Christian Coalition supports Obama plan to control Internet

October 22, 2:43 PMColumbia Conservative ExaminerAnthony G. Martin

Previous Next

8 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Columbia Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Stating that they trust government more than private enterprise to 'adequately provide for Internet neutrality, the Christian Coalition threw it's support behind an Obama-inspired scheme for government to control the Internet.

While supporters claim that the new regulations would 'level the playing field for all Americans' in giving anyone, anywhere 'equal access' to broadband width, detractors strongly oppose the measure as a first step toward complete government control of the Internet.

Perhaps in order to fully understand what is at stake here, we should look at just who is supporting the new FCC regulations.  MoveOn.org is a big supporter.  So is George Soros, the big money behind MoveOn.  The ACLU supports it.  The ultra Leftwing 'Media Matters' supports it.

And, of course, the extremist Marxists in the Obama Administration support it.  That one fact is key.

Maoists, Marxists, and other Communist groups (i.e., totalitarian) have long loathed the fact that the Internet is an invention and product of the private sector.  And ever since it has exploded onto the scene all over the world, the statists have had a vested interest in controlling it, such as they already do in China, where it is illegal for a blogger, for example, to say anything critical of the government.

The Christian Coalition's support for the measure, however, is rather odd though understandable.

As a stalwart defender of human rights from a Christian perspective, the Coalition has made a name for itself since the early 1980s as a conservative force in American politics.  However, the organization supports censorship of content on television, radio, magazines, and the Internet.  Anything that it considers 'unacceptable' is to be banned.

Normally this refers almost exclusively to pornography and the child-exploitation industry.

While no clear-thinking human being supports the exploitation of children and 'kiddie-porn,' the question arises as to how the Christian Coalition can support banning certain influences on the Internet, such as adult pornography, while maintaining a supposed stance for free speech and expression.

The fact that I would allow, say, Playboy, to peddle its wares on the Internet in the name of free speech and expression is no way whatsoever to be taken as an endorsement of such activity.  The same can be said about free speech.  I disagree with lots of things said by Leftists.  But I also believe they have the right to say it.

Organizations such as The Christian Coalition, Gun Owners of America, and other groups that otherwise support freedom have reason to be very wary of the groups with whom they are aligning themselves in this battle over the Internet. 

These conservative groups are long overdue some serious soul-searching.

Do you want to support a measure introduced by a government that has made it clear it supports the philosophy and methods of Chinese Communist Mao Tse Tung, who murdered 70 million Chinese and implemented strict prohibitions on the free speech of that nation?

Do you want more money to be pumped into the coffers of Leftwing subversive groups like Soros' Media Matters and MoveOn?  Within the current proposal, the government would use billions of YOUR tax dollars to pour into subsidized 'network neutrality.'  And what, pray tell, does a government-subsidized anything eventually become?

You know the answer as well as I do.

And then, given the track record of this Administration and Congress regarding conservative speech on the radio, TV, and Internet, how long before a government-run Internet determines that anything written against Obama, his Marxist and Maoist czars, and the present Congress is to be limited so that 'equally-opposing points of view' can be placed at the forefront, as if that isn't already happening? 

Given that Leftists already have the very same access to Internet speech as I do, that means the hoop-la over 'balance, fairness, and neutrality' is nothing more than a red herring.  The end game is to push such extremist propaganda to the forefront and push conservative speech onto the back burner, buried underneath the supposed 'equality' we all have.

The very same argument is used by the Marxist-Communist movement all over the world regarding private property.  In their view, private property is B-A-D because it limits and restricts free access to anyone, anywhere in the 'general public.'  Therefore, all land and property is to be 'public,' that is, belonging to everyone in the society.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

The only problem is that in order to implement this supposed utopian vision of public ownership of all property, you must first take away property from those who bought and paid for it.  And then in order to insure equal access to all of the 'owners,' i.e., everyone in the society, you must enact draconian restrictions in order to keep everything in some semblance of 'balance' and 'equality.'

That means, of course, the government owns all property and regulates access rather than private owners.

The same is true with the so-called 'equal access to the Internet' concept.  In order to maintain the supposed 'Internet neutrality,' insuring complete 'open access' to just anyone, anywhere, for FREE, the government must own it, control it, and enact draconian restrictions in order to keep everything in some semblance of 'balance' and 'equality.'

Do you see how this works in the real world?

The thing is, those who are pushing for the neutrality doctrine know that it works this way.  But they are hoping you don't.

Dig Deeper:  Marsha Blackburn Blasts Net Neutrality Notion   FCC Approves Net Neutrality Regulations

For commentary on other issues, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.