Breitbart died of heart failure. Bannon became executive chairman.

    From its base in California, the site has expanded, opening bureaus in Texas, Jerusalem and, in 2014, London.

    “We look at London and Texas as two fronts in our current cultural and political war,” Bannon said at the time.

    In August, Bannon was picked to lead Trump’s campaign. It was a sign of the site’s influence.
    Patrick Howley, a former Breitbart reporter whose beat was the Hillary Clinton campaign, says the site doesn’t pretend to balance all sides of an issue.

    “The ethic of objectivity as it’s traditionally formulated is not practised there,” he says. However he defends the spin by saying the site is up-front about it. “I never made any pretence about the fact that I did not want Hillary Clinton to be president.”

    Future expansion targets include France and Germany.


  29. Marleen says:


    Here is an example of something “the right” has thought they wanted to get rid of, like they want to get rid of most of government, and currently say they don’t want to.

  30. Marleen says:

    Here is a question for you. Why does the right hate water?


    “Hey, hey, ho, ho- Blackstone Group has got to go,” echoed on the Manhattan streets ….

    The privatization of public infrastructure is a dangerous trend, one that threatens the safety and stability of our most vital services. Food & Water Watch has long fought privatization of water services and infrastructure wherever it’s been threatened. …

    Food & Water Watch has been fighting for years against water privatization in communities big and small, all across the country. Just last week in Atlantic City, New Jersey, we helped deliver more than 2,400 resident signatures on a petition calling for the overthrow of the pending privatization of the municipal water system — more than enough signatures for this issue to be put to a vote in city council. Our campaign to save Atlantic City’s water system from detrimental privatization has been months and years in the making, and our fight there is far from over.

    As residents of Atlantic City and countless other communities have learned, water privatization is a losing deal for everyone but the corporations behind it. The evidence is clear: Privately run water systems charge households 64 percent more than public systems charge. A typical household using 5,000 gallons a month pays an extra $153 a year if its water services are privatized. Additionally, once a publicly run infrastructure is privatized the decision is difficult to reverse. We have seen time and time again how privatization works to take advantage of the consumers. Food & Water Watch will support those who stand up to these corporate profiteers.

    But having the facts on your side is only half the battle. ….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.