{"id":258407,"date":"2017-12-18T14:30:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-18T19:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=258407"},"modified":"2017-12-19T15:51:35","modified_gmt":"2017-12-19T20:51:35","slug":"ali-velshi-schooled-on-net-neutrality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2017\/12\/18\/ali-velshi-schooled-on-net-neutrality\/","title":{"rendered":"Ali Velshi Schooled on Net Neutrality"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: In what I consider another piece of exciting and good news, the Trump administration will not label climate change as a threat to national security ongoing. Now, if you recall, the Obama administration and I think even the Bush administration had elements in it, and the U.S. military — and I\u2019m not kidding you on this, the U.S. military, particularly in the Obama administration, labeled climate change as a threat to national security.<\/p>\n

They listed climate change as an element that needed to be considered in strategizing training missions and so forth. And I remember the first time I saw this, I threw my hands up in total frustration and said, “How in the name of Sam Hill can anybody with a brain actually believe this?” And I asked myself about a lot of stuff, how can anybody really believe it? Of course the answer is they don\u2019t. They feel it. And then that takes you into the entire labyrinth of psychology, trying to understand it.<\/p>\n

And then you realize, to hell with that, just defeat them. We don\u2019t need to get down in the weeds here and let them establish some premise and debate them on the premise. They just need to be defeated. The notion that climate change poses a threat to national security. Look, it\u2019s a hoax. Climate change is a hoax. It\u2019s absurd that it\u2019s even a story, but that it becomes a genuine threat to national security in the Obama administration. We can\u2019t even predict the weather!<\/p>\n

It does not affect nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. How does climate change affect the Iranians and their seeking of nuclear weapons? Can somebody tell me? It doesn\u2019t. How does climate change affect the ChiComs\u2019 aggressive behavior in the South China Sea where they\u2019re building a bunch of islands out there and claiming it\u2019s their natural property? It doesn\u2019t. Would somebody explain to me how climate change affects cyber hacking, like how did climate change affect the Russians trying to steal our election?<\/p>\n

\"\"Could somebody make the connection for me? Could somebody explain to me the connection between climate change and Hezbollah being allowed to run cocaine into the country by the Obama administration? How does climate change affect genuine national security? How does climate change have a role in anything? How does climate change have an impact on illegal immigration? And they have an answer for that. “Well, Rush they\u2019re coming up here \u2019cause it\u2019s so hot down there where they live.”<\/p>\n

No, wait. Climate change isn\u2019t happening yet. You advocates forget, it\u2019s not gonna happen for 30 years. So you can\u2019t say that they\u2019re coming because it\u2019s getting warmer, because it isn\u2019t! You\u2019re telling us the damage is not for 30 years or 40 or 50. So Trump is taking away the designation. Climate change will no longer be listed as a national security threat. Common sense big time returning to the federal government here and there, and this causes an insane reaction from people on the left.<\/p>\n

Now, as you know, we have a ban here on the network MSNBC. The reason for the ban is that I finally that figured out by constantly calling attention to what was happening on that network, I was creating curiosity about it. And this was leading to more and more people tuning in and watching it, which of course is not the idea. It\u2019s counterproductive. We do not want to create an audience for this bunch.<\/p>\n

And I said, “I am willing to broom some of the admittedly entertaining aspects of the program for the larger cause of not helping this network grow. This has been a source of great frustration to production assistants who search for sound bites because that\u2019s a very rich mine that I have closed off. But occasionally, as is the case with all bans, we lift it. And I heard of an interview that happened late last week on MSNBC with Ali Velshi.<\/p>\n

This guy is a former CNN reporter. He\u2019s an economic dunderhead, but he thinks he is an expert on everything. And he literally doesn\u2019t know 90% of what he claims to be an expert on. He interviewed a man by the name of Robert McDowell, who is a former FCC commissioner. And it\u2019s about the net neutrality vote.<\/p>\n

First sound bite, Ali Velshi. “The internet, as we know it today, and the things most people consume, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, those companies came about because small startups had access to this fantastic internet. And if we were to impose the ability to slow down some parts of the internet or speed it up for money, we may end up freezing the internet in time and that these big companies exist as big companies, there will be no competition to Facebook or Google or Amazon because startups are gonna be denied access to the internet.” Here\u2019s Mr. McDowell.<\/p>\n

MCDOWELL: What the FCC did in February of 2015 was put a 1934 law, the Communications Act of 1934, a part of it called Title II on to broadband internet networks. But before that that\u2019s when all those companies you just cited were actually started in dorm rooms and then became some of the world\u2019s largest corporations. The question is before February 2015, what worked? You have the Federal Trade Commission Act, you have the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act, those are three very powerful federal statutes that kept the internet open and free prior to February 2015. To hear some people talk today you\u2019d think the internet started in February 2015.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Okay so what this guy was telling Ali, “Ali, the thing you\u2019re afraid of actually happened from the day the internet was invented until 2015 when Obama put net neutrality laws on it. Exactly what you want was what the internet was. It\u2019s Obama who has changed access to the internet in the last two years.” But Ali Velshi doesn\u2019t get this. He thinks that there has never been a free and open internet until Obama came along and made it free and open two years ago.<\/p>\n

Next question: “But if Facebook wants to say that they\u2019ll spend a billion to subsidize your internet plan so that you pay less for your monthly fee, but Facebook gets preferential treatment, if a startup tries to launch a competitor to Facebook and if I don\u2019t have that money to pay, I could get slow speed and people will say, why would you ever use my service as opposed to existing one that paid for the fast one?”<\/p>\n

\"\"What he\u2019s wanting, his question, why can\u2019t we get Facebook, a rich guy, to subsidize a startup? They have so much more money, it isn\u2019t fair. So he wants Facebook and existing big guys to subsidize startups because he thinks this new internet law, net neutrality, will eliminate startups, which he\u2019s dead wrong about, but here\u2019s the answer.<\/p>\n

MCDOWELL: Section 1 and section 2 of Sherman Act and section 3 of Clayton Act, you just triggered all three of those sections, that would be an anti-trust violation. Federal Trade Commission could go after \u2019em also under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. That was against the law before February 2015, and it will be against the law as of today.<\/p>\n

VELSHI: Look, I don\u2019t feel like we\u2019re having a really, a really fair conversation here.<\/p>\n

MCDOWELL: Sure.<\/p>\n

VELSHI: I\u2019m trying to have a conversation on the — on the merits of the principle of unintended consequences of reversing net neutrality, and you\u2019re dropping a lot of legalese.<\/p>\n

MCDOWELL: That\u2019s the merits.<\/p>\n

VELSHI: We know full well that the Federal Trade Commission —<\/p>\n

MCDOWELL: The legalese are the merits, though, Ali. That\u2019s what\u2019s at play here, and maybe you haven\u2019t read these laws, you don\u2019t understand them —<\/p>\n

VELSHI: I\u2019m very familiar with net neutrality, Robert.<\/p>\n

MCDOWELL: In Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act —<\/p>\n

VELSHI: I\u2019m really not that familiar with being condescended on.<\/p>\n

\"\"RUSH: So this guy, Ali Velshi, was suggesting what is against the law. It\u2019s against the law for these big guys to subsidize certain people they choose over others, and it would trigger anti-trust legislation before net neutrality and after it. And Velshi (imitating Velshi), “I\u2019m sensing you\u2019re dropping a lot of legalese on me, and I don\u2019t feel like we\u2019re having a fair conversation,” because he\u2019s getting his ass creamed because he doesn\u2019t know what he\u2019s talking about.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: I\u2019ve got one more example of Ali Velshi — he looks like a skinny Mr. Clean, by the way, one of these bald guys out there. He\u2019s interviewing Robert McDowell on PMSNBC, the former FCC commissioner, who is just making mincemeat of this guy Velshi. Velshi knows it but he doesn\u2019t think anybody else does, and so he\u2019s trying to cover up for that. More in a moment.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

Back to the internet. Ali Velshi trying to save face in the midst of a common sense onslaught by former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell. This is on MSNBC, it was last Thursday. After Ali Velshi, ex-CNN, tells McDowell he doesn\u2019t like his condescending tone, he said, “I feel like you\u2019re condescending me with no reason whatsoever. I don\u2019t think we\u2019re really having a fair conversation here. I\u2019m trying to have a conversation about the merits of unprincipled, unintended consequences, and you\u2019re just dropping legalese on me.”<\/p>\n

And McDowell said (paraphrasing), “Well, legalese is the issue here, Ali baby, and you don\u2019t know what you\u2019re talking about.” So here we pick it up. That\u2019s the final bite coming here.<\/p>\n

VELSHI: We\u2019re not in a court of law. There\u2019s no judge in front of us.<\/p>\n

MCDOWELL: I understand. But to your point, which is you\u2019re saying consumers aren\u2019t protected. That\u2019s just not true.<\/p>\n

VELSHI: I did not make that argument once. I didn\u2019t say consumers. You\u2019ve come to this show ready for an argument that I\u2019m not giving you. I\u2019m saying —<\/p>\n

MCDOWELL: Okay.<\/p>\n

VELSHI: — that if someone has an advantage in streaming their content over the internet, an established player has an advantage because they\u2019ve got the money to be able to buy better, faster, quicker access or prevent somebody else from getting it, the incumbent is favored over the startup. That\u2019s the only point I wanted to make. That\u2019s the only point.<\/p>\n

MCDOWELL: And that would be illegal. That\u2019s the point I\u2019m making. What you just said is already illegal. I know it\u2019s good clickbait to say the internet\u2019s being destroyed, but it\u2019s not.<\/p>\n