Net Neutrality is a term that basically means Internet providers have to treat all data on the Internet the same. In other words, they can’t charge more for certain sites or slow down access to others. On Tuesday the FCC voted to change the regulations on net neutrality, which could either be a good thing or a bad thing. Democrats are against this decision so, let’s assume it’s a good thing. And speaking of which, in reaction to the FCC liberals have gone into full “doom and gloom” mode claiming it threatens our constitutional rights and will lead to a full ban on abortions. Yeah, they’re like that.

First up we have progressive lunatic NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio with this hot take:

Just a few thoughts on #NetNeutrality – first of all, access to a free and open internet is a fundamental right of every citizen. (1/4)

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) November 22, 2017

“Just a few thoughts on #NetNeutrality – first of all, access to a free and open internet is a fundamental right of every citizen,” wrote de Blasio.

First of all, this isn’t even close to being addressed by the Bill of Rights, which lists and protects our fundamental rights. If our Founding Fathers couldn’t have conceived of modern firearms, as liberals claim, they sure as hell didn’t see Facebook or Pornhub coming. Internet access is no more a right than free HBO.

Oh, and second of all, the Internet isn’t generally free. I know I have to pay for it. If free Internet is my right, where the f*ck does Charter get off charging me money for it?

That’s pretty crazy, but nothing compared to this from the pro-abortion kooks at NARAL:

Repealing #NetNeutrality is a direct threat to reproductive freedom. Without it, our access to information about how to obtain an abortion or other #reprohealth services could be compromised. https://t.co/tp0jkibVe5

— NARAL (@NARAL) November 21, 2017

“Repealing #NetNeutrality is a direct threat to reproductive freedom. Without it, our access to information about how to obtain an abortion or other #reprohealth services could be compromised,” screamed NARAL.

This is linked to a Vice article that says if there are less regulations on Internet providers that abortion will end up being outlawed. You can read it if you want, but I promise it will make your head hurt.

Again, we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution here. While there is no specific amendment protecting legal abortion, the Supreme Court made a strange ruling in the Roe v. Wade case that makes it legal. This decision cannot be overturned, so abortion will remain legal no matter what happens with the Internet. Did you notice how a lack of the Internet through the 70’s and 80’s didn’t cause abortion to be banned? I did.

The other thing that is going on here is the crazy notion that getting rid of net neutrality means the Internet is going to disappear. That is definitely not going to happen for the simple reason that it’s a big source of revenue. The FCC ruling actually means there will be more innovation and more ways to make money. The last thing that is going to happen is no more Internet.

Once again liberals demonstrate how little they understand about everything. This is also more proof that they should not only never have any decision making power but also that their opinions are worthless.

Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter

At some point, every warrior eventually runs out of arrows. His armor wears thin yet grows heavier still. He must lay down his weary helmeted head for rest.

Even Coriolanus was forced to retreat — at the behest of his mother.

Not so Donald Trump.

Not a weary drop of blood pumps through the man’s veins. He wears his thick armor light as skin. His bottomless quiver is never empty.

Fearlessly, President Trump sauntered away from his wife and son into the presence of his enemies. As casually as Clint Eastwood dispatching a horse thief, Mr. Trump laid waste to the media’s carefully choreographed plot to wrest the U.S. Senate away from Republicans and somehow smear the president with an accused child molester.

Would the president throw in with Judge Moore and defend a man accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl he picked up cruising the halls of family court? Would the president place politics above honor and try some wink and a nod? Would Mr. Trump give in and torch Judge Moore so thoroughly as to ensure that Democrats get one seat closer to controlling the Senate after next month’s Alabama election?

“I can tell you one thing for sure: We don’t need a liberal person in there, a Democrat — Jones,” Mr. Trump said calmly, referring to Judge Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones.

“I’ve looked at his record. It’s terrible on crime, it’s terrible on the border, it’s terrible on the military. I can tell you for a fact, we do not need somebody that’s going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad with the military, bad for the Second Amendment.”

But wait! This is a scandal. The jackals were trying to trick Mr. Trump into getting all hung up on the salacious scandal. He missed the banana peel. Instead, he responded by talking about — ISSUES!

Damned ISSUES!

Not only that, Mr. Trump responded by talking about issues Alabama voters care most about. The outrage!

Note how Mr. Trump did not endorse Judge Moore. He simply refused to endorse Democrat Doug Jones. Because Doug Jones is terrible on crime, the border, the military and the Second Amendment.

Sputtering and stammering, the hyenas take another run at their prey. Is Roy Moore a child molester?

“Well, he denies it,” said Mr. Trump, his glamorous family standing behind him, untouched by all the slime, magazine-ready against the autumnal leaves.

“He says it didn’t happen,” Mr. Trump continued, his overcoat flapping carelessly in the wind like a cowboy’s duster. “You know, you have to listen to him also.”

Asked again, from another direction, the president responded with a classically Trumpian line wherein he has but one point to sell you, so he wraps it up in a way that it actually looks like he has three points.

“Let me tell you, Roy Moore denies,” Mr. Trump said. “That’s all I can say. He denies it. And, by the way, he totally denies it.”

Who knows what happens. Maybe Roy Moore loses. Maybe he wins and Republicans kick him out of the Senate and replace him with a less toxic conservative.

The one thing that won’t fly these days is for Democrats to score political points by claiming Mr. Trump is turning a blind eye on a child molester just because he happens to be a Republican.

In this day, this storm, this environment, Democrats are too busy furiously defending themselves for 25 years of sticking up for a rapist and intern molester — all because he happened to be a Democrat.

• Charles Hurt can be reached at churt@washingtontimes.com; follow him on Twitter via @charleshurt.

An anti-hunting activist got more than he bargained for recently when he grabbed the reins of a woman’s horse to try and stop her from engaging in a hunting outing.

Instead of stopping the rider, though, she broke out her riding crop and gave the anti-hunting punk the whipping of his life.

Calling themselves the “Brighton Hunt Saboteurs,” a group of black-clad, anti-fa-like activists who aim to end fox hunting, recently swarmed into the fields near Pevenseyman, England, to stop a group of hunters on horseback, the Daily Mail reported.

Not surprisingly, when the two sides met on the field tempers flared between the two groups.

During the arguments, one of the anti-hunting advocates grabbed the reins of a woman’s horse to prevent the animal from joining in the hunt.

The rider repeatedly warned the activist to let go of her horse and when he persisted, she raised her riding crop and brought it crashing down on his head. Repeatedly. In fact, she slashed at him up to 17 times before he wisely turned loose of the reins(NSFW):

Meanwhile, the other activists screamed that horses shouldn’t be turned into “weapons.” Another screamed “don’t charge horses into people. You can’t ride people down.”

The British government put heavy restrictions on hunts back in 2004, but the hunting group insists that their activities are within the law.

A spokesman for the Countryside Alliance said, “As we have always known, the reality is that the anti-hunting movement is far more about the hatred of people who hunt than the love of animals.”

Local police reported having opened an investigation into the incident:

A third party report of an assault has been made after a man was allegedly struck with a riding crop by a horse rider in Herstmonceux on Saturday (November 18).

The incident happened in a field off Church Road around 12:30 p.m. The victim was reported to have received a bruise and bump to the head, but did not require medical treatment.

The informant was not a witness to the incident, but police have now identified the alleged victim and an investigation is under way.

Police are aware of a video reportedly showing the incident being available on social media.

One of the anti-hunt activists, 28-year-old Martin Shaw, criticized the hunters saying that their reaction was over the top and unfortunate.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

“Diversity is our strength,” or so the vague claim goes. Of course, the people who parrot that line never seem to specify what kind of diversity they’re talking about, and whether or not it’s compatible with western culture.

The people of Sweden are finding out the hard way that importing countless people who don’t really like you might not be so wise.

A survey from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention has just revealed that some 50 percent of residents in areas with high immigrant populations are now afraid to leave their homes.

Multiculturalism. Diversity. What’s not to love?

Liberals, of course, would be quick to claim that those Swedes are just xenophobic bigots. The reality is that residents are genuinely concerned about serious crime problems… and it’s all linked to rampant and largely Islamic immigration.

TRENDING: Pres. of American College of Pediatricians Sure to Offend Libs With Trans-Gender Kids Announcement

“In some suburbs, many choose to not even go out because of the insecurity,” Swedish-language SVT News reported, based on a translation.

“Forty-eight percent report that they are experiencing insecurity when they are out late at night in their own residential area,” continued the Swedish news source. “Because of this, many choose not to even go out, the survey shows.”

Thousands of Middle Eastern immigrants have been pouring into Swedish cities over the last year.

“Five years ago the population of Malmö in southern Sweden passed the 300,000 mark and today hovers around 320,000,” explained Breitbart.

“In the last year, the number increased by 6,000 and authorities say the driving force behind the increase is mass migration, predominantly from Middle Eastern nations,” the report continued, citing local Swedish news sources.

It’s one thing to welcome immigrants who wish to assimilate into their new country and become part of the existing culture. That’s the “melting pot” effect — but it’s based on a genuine desire to learn the language and respect local customs and laws.

How do you “coexist” with someone who wants to, say, shoot anyone exercising free speech or throw gay people off of buildings? Is it “tolerant” to do nothing while a culture mutilates and oppresses women and girls?

There’s a very different effect when foreigners pour over a border and have no desire to “blend in.” The reality is that not every culture is the same; you’d be better off trying to mix oil and water than two societies with completely opposing worldviews and objectives.

RELATED: University Enacts Rules Aimed at Muslims After Bathrooms Continue to Flood

One look at world history shows that contrary to the “diversity is our strength” narrative, the most strife often occurs along the fault lines of cultural differences.

Hutus and Tutsis. Sunnis versus Shiites. Jews and Palestinians. Hispanic gangs and their black inner city rivals.

In fact, it would be easier to list the rare cases where “cultural diversity” is a clear advantage than all the historical evidence of this being untrue.

Europe’s history books are filled with battles and wars fought over the clash of cultures. This may be an inconvenient reality, but it is true.

Now, leftists are so intent on signaling their virtue that they’re trying to jam square pegs into round holes. Eager to appear tolerant no matter the cost, the “no borders” crowd has turned a blind eye to the mounting evidence that not all forced diversity is a good thing.

If countries like Sweden are not careful, they may be putting their own citizens at risk for the sake of a multicultural experiment.

When half the population is afraid to go outside, something is wrong. Hopefully, people will start paying attention before it’s too late.

H/T Breitbart

Please share this story on Facebook if you believe that countries like Sweden are playing with fire.

Should America learn a lesson from Europe’s migrant crisis? Scroll down to comment below!