by baldilocks

… only smellier and more pathetic.

This happened last week. Warning: gross graphics.

After left-wing activists organizing a human feces or “poop party” to intimidate FCC Chairman Ajit Pai were reported to authorities by a conservative talk show host, she found herself under relentless attack.

Stacy Washington

In an exclusive interview with Media Equalizer, talk host Stacy Washington revealed that she directed her fans to report a leftist page called “New Years Rave at Ajit Pai’s House”.

The group event was created by an individual named Andrew Kober and meant to galvanize leftists to meet at Pai’s house between 10pm and 3am on Dec. 31. (…)

Given this clear threat to Pai’s family and home, Washington felt it necessary to inform followers and law enforcement.

Ajit Pai

In retaliation, they directed their online army to write negative reviews on Washington’s Facebook page, “Stacy on the Right Show,” where dozens immediately left 1-star show reviews and vile personal smears. (…)

It’s very important to make it clear that Washington is being subjected to such vitriolic behavior from liberals because she took issue with the group wanting to charge Pai’s home and put his family in harm’s way.

Emphasis mine. The reason for the “rave” at Pai’s house? The repeal of the FCC’s Net Neutrality rule.

Commenting on this situation, a friend observed that “Leftists don’t like being exposed for returning to their night rider KKK roots.” A searing assessment that is, but I don’t think that these foot-soldiers for Leftism have the slightest bit of self-awareness or historical perspective about this proposed action against a man’s home or about harassing brown-skinned Americans for what they believe. If they did, outside of the psychopaths, they wouldn’t be participating. Then again, the group is probably composed of nothing but psychopaths. 12,000 of them.

And psychopaths don’t like being exposed. Full stop.

Were they not in Hell, old-school night-riders – who burned, bombed, raped, and lynched — would be laughing their hoods off at these Night-Poopers/One-Star Reviewers. But the latter are the spiritual and political children of the old ones. Tactics change, but the spirit of terrorism does not.

Neither does the spirit of the Democrat Party, apparently.

And it’s not outside the realm of possibility that these new-school night-riders have attracted not a few of the old-school types who may be considering doing more than fertilizing the FCC chairman’s lawn.

Because that’s what happens with mobs; they escalate in tactics – or devolve, whichever way one wants to look at it.

Terrorists must be exposed; to hear them squeal, sure. But also to be ready for them.

(Thanks to Keith A. Houchen)

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

On November 21st FCC Chairman Ajit Pai sent shock waves throughout the internet when he released this Statement announcing an end to President Obama’s misguided and disastrous Net Neutrality.  Here are the opening paragraphs from that statement.

For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress. This bipartisan framework led the private sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United States. And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world.

But in 2015, the prior FCC bowed to pressure from President Obama. On a party-line vote, it imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulations upon the Internet. That decision was a mistake.  It’s depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation.

When I read the statement I was quite elated.  I knew all of my liberal friends on Facebook would not share my joy, they would be angry and they would express their anger in the form of memes which bore little resemblance to reality.  My response was to leave them alone and to share articles setting the record straight about Net Neutrality, which was President Obama’s attempt to make the internet into a socialist utopia.

From the beginning Net Neutrality was misguided because it was based on a lie.  In a speech, which was quoted in this Breitbart Article, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai described this lie when he said:

Number one there was no problem to solve; the internet wasn’t broken in 2015. In that situation, it doesn’t seem me that preemptive market-wide regulation is necessary. Number two, even if there was a problem, this wasn’t the right solution to adopt. These Title II regulations were inspired during the Great Depression to regulate Ma Bell which was a telephone monopoly. And the broadband market we have is very different from the telephone market of 1934. So, it seems to me that if you have 4,462 internet service providers and if a few of them are behaving in a way that is anticompetitive or otherwise bad for consumer welfare then you take targeted action to deal with that. You don’t declare the entire market anticompetitive and treat everyone as if they are a monopolist.

There was no evidence of widespread price gouging, censorship by ISPs, or other harmful practices prior to the enacting of Net Neutrality.  Regulating the internet as a utility was the most overbearing form of regulating the Obama administration could implement.  Why did the Obama administration take over the internet through executive fiat? This American Thinker Article sheds light on the primary motivation:

President Obama feared the free flow of information as a threat to his power grabs and attempt to fundamentally transform the United States. Just as cable news eliminated the old guard network’s role as gatekeepers of what we saw and heard, the Internet freed information consumers to seek the truth and speak their minds in an unfettered environment.

Under net neutrality, the FCC took for itself the power to regulate how Internet providers manage their networks and how they serve their customers. The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the Internet, all in the name of providing access to the alleged victims of corporate greed.

Net Neutrality was all about social justice not eliminating harmful practices.   According to this Investor Business Daily editorial, Obama’s FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stated purpose for Net Neutrality was:

Genachowski insists net neutrality is designed only to prevent communication giants such as Comcast and Verizon from blocking some websites while favoring others, particularly their own, with higher speeds and better quality. The poor and minorities are shoved aside in the name of profit….

…In the name of providing access to the alleged downtrodden victims of corporate greed, the FCC proposes to take unto itself the power to regulate how Internet providers manage their networks, how they serve their customers. The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the Internet.

According to the same article, Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wrote:

Net Neutrality Is A Civil Rights Issue.  Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn’t value the Internet for its public interest benefits.  Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it

The free market, which is the most mighty economic engine yet devised, built the internet.   What fuel does the free market run on?  Profits are the fuel.  It was the quest for higher profits that created the most revolutionary communication medium that ever existed.  Competition was what regulated the internet.  Government regulation only hinders and destroys.  The free exchange of money for goods and services is the most color blind form of social interaction that ever existed.

Net Neutrality has had very negative effects on the internet.   Free State Foundation President Randolph May describes these negative effects in this Breitbart article

The FCC’s current regulations, put in place at President Obama’s direction in 2015, constitute a misguided act of regulatory aggression leveled at the dynamic broadband Internet marketplace. It is none too soon to repeal them. Already, there is persuasive evidence that applying a public utility regulatory regime to Internet service providers has slowed investment in new facilities. As demand for Internet services continues to grow exponentially, the nation can ill-afford to risk deterring investment in new high-speed networks.

The moment FCC Chairman Ajit Pai released his statement a wave of outrage swept over individuals from the political left.   Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute described the outrage in this Fox News Article

There’s plenty of scaremongering around steps broadband providers could take in the absence of neutrality regulation — blocking off certain sites, or charging extra fees to access certain services — but not a ton of reason to think they would do these things, which would antagonize customers, be technically tricky to enforce against sophisticated users, and invite the re-imposition of regulations.

Major Internet Service providers do make convenient villains in all of this Net Neutrality debate because they are not popular with their customers.   A great many believe their ISPs provide lousy customer service and many feel they are overcharged for the service they receive.  Why are ISPs able to get away with these unpopular practices?  Government regulations at the federal, state, and local levels effectively grant these companies monopolies on the local level.   This article from Wired documents how these monopolies are granted and how they limit competition.  Repealing Net Neutrality is just the first step to truly freeing the internet.  Regulations at all levels must be repealed.

My latest for notes one type of change that Barack Obama has managed to create unity in suspicion in government:

In 2015 America, widespread united public suspicion of these tactics may seem natural, but what I find striking is how much of a contrast this is, not just from the days of my youth, but to the recent past.

Even during the Bush years while the left was screaming repression all over media (without grasping the irony of it) a large segment of the public still trusted authority….

Then came the Obama administration’s use of the IRS against the tea party, the spying on reporters, the lies concerning Obamacare, Fast and Furious and Gunwalking, the spy revelation on allies and a Justice Department willing to use their powers to inflame situations to their political advantage in Florida and St Louis while finding no interest in groups like the New Black Panthers in Philly and racial incidents in cities like Memphis and Lansing.

You can read the rest here.

Elizabeth Scalia is one of the most loving and prayerful people I know.

But like Jesus moved to zeal in the temple there are some levels of foolishness that simply cross the line:

 here we are seeing laws put into place that are not even being discussed by the congress; there is no advise and consent, no debate, no alternative proposals amassed because no one actually knows what this proposal is, and we will not know until it is put in place, a done deal.

Now, I know, you’re saying:

“well, Elizabeth, how can you rant about this when you don’t know what exactly is being put into place? Maybe Obama’s Net Neutrality is perfectly benign and helpful to all of us, and he just doesn’t want to be bothered having to explain it to reactionaries and people who wear their pajamas to work.”

To which I respond: are you stupid? If the thing were benign, there would be no reason to prevent us from knowing what it is. If the thing was “helpful to all of us” the administration wouldn’t be shielding it, and its minions in the press wouldn’t be obsessing about Jon Stewart resigning from comedy news show — they’d all be cooing about this great gift being bestowed upon us by the beneficent Obama Administration.


The only thing more frustrating that the government acting this way is that the public’s ignorance level has reached such heights that this has to be explained.

Read the whole thing but beware this is only one of several things that have finally set her off in that piece.