DISCUSSION FORUMS
MAIN MENU
Home
Help
Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
Community
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
Shop
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
Read
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
Connect
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
Graphics
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
Webmasters
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

ChristiansUnite
Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 23, 2021, 12:53:06 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
283205 Posts in 27512 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  ChristiansUnite Forums
|-+  ChristiansUnite and Announcements
| |-+  ChristiansUnite and Announcements (Moderator: admin)
| | |-+  The Patriot Post Digest 9-29-2016
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Patriot Post Digest 9-29-2016  (Read 274 times)
nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64256


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« on: October 04, 2016, 07:28:39 PM »

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 9-29-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________


Mid-Day Digest

Sep. 29, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.” —George Washington (1795)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Comey’s Bad Day in Congress1


“We have no evidence that’s sufficient to justify the conclusion that [Hillary Clinton] violated any of the statutes with respect to classified information,” FBI Director James Comey said this week. And, he told Congress Wednesday, “I haven’t seen anything that would come near” to re-opening the investigation. “I know there’s lots of questions, lots of controversy. I’m very proud of the way this was done.” Regardless of Comey’s pride, he and the FBI aided and abetted Clinton in walking free after she clearly violated the law and jeopardized national security with her careless handling of classified information over her private email system. In his July announcement2, Comey scolded Clinton for being “extremely careless,” but he also effectively rewrote 18 U.S.C. 793(f) so as to include “intent” as being needed for conviction. He argued the FBI couldn’t prove Hillary’s intent, which is laughable given the lengths to which she went to cover up her crimes. On Wednesday, he argued that it’s not his job to determine Clinton’s truthfulness in public statements. It’s also not his job to rewrite statutes or to make prosecutorial decisions.

Comey also wouldn’t answer when or if the FBI would investigate whether Clinton perjured herself before Congress. The record is abundantly clear3: She lied. A lot. But the answer is also obvious: The FBI isn’t going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. Comey should say so.

Of course, one reason Clinton was never indicted4 was because of Barack Obama’s direct involvement in her email scandal. In that sense, Comey’s hands were tied. He was not going to be the guy to take on both Obama and Clinton — even less so after Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s clandestine meeting5 with Bill Clinton.

On a final note, Rep. Trey Gowdy had one of the better exchanges of the day, explaining to Comey just how to determine someone’s intent. Everything Hillary did, he said, from setting up the server in the first place to lying about it and deleting emails with sophisticated software — heck, she even smashed mobile devices with hammers — proves her intent. If only Comey were honest enough to admit as much.

Obama’s Terror Two Step6

Yesterday at a CNN sponsored town hall event with a heavy military presence, Barack Obama was asked by a gold star parent why he refuses to call radical Islamic terror “Islamic.” Obama responded, “These are people who’ve killed children, killed Muslims, take sex slaves — there’s no religious rationale that would justify in any way any of the things that they do.” He then attempted to equate Christianity with Islam by saying, “If you had an organization that was going around killing and blowing people up and said, ‘We’re on the vanguard of Christianity.’ As a Christian, I’m not going to let them claim my religion and say, ‘You’re killing for Christ.’ I would say, ‘That’s ridiculous. That’s not what my religion stands for.’ Call these folks what they are, which is killers and terrorists.” In spite of voluminous and obvious evidence to the contrary, Obama’s blinding Islamophilia7 has prevented him from seriously engaging the religious ideology which motivates these radical Islamic terrorists. And that there aren’t Christians doing these things is somehow lost on him.

Similar to Obama’s blindness on Islamic terrorists' ideological motivations are his rosy descriptions of the weakened condition of the Islamic State and terrorism. He declared that we’re “significantly safer today than we were when 9/11 happened.” Obama’s comments run contrary to those of his own administration. Also yesterday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson in a panel discussion warned that the likelihood of a terror “attack is still there.” He said that there was no good way to calculate how many attacks may be coming and said, “People ask me, ‘What keeps you up at night?’ That is thing number one, the prospect of another home-born violent extremist acquiring a weapon or tool of mass violence and carrying out an attack somewhere here in the homeland.”

With the rise of the Islamic State8 and the growing proliferation of its ideology, as well as the increasing number of terror attacks throughout western Europe and the U.S. since Obama took office, by what measure can Obama argue his continued success in the fight against Islamic terror? How has Obama built upon George W. Bush’s successes in defeating the enemy? Obama’s recent comments are reminiscent of his statements in 2012 before the Benghazi attack and the rise of ISIL — it’s nothing more than political narrative for him.

Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column

Read The Most Unlikely Hero — Desmond Doss9. When ordered to retreat, one man refused. The account of his actions is coming to a theater near you!

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here10.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

    Victor Davis Hanson: The Next President Unbound11
    Caroline Camden Lewis: How High Taxes Kill Jobs: A Tale of Two Tax Plans12
    Tony Perkins: The ACC’s Double Standards13

For more, visit Right Opinion14.

TOP HEADLINES

    Congress Overrides Obama 9/11 Veto15
    Obama Weighs Military Options in Syria16
    OPEC Outlines Plan to Cut Oil Output17

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report18.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
ICANN Has Control?19


By Jonathan Connor

    Editor’s Note: Connor has been The Patriot Post’s technical director since 2008.

In October 2016, federal oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will end, the culmination of a nearly 20-year-old plan to fully privatize the organization. As the date draws nearer for the California nonprofit to cut ties with the U.S. government, some conservative lawmakers have voiced concern that ICANN’s transition to a more global, “multi-stakeholder” model of governance will result in countries like Russia, China and Iran having greater control over the Internet, giving them another avenue to suppress free speech. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, for example, has said that “if Congress fails to act, the Obama administration intends to give away control of the Internet to an international body akin to the United Nations,” and has called on Congress to “stop the Obama administration from relinquishing U.S. control of the Internet.” While conservatives have no shortage of reasons to distrust the Obama administration regarding … well, anything, there are also reasons to be wary of claims that the U.S. is giving up control over the Internet. To understand why the sky probably isn’t falling, it’s helpful to know what the Internet actually is, and what ICANN does and doesn’t do.

Contrary to popular misconception, the Internet isn’t owned or operated by the U.S. government. The Internet as we know it today is made up of tens of thousands of privately owned, interconnected networks, which neither the federal government nor ICANN control. Because it is unrealistic for a single network operator to have a network in every geographic location, network operators establish agreements to carry each other’s Internet traffic if the intended destination requires it. When Internet traffic between an origin and a destination takes a path across multiple networks, this process is called routing, and the hardware devices that facilitate routing are called routers. Without routing, the Internet simply wouldn’t work. However, it is important to remember that, like the thousands of networks that comprise the Internet, the routers on the edges of these networks are primarily operated by the private sector, not the U.S. government or ICANN.

Although routers use IP addresses like 192.110.210.85, humans don’t like having to type them into their Web browsers. Instead, people prefer readable domain names like patriotpost.us, but routers don’t inherently know what to do with them. To remedy this problem and create harmony between man and machine, we use a system that turns human-readable domain names into router-usable IP addresses, which is called the Domain Name System (DNS). DNS can be thought of as a convenience layer on top of the Internet’s routing layer. When a domain name is typed into a Web browser, a DNS lookup is performed, which is really just a simple question: “What is the IP address associated with the domain name patriotpost.us?” for example. “The answer is 192.110.210.85,” the DNS server responds. The Web browser then takes that answer and makes it the destination, at which point it is up to the Internet’s routers — not DNS — to get you there. However, there is a potential wrinkle in this system: Anybody with a little technical know-how can set up their own DNS server, so how do we ensure that we get the right answer when we ask DNS a question? How do we know that patriotpost.us (or any other domain) is globally unique, with only one DNS server providing an authoritative answer about its IP address? That’s where ICANN enters the picture, which offers this concise explanation of the organization’s role:
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64256


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2016, 07:36:17 PM »

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 9-29-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________


    To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer — a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn’t have one global Internet.

Among ICANN’s primary responsibilities is the management of several important databases. The most famous of these databases is the root zone file, which is like a phone book in which the names are top-level domains like .com and the phone numbers are server addresses like a.gtld-servers.net. This root zone file is literally a simple text file viewable by anyone20. The Internet’s 13 highest-level DNS server operators consider ICANN’s root zone file to be an authoritative list of which DNS servers answer questions for which top-level domains, which in turn contributes to a consistent DNS experience across the globe and allows the Internet’s thousands of network operators to be on the same page. Only one of those 13 servers is actually operated by ICANN, while the rest are run by organizations like the NASA Ames Research Center, the U.S. Army Research Lab, the University of Maryland, and Verisign (a U.S. corporation). If ICANN manipulated the root zone file in a way that harmed U.S. business interests or national security, it is unlikely that all of the highest-level DNS servers would continue to treat ICANN’s root zone file as authoritative, and an opportunity would be created for another entity to maintain a database trustworthy enough to be designated authoritative. In other words, ICANN doesn’t own the Domain Name System, but rather stewards a list that is trusted by DNS server operators to ensure that lookups are reliable, globally consistent and correct. And while DNS plays a crucial role in making the Internet easier to use for humans, it works at a higher level than the more fundamental routing level where Internet traffic actually transits.

Understanding what DNS does (match domains with IP addresses) and doesn’t do (route Internet traffic) helps illustrate why governments like China, Iran, Egypt and Pakistan have already had great success censoring the Internet in their countries, despite the lack of any cooperation from ICANN. The creation of China’s “Great Firewall” and the shutdown of Egypt’s Internet during the Arab Spring were possible because those countries took control of the routers within their borders. This was and continues to be the most effective method of censoring free speech on the Web, because whoever has control of the routers controls their corner of the Internet. The fact that such Internet censorship already occurs also belies the argument that the U.S. controls the Internet. If it did, why do we allow China to censor it, or Egypt to shut it down? The truth is that ICANN is unable to stop the suppression of free speech on the Internet. However, the corollary is that it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which ICANN could suppress free speech on the Internet in a way that is more effective than current methods.

So is the United States giving up control of the Internet? The answer is, “No.” The United States can’t give up control it doesn’t have. Rather, the U.S. is giving up direct oversight of ICANN, and will instead assume an advisory role. What does this mean for Internet freedom? In the short term, probably not much, if anything. We expect the Internet will remain uncensored in countries where it is currently uncensored, and censored in countries where it is already censored, because ICANN’s function neither helps nor hinders the censorship schemes of oppressive regimes.

The long term is more difficult to assess, because just as the technology underlying the Internet continues to evolve, organizations and governments aren’t static — they change and take on new roles. But one of the great strengths of the Internet’s fundamental structure is that absent centralized control, it can only function based on trust and mutual agreement. Because the Internet is comprised of thousands of independently owned networks, it is difficult for bad policies to win out over good policies, since most network operators will favor policies that benefit the greatest number of users.

Despite its important role in the reliable operation of the Internet, even ICANN cannot impose its will on unwilling network owners. Rather, ICANN has succeeded thus far because network operators have not yet been given a reason not to trust it. One of the stated objectives of ICANN’s transition to a fully privatized organization without direct government oversight is to further solidify that trust and ensure that the Internet remains global, rather than devolving into numerous fractured regional internets. Whether ICANN will deliver on that commitment remains to be seen. Their track record is good, but at the intersection of technology and international politics, the future can never be certain. Fortunately, the distributed nature of the Internet means that if the new ICANN fails to live up to its stated principles, there are escape hatches.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

    From Many Deplorables to All Biased21 — Hillary not only looks down on Trump voters, but on all Americans.
    Obfuscating on Iraq22 — Clinton’s Iraq record is of far greater significance than Trump’s musings.
    Continuing Resolution Equals Lame Duck Spending Frenzy23 — Congress couldn’t have picked a worse year to keep the newfound tradition alive.
    ‘Why They Won’t Make Jokes About Hillary Clinton’24 — Ventriloquist Jeff Dunham has some fun explaining.
    IRS — ObamaCare Evaders' Next Nemesis?25 — If you’re uninsured, Obama officials want to have a word with you.
    High School Football Team Stages ‘Die-In’ to Protest Anthem26 — Disgraced NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick was on hand.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Tony Perkins: “How serious are these collegiate sports leagues about their transgender agendas? Not very, if the latest move by the ACC is any indication. The conference supposedly pulled its championship football game out of Charlotte to take a stand against North Carolina’s decision to let businesses and private organizations set their own restroom, shower and locker room policies. So imagine everyone’s surprise when the ACC just announced … it’s relocating the game to Florida — one of the two dozen states with a policy similar to North Carolina’s! Although it isn’t identical to H.B. 2, the Sunshine State has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) on the books that gives religious employers more protection from being forced to open their bathroom doors to anyone. Talk about hypocrisy! If the ACC is so upset about North Carolina’s policy, why in the world would it relocate to a state with a similar one? Because in the end, this isn’t about bathrooms or locker rooms or even ‘discrimination.’ This is about appeasing cultural bullies who can’t be appeased! And in this case, the ACC is willing to risk its credibility to try.”

SHORT CUTS

Good question: “Black men were roughly nine times more likely to be murdered than white men, and the overwhelming majority of those murders were committed by other black men. … Given the undeniable reality that people don’t commit crime on a proportionate basis, why would any rational person believe that law enforcement shootings would follow population percentages more than crime statistics?” —David French

For the record: “One reason Americans are scared about the next president is that they should be. In 2017, a President Trump or President Clinton will be able to do almost anything he or she wishes without much oversight — thanks to the precedent of Obama’s overreach, abetted by a lapdog press that forgot that the ends never justify the means.” —Victor Davis Hanson

Braying Jackass: “We fight sometimes so that people can do things that we disagree with. … I want Mr. Kaepernick and others who are on a knee, I want them to listen to the pain that that may cause somebody who, for example, had a spouse or a child who was killed in combat, and why it hurts them to see somebody not standing. But I also want people to think about the pain that he may be expressing about somebody who’s lost a loved one that they think was unfairly shot.” —Barack Obama, who isn’t interested in reasonable dialogue but rather political points

Village Idiots: “I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done, possibly, since 1983.” —Josh Earnest on the Senate’s 9/11 vote

Non Compos Mentis: “Violence has many roots — housing, health care, poverty, but certainly it has the tool, and that is guns. That is automatic weapons like AK-47s and others more sophisticated. America has a right to the Second Amendment, but the people of America have a right to safety and the prevention of gun violence in their community.” —Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

And last… “To protest, hold a squat during the National Anthem. That proves the reason you’re not standing isn’t just because you’re lazy.” —Frank Fleming

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
Logged

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs



Copyright © 1999-2019 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media