Rejecting the Democrats’ Looming Police State & the Internet’s Ongoing Economic Stagnation: Repealing “Net Neutrality”

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. . . .  Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness . . . .  [T]he great enemy of clear language is insincerity.  Where there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms. . . .  —George Orwell

What is really important in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.  —Edward S. Herman

Net Neutrality Doubletalk

Do not listen to the double-speak!  It is getting rid of “net neutrality” that will actually make the Internet neutral and free!  “Net neutrality” was Obama’s term (not unlike the term “Affordable Care Act”—which actually referred to the most unaffordable health care Americans have ever known).   “Net neutrality” did not really mean “neutral” in the sense of “free.”  For one thing, it meant that an Internet content provider was not allowed to advance its Internet technology until first making sure every one of its customers had access to the technology already in place.  This raised costs, and those higher costs were passed on, making products less affordable to consumers and business less brisk for the Internet vendors providing them. The net result (no pun intended) has been to slow technological development in the name of “fairness.”  Lifesaving technological innovations have been put on hold because of this.  So how “fair” is it, in a free republic, to limit the people’s freedom?  Is it not the government that is supposed to be limited in a free civil society?

Trending: MSNBC Knowingly Lies about Russian Interference in the Election

Ease of Oppression

So-called “net neutrality” actually facilitates the will of unaccountable government bureaucrats—who do not have to stand for election or be accountable to the people—over the American people.  Obama’s rules for controlling the economy via the Internet slow the economy down, costing many Americans their lives and livelihoods.  Getting rid of the “net neutrality” doctrine will allow the Internet economy to become as powerful in spurring technological growth and innovation as the Trump Tax Cuts the Congress is trying to pass.

The Internet Belongs to the People

The Internet belongs to the People, not to the State.  It is for taxpayers to benefit from, not for the State to overregulate.  Socialism kills people and impoverishes many.  Imagine all the lives saved by cell phone technology and phone deregulation, which was only made possible by the break-up of the government monopoly on telephone service.  The old government-regulated monopoly was “phone neutrality,” if you will.  It was quite costly—dollars a minute for long distance calls—and it was nowhere close to being mobile, so a stranded woman and child in the desert could not easily make a rescue call to AAA or 9-1-1 for roadside help or emergency medical services.  Deregulation of the telephone industry has saved many lives by encouraging the innovations which led to the iPhone and all of its spinoffs.  Lives have been improved, enhanced, and even saved by this technology.  Freedom usually saves lives while socialism, with all its attendant rules and regulations on human behavior, actually kills people.  Literally.

The People’s Law

The Internet was created by a Congressional act called the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (HPCA), also known as Public Law 102-194.  It is generally referred to as the Gore Bill, since it was created by Senator Albert Gore, Jr., of Tennessee.  The Gore Bill was, indeed, bipartisan and was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush.

The HPCA spurred the development of many important technological advances, including the Mosaic web browser and a high-speed fiber-optic computer network.  The HPCA was enacted on December 9, 1991, and President Bush predicted at the time that the act would help “unlock the secrets of DNA,” as well as open foreign markets to trade.  Indeed, the HPCA has been that important.  Much of America’s wealth and prosperity has been built on the foundation of fast interaction that the Internet provides for research and development.  Scholars and scientists—who once had to wait weeks for “snail-mail” replies to come to them from overseas correspondents—can now hear back from colleagues in minutes!  The impact that the Internet has had on the creation of new knowledge and new wealth is incalculable.

Ajit Pai & Lee Goldman’s Dissent

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commission member Lee Goldman wrote in a Politico piece on February 23, 2015, called “Internet Freedom Works,” the following: “Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model.  Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe.  Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe.  And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density.”

Enabling the Police State

President Obama—by having the FCC illegally rule itself the power to regulate the Internet—laid the foundation for Hillary Clinton to declare a police state.  Obama’s plan was to reclassify high-speed Internet service as a public utility, even though the Congress never changed US law to allow this to happen.  Obama never felt constrained by US law, so his urging the FCC to do this was hardly surprising.  The plan was for Internet broadband service be declared a public utility, which it is not under the people’s law.  Creating this right of the government to regulate the Internet also implied that the government could claim licensing rights somewhere down the road over Internet content providers, including web sites.  And it was Hillary Clinton’s plan to make use of this new power to shut down news sites the government deemed to be unworthy of the right to exist.

From a little over a year ago, Clinton’s anti-Constitutional plan was already being reported : “Hillary’s campaign has gone into overdrive against the alternative media, sending a threatening email to fundraisers saying that independent conservative news outlet Breitbart News has ‘no right to exist,’ and hinting that they were making plans to shut it down forever once Hillary is elected.”

This form of prior restraint championed by Hillary is patently illegal in the United States.  Hillary’s War on the First Amendment, along with Obama’s precedent of ignoring Constitutional protocol throughout his administration, was chief among the reasons the American public decided to elect Trump, rather than allow Hillary Clinton to serve Obama’s third term.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend