I had a favorite saying about Barack Obama during his reign over the U.S. I would say to my husband:
“Everything BHO does is Calculated.” I even said that one day I would write a book entitled “Calculated.” But I think that writing articles about geopolitical events and how they correlate to Scripture is far more important.
There were no random actions or even words spoken by this man. His goal was the utter destruction of the United States. Obama would have handed off his nefarious plan to Hillary Clinton for completion had she won the election. Thanks to our Lord – He crushed that plan. But make no mistake, God’s prophetic Word will be accomplished to the letter. I still do not find America in End Times Prophecy.
I believe that the Lord granted us a reprieve of sorts when Donald Trump became our president.
The first step for Obama was to give up the U.S. overseeing ICANN in 2014. This was a very big deal, but as always the MSM barely spoke of it. The journalistic arm of the Democratic Party are obedient to the powers that be. At times I wonder if these useful idiots write their articles out of conviction, or out of fear. Some are duped by the Left, but I’m sure there are others who fear George Soros and other Globalists.
The next and final step was accomplished by Obama in 2016. He literally gave control of the Internet to ICANN – relinquishing any part the U.S. would play in overseeing the World Wide Web. In essence, the diabolical Obama made sure that the United Nations would wind up having full control over the Internet.
This alarmed many Conservatives, but as most things done by BHO – the story was suppressed and finally was “yesterday’s news.”
We are now seeing in action what was always planned
From washingtontimes.com
Obama gives away the internet and, with it, our liberty
In 1992, when Bill Clinton was running for president, if you asked the average American, “What is the Internet? What is the World Wide Web? And, what is Email?” most Americans would not have known.
It is hard to believe in less than a quarter century, the internet has transformed the world. It has created wealth for many. It has changed the way America does business. It has given birth to political movement and killed political careers. The Internet is without a doubt the greatest tool for advancing freedom since the invention of the printing press.
It is no great shock that President Obama does not like American control of the internet. The internet was an American invention and America shared it with the world. American values of freedom and liberty created the Internet and allowed it to flourish. Now, in one of his last acts, Obama wants to destroy the Internet.
No, this is not one of those crazy internet conspiracy theories.
Despite the explicit wishes of Congress, Mr. Obama wants to allow an international body to take control of the Internet.
The United States still controls something called the International Assigned Numbers Authority. IANA is responsible for the allocation of unique names and numbers that are used around the world in Internet protocols.
In short, it controls the allocation of domain names from Facebook.com to your church’s website. And Mr. Obama wants to give control of this to an International Organization.
What could possibly go wrong?
Since the internet became a worldwide phenomenon, repressive regimes have looked for ways to censor the internet. China has what is known as the “Great Firewall of China” to keep out materials the government does not like. When there is unrest in countries, one of the first things dictators do is to shut down the Internet.
Without America and American values controlling the internet, who will control it and what will they do?
Imagine the internet controlled by regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, China and North Korea. Imagine these nations telling Americans what they can and cannot put on the Internet. This is the ultimate end game. This will be the destruction of the Internet as a tool of liberty and commerce, instead making it nothing more than a massive propaganda tool.
The mechanism Mr. Obama will use to allow International control of the Internet is to simply allow the existing contract between IANA and the United States Department of Commerce to expire.Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rep. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin have introduced legislation that will prohibit the Commerce Department from allowing those contracts to expire.
In 1976, Ronald Reagan ran for president and he opposed the planned give away of the Panama Canal. He said then, “We bought it, we paid for it, we built it, and we intend to keep it.” President Jimmy Carter, a man who hates America almost as much as Mr. Obama does, gave the Panama Canal away.
What result did we see?
Today, China controls the most strategic water passage in the Western Hemisphere. President Reagan and other Republicans warned us then what would happen if the Democrats gave away a national asset like the Panama Canal. Today, the national asset the Democrats want to give away is the internet.
The Internet is and will be the engine of both commerce and liberty in the 21st Century. That is, if the Party of Treason does not give it away to international control.
Every American should be calling and emailing their senators and members of Congress to tell them no. If Congress does not act by Sept. 30, it will be too late.
And if we allow the internet to be given away to foreign powers that view it as a threat, then to paraphrase President Reagan, we will one day tell our children and grandchildren what it was like when there was a free internet. – source
Where are we headed now?
From townhall.com
Are Conservatives Prepared to be Censored?
What images should appear when you Google “white couple”? Probably two people of European descent. If you search those words today, though, you’ll find almost exclusively black couples. The results are similarly skewed for “white man & white woman” and “white couple with children”. Try it. Strange, a bit annoying, and vaguely political – just imagine the reaction if a query for “black couple” turned up only whites. I suspect that wouldn’t fly at Google.
What results would you expect when Googling “American inventors”? Likely a mix of great innovators from our past and present, from a variety of backgrounds. Instead, Google tells us they’re almost all black. No Benjamin Franklin, no Samuel Morse, no Bill Gates. Without disrespecting Dr. Patricia Bath and her cataracts-surgery machine, the telegraph and personal computer merit a higher placement.
Somebody at Google is skewing the queries, in this case a form of digital affirmative action: conceivably another point scored in an endless matchup against “white supremacy,” whose presence at all turns is the greatest of progressive obsessions. The implication is that anything related to whiteness – even the telegraph – shouldn’t be searched for at all, and takes up “space” from the accomplishments of marginalized people. In both of the above examples, we receive a political indoctrination in lieu of sought after information. In the second one, we actually learn an altered version of history.
Any confusion about the leftward tilt of Silicon-Valley tech companies would have been put to rest after the
sacking of dissenting Google engineer James Damore, or the
defenestration of Mozilla’s CEO years before him, or the
de-monetization of
conservativeYouTubers, or Mark Zuckerberg’s
robotic flirtation with progressive politics. The employees at Google, Facebook, and Twitter are adherents of the same scornful progressivism as those at CNN, ESPN and VICE – so we shouldn’t underestimate their willingness to “bake in” their biases to our search queries, and justify their efforts in doing so. A stupid racial joke on Google Images is obvious (and meant to be), but it could become much more difficult to detect or prove.
Let’s say Google subverted the organic results for “Obama’s Foreign Policy”: you could receive results that bury Obama’s red lines in Syria, a history in which we never ceded power to Russia and Iran. “How is Trump doing on the economy” could give you economic indicators designed to dissatisfy. A “Reasons Hillary lost” query could route you to the infinite think pieces declaring all 63 million Trump voters bigots, or better yet, to visceral stories of hate crimes occurring during and after his election. Educated people would work around this bias, as we already do across media channels. But novice information seekers – and those of the next generations – are far more vulnerable.Kashmir Hill, a journalist for Gizmodo, recounts exactly such a process of censorship when she dared to publish a piece criticizing Google itself. First, her then-employer Forbes faced pressure from the search engine to take down the offending article, with vague threats to starve them of web traffic if they didn’t comply. The cached version “was soon scrubbed from Google search results,” a fact Hill found “disturbing,” “unusual,” an “almost dystopian abuse of the company’s power”: “websites captured by Google’s crawler did not tend to vanish that quickly.” The offending material was disappeared. Cases of influencing searches both subtle and flagrant. Purging dissenters from inside its ranks. Who’s to say Google wouldn’t go further to disfavor views it doesn’t like?
George Orwell warned us in 1984 of a society in a constant state of re-creating history to dominate its citizens: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” With every search query, we hand over power, often unconsciously, to shape our thoughts. Each becomes an opportunity for indoctrination. In a world where every platform for progressive thought-making is exploited – from the kindergarten classroom to the pages of Teen Vogue – it’s a natural development that left-leaning tech companies too will shape us in their own image.
The bias would infiltrate other tech platforms, where some opinions are clearly more equal than others. On Facebook, a crackdown on “fake news” is unlikely to treat right-wing bogus with the same equanimity as liberal myth-making around Russian electoral interference.
On Twitter, conservative users already complain of a blue-checkmark bias: the platform awards reputability to any liberal hack with a smartphone but not
James O’Keefe of
Project Veritas (330K followers). Voices are stifled altogether with total bans, most famously alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulus. His supporters unloaded a racist tirade on black actress Leslie Jones, but is that really worse than the Women’s March
glorifying a cop-killer to its five hundred thousand followers? Twitter can choose to be a cesspool or not, but to clean up one side only is an odious double standard.
Wikipedia, a key source of information for novices and experts alike, could selectively edit pages without anyone knowing. Web platforms could refuse to host opinions they dislike, as happened to the Neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer after the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville. With the distinction between “Nazi” and “Republican” being blurred by so many in public life, it’s easy to imagine mainstream conservative groups being similarly no-platformed. First they came for the actual Neo-Nazis, and then they learned there really weren’t that many of those…
Fine, say many conservatives, arms crossed. We’ll start our own search engines. We’ll have our own social networks. But the impulse for us to huddle together feeds a growing alienation from “the mainstream” – everything we see and hear. It’s an alienation that makes people doubt the existence of objective information, and by extension objective truths: every fact we’re offered, every voice we’re allowed to hear, comes from one side, so what could be true of what we’re told? The disaffection finds its human incarnation in the factless Right Wing reactionary: your aunt the birther, your neighbor the Pizza Gate crackpot. It has hollowed out the modern conservative intellectual movement.
The topography of our politics is as influenced by the course of time as our physical world is, and movements that sustain themselves bring in new adherents as others fall away. If we seek to continue living as we do – to conserve what is good – we must be able to reach both thinkers coming of age and converts to our worldview. Access to neutral facts and dissenting voices, to a private manner of constructing thought, is a lifeline in a world saturated with messages from the other side. Fundamentally, information forms ideas, and if certain ideas are not allowed – what Orwell called thoughtcrime – the information that leads to them will be stamped out.
Conservative thought is not facing a fatal environment on the free Internet yet. But the intensity and urgency of attacks are no doubt rising on those who express dissent from the progressive sacred truths: that to uplift marginalized people we must obliterate all vestiges of historical power; that every aspect of our society has been irredeemably tainted by oppression.
In the coming years, we will see the erosion of objectivity where we do our thinking, which is mostly over the Internet. It will come from the inside of our tech companies – as social engineering is codified, dissenters are purged, and everybody else joins up or shuts up – and it will come from the outside, with Twitter mobs, viral petitions, and a blizzard of media hits.
Republicans technically hold political power, but the ascendant movement in America is an increasingly puritanical progressivism. It threatens the safety of conservatives expressing mainstream opinions. That the fervor is spreading through the halls of our greatest tech companies – to the minds that control our minds – is a dire signal for all free thinkers.
Google plays strange games of race politics. Conservative voices are shut out or shut down. Our access to objective information becomes imperiled. Are conservatives prepared to be censored? – source
Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook fame has taken censorship to another level. Even though in the world of journalists, I am virtually unknown (except for Christians who follow my blog) somehow I have been targeted by Mr. Zuckerberg’s “big-brother-like” employees.
I am constantly placed in FB “Jail” which just means that I’ve been put in a time-out chair, sometimes for weeks. Then, once my sentence is served, if I dare share one of my articles; a new judgement of my behavior will immediately pop up, claiming that I am not using the share option in a good way – even if I didn’t mean to – and I will be placed in the “chair” for another 11 hours.
Here is a screen shot of my ongoing censorship:
When I have clicked on “This is a mistake” I am simply told “Thank you.” I take this as a cordial way of saying “Shut up.”
This is what the Left wing Globalist, Christian hating, Conservative hating rulers of our once free and fair Internet are able to do. And believe me when I say – We are just seeing the very tip of this political/progressive iceberg. Oh yes – they have big plans for us.
I would venture to say the the Censorship we are witnessing now, will eventually lead to us being incarcerated. I am talking about tribulation to which some Americans thought we were immune.
I am NOT speaking of THE TRIBULATION. But Jesus told us that our lives would be filled with tribulation. He told us that we are hated because they hated Him first.
This is merely Bible Prophecy being fulfilled right before our eyes. The convergence of events – Natural disasters, wars and rumors of wars etc. coupled with the silencing of Christians; and all of this happening at break- neck speed, leads many of us to conclude that we are without a doubt in the End Times.
Look up Brethren, for our redemption does draw nigh!
MARANATHA!
Like this:
Like Loading...
