We All Should Have Died After Net Neutrality Repeal. Now Internet is 40% Faster

Imagine that? We survived Net Neutrality’s repeal and got fast internet in the process.

Despite the doomsday forecasters’ grim predictions for the Internet’s future following Net Neutrality’s repeal, here we are still alive and still breathing. Even more positive news: U.S. Internet speeds rose 40%.

Ookla’s latest Speedtest found that ” US internet speeds rose nearly 40 percent this year.” Here were the winners and losers of fastest broadband and upload speeds per Recode:

New Jersey had the highest mean download speed — 121 megabits per second — while Rhode Island had the fastest upload speed — 63 Mbps — in Q2 and Q3 of 2018. Maine had the slowest mean upload and download speeds (50 Mbps download, 10 Mbps upload) of any state. California, the home of Silicon Valley, ranked 17th in downloads and 24th in uploads

With respect to download speed, the report placed the U.S. in the seventh coveted spot—between Hungary and Switzerland. With respect to upload rate, the U.S. ranks 27th between Bulgaria and Canada. These findings were studied during Q2-Q3 2018. Despite 5G being on the horizon, the U.S. is best positioning itself to have “faster speeds and greater increases in speed.”

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai was heralded as a nemesis of net neutrality and Internet freedom. He was supposed to “break the Internet” and bring about its imminent demise and death. Ironically, his agenda has proven to be otherwise and a net benefit to Internet freedom.

Last month, the FCC proposed doubling the speed of rural broadband through “government-subsidized programs.” Here’s Pai’s explainer on how they should be allocated and used:

There are a few basic principles that animate — or should — the high-cost program. First, subsidies should provide maximum incentive to be efficient; we want to stretch taxpayer dollars as far as possible. Second, subsidies should be sufficient to build out networks; after all, these are areas where the business case for private investment is lacking. Third, the program should support high-quality services; rural Americans deserve services that are comparable to those in urban areas. And fourth, subsidies should be predictable; after all, building networks is a serious long-term proposition, not a one-time whim. Unfortunately, for many, many years, the program hasn’t satisfied each of these important principles.

Tax cuts were supposed to bring about our extinction, as well, but here we are. Don’t believe the scaremongers.

Eventbrite Tells Hunting Group Listing Gun Raffles on Event Violates Rules

SCI San Diego received an email announcing their event was unpublished for violating Community Guidelines.

A Safari Club International chapter based in San Diego, California, was recently contacted by Eventbrite over possibly violating their Community Guidelines for advertising gun raffles at their upcoming banquet. The company said listing raffles for guns is not permitted as of April 3, 2018. Their updated Community Guidelines on guns, and by extension gun raffles, reads:

Eventbrite may not be used to facilitate harmful or criminal activity of any kind. You may not create or promote events on the Eventbrite Services that constitute or promote any of the following, as determined by Eventbrite:

Sale, distribution or unlawful use of (i) firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or (ii) weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury,

The Eventbrite page for the chapter’s upcoming 39th Annual San Diego SCI Auction/Fundraiser was unpublished for not abiding by Community Guidelines. The email warned them that any future listing of gun raffles could get their account banned if they were to advertise it again in the future. The full email explaining their decision can be found below:

Eventbrite updated their Community Guidelines on April 3rd, 2018, to suggest guns for raffle or sale fit into their “Don’ts” category:


You may not use Eventbrite to post content or engage in any conduct that is (in our sole evaluation) offensive, harmful, or inappropriate for general audiences, or that we believe constitutes or is likely to encourage or promote any harmful, violent, or illegal activity or outcome. Below, you will find more information about the types of activities, events, and content that are not permitted on or through the Eventbrite Services.

1. Don’t Promote Illegal or Inappropriate Activities

Eventbrite may not be used to facilitate harmful or criminal activity of any kind. You may not create or promote events on the Eventbrite Services that constitute or promote any of the following, as determined by Eventbrite:

• Explicit sexual activity (including escort services), or pornography,

• Illegal gambling activity (whether illegal under any U.S. federal or state law, or non-U.S. law),

• Sale or ingestion of illegal drugs, other illegal substances, or nutraceuticals,

• Cannabis, cannabis samples or cannabis-infused products provided for free, for purchase by the Organizer, or as part of the ticket price, attendee sharing of cannabis, or dispensary tours,

• Activities that principally promote any other commercial product or service, such as an “infomercial,” unless such promotion is expressly indicated to users in a legally sufficient way, such as through a prominent “Advertisement” disclosure,

• Unauthorized multi-level marketing businesses,

• Credit repair services,

• Activities that demean, harass, intimidate, threaten or express hatred toward any societal group, whether based on race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, or veteran status,

Sale, distribution or unlawful use of (i) firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or (ii) weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury,or

• Terrorist activity or organized criminal activity.

This isn’t the first episode by corporations forbidding gun raffles or gun sales. Credit card companies have been mulling the prohibition of gun sales in recent years. In March, the California state legislature was mulling a bill banning gun raffles benefitting nonprofit organizations, but the bill failed to pass. Back in August, Shopify banned the sale of guns and gun accessories on their portal.

If this prohibition becomes a trend, curious minds wonder if alternatives will be started to accommodate law-abiding gun owners and hunters.

Ben Shapiro’s Addition to March for Life Speakers Line-Up is Good for Pro-Lifers

Ben Shapiro has every right to headline March for Life in 2019.

Charles Camosy, a Fordham University professor and professed “pro-life” Democrat, argued in Washington Post that conservative radio host, author, and commentator Ben Shapiro headlining the 2019 March for Life is a “huge mistake.”

He wrote:

Many in the pro-life movement, of which I am passionately a part, will consider the Harvard Law-educated intellectual a huge get. Not me. Despite Shapiro’s star power and stature, I consider his appearance a serious mistake for the March, one that will move us even further from being understood as the broad-based human rights movement we need to embody in order to go from fringe to mainstream.

How is Shapiro unfit to headline March for Life? He’s one of the most listened-to conservative podcasters in the U.S. His website Daily Wire attracts 140 million page views a month.

The author opposes Shapiro’s selection on the fact that President Trump appeared at the March via satellite, whom he called “the absolute nemesis of more left-leaning pro-lifers like myself.”

Camosy adds:

Shapiro, of course, puts the March on the map in a different — and, in some respects, more important — way than Trump’s video did last year. Trump is a buffoon, but Shapiro is helping form the imagination of many millions of young conservatives. He also has deep relationships and regular exchanges with pro-choice members of the intellectual dark Web, and is one of the few pro-life public figures who is taken seriously outside the pro-life movement itself.

Though I disagree with Shapiro about 60 to 70 percent of the time, I listen to his entertaining show regularly and consider him a very important voice for vulnerable populations. His commitment to argument and evidence — and rejection of power politics — represents the only chance those who have lack power in our culture have to get their interests taken seriously.

Still, I do not welcome his appearance at the March.

Jeannie Mancini, president of March for Life, countered the author and said all diverse pro-life views, including Shapiro’s, are welcomed at next year’s march.

Jeanne F. Mancini


.@CCamosy YES, the pro-life movement is made up of all of us – w different approaches & backgrounds- be it race, political ideology, religion, etc. If you look at past speakers you can see we strive to have this diversity reflected in speakers at the March. https://twitter.com/CCamosy/status/1070834541248634881 

See Jeanne F. Mancini’s other Tweets

Shapiro is genuinely pro-life

If you’ve followed Ben long enough — I’m proud to say I was an early adopter before he peaked during the 2016 election — you’d know that he’s a pro-life stalwart. He’s an Orthodox Jew, after all. It’s in his nature to be pro-life. Just Google “Ben Shapiro” and “abortion” and you’ll discover hundreds of videos and articles by him or about him discussing and making an impassioned case for the right-to-life.

Ben Shapiro


Virtually every major Jewish halakhist of the modern era has barred abortion except when the life of the mother is threatened. Don’t try quoting the Talmud at me. You just don’t know enough. https://twitter.com/quinncy/status/1016719380233646081 

Quinn Cummings


Replying to @quinncy

In your bio, you quote @BenShapiro saying “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” True! The fact is that a soul cannot be measured, or studied. A soul is not a fact. A soul is a belief. It’s a nice belief and it’s one I choose to participate in, but it’s still a belief.

656 people are talking about this

His stances shouldn’t be up for debate.

Shapiro speaking won’t hurt the March

Camosy argues Ben’s presence will hurt, not help, the March for Life.

He wrote, “It is an especially bad mistake to have his show recorded live on the most public stage of the pro-life movement — a stage that will be made even more public due to his presence.”

If you are in event planning in politics, chances are you’ve been tasked with tapping high profile speakers. (I certainly have while doing public relations work for clients.) Shapiro is a high-profile speaker with serious clout and a large viewership. His live broadcast at the march will be streamed online and likely watched by thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people in real time. How is that a bad thing?

Shapiro may have a large following among conservatives, but many middle-of-the-road types who aren’t socially conservative listen to his show and read Daily Wire.

He has a massive audience, with the latter averaging 140 million monthly views. That’s a huge benefit to the March for Life. When Shapiro does something, people pay attention—even those who disagree with him politically.

I hope Camosy doesn’t work in public relations, because he would be terrible at it. High profile speakers don’t tend to be pro-life. His addition to the line-up is welcomed. I hope more public figures like Shapiro plan to partake in March for Life festivities in the future too.

Shapiro brings unique religious perspective to the March

While there is nothing wrong with the March for Life largely appealing to evangelicals and Catholics, who make up a large segment of the U.S. population, Shapiro’s addition to the speakers lineup signals the march’s desire to show that the pro-life movement is truly Judeo-Christian.

In fact, Haaretz thinks Shapiro is too pro-life for someone who is Jewish that his pro-life stances resemble evangelical ones.

In contrast, Shapiro’s position on abortion tracks much more closely with the extremist positions of several Christian denominations, especially Catholics and white evangelicals, that insist life begins at conception. Indeed, in several public interactions recorded on YouTube, Shapiro actually calls for doctors who perform abortions to be prosecuted for murder, and states that one cannot morally draw any line after conception.

Shapiro is one of the most prominent and influential Orthodox Jews in the American political media landscape (perhaps trailing only Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner), but seems to be genuinely unaware of the centuries-long, nuanced, and substantive Jewish conversation on the topic.

Instead, he delivered the standardRepublican platform, itself the product of the party’s evangelical base.

If the author is worried about lack of Democrat representation at the March with respect to speakers, perhaps his group and other avowed pro-life Democrats should signal their interest to speak. Heck, it would be great for a prominent pro-life Democrat to take center-stage at March for Life. Perhaps some past speakers have in years’ prior? Your move, pro-life Democrats.

I think Ben Shapiro, coupled with his massive audience and pro-life bonafides to back him, is superbly qualified to headline the 2019 March for Life. You can expect coverage of the March from me here at The Resurgent come January 18, 2019.

The author of this piece served as host of March for Life TV in January 2017.

More Adults Get Their News from Social Media Now

Per a new Pew Research Poll out, U.S. adults consume their news through social media over newspapers.

A December 10th poll from Pew Research Center found that more American adults consume news through social media — not traditional newspapers.

The poll can be broken down as this:

  • 49 percent of respondents learn about the news from TV
  • 33 percent of respondents read online newspapers
  • 20 percent of respondents get their news from social media
  • 16 percent of respondents get their news from traditional newspapers

These are very interesting stats. What do you think? Is this an accurate observation of how people obtain information as it relates to the news?

Winning: EPA Amends WOTUS to Not Apply to Puddles, Ditches

This modifies a 2015 Obama-era rule regulating all bodies of water as navigable water.

EPA Administrator Wheeler and his agency announced their intent to scale back the egregious tenets of the 2015 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule—which regulates all bodies of water, including puddles and ditches, as subject to federal regulation. Today’s move would clarify federal authority under the Clean Water Act.

“Our proposal would replace the Obama EPA’s 2015 definition with one that respects the limits of the Clean Water Act and provides states and landowners the certainty they need to manage their natural resources and grow local economies,” said EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “For the first time, we are clearly defining the difference between federally protected waterways and state protected waterways. Our simpler and clearer definition would help landowners understand whether a project on their property will require a federal permit or not, without spending thousands of dollars on engineering and legal professionals.”

“EPA and the Army together propose this new definition that provides a clear and predictable approach to regulating ‘waters of the United States.’ We focused on developing an implementable definition that balances local and national interests under the Clean Water Act,” said R.D. James, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. “I have heard from a wide range of stakeholders on Clean Water Act implementation challenges. This proposed definition provides a common-sense approach to managing our nation’s waters.”

The EPA’s press shop said today’s announcement would result in “significant cost savings, protect the nation’s navigable waters, help sustain economic growth, and reduce barriers to business development.”

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Secretary Ryan Zinke


Great work by @EPAAWheeler to correct regs. This will help a lot of communities and return power to the most local level.

59 people are talking about this

Rep. Steve Scalise


This new, revised rule restores sanity to the definition of ‘navigable waters’ & rolls back the extreme overreach we saw from the EPA under the last Administration, which sought to regulate all bodies of water, even ditches & puddles. Thanks @POTUS! https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-army-propose-new-waters-united-states-definition 

EPA and Army Propose New “Waters of the United States” Definition | US EPA

EPA News Release: EPA and Army Propose New “Waters of the United States” Definition


185 people are talking about this

Here’s how navigable waters will be defined under this administration going forward:

Under the agencies’ proposal, traditional navigable waters, tributaries to those waters, certain ditches, certain lakes and ponds, impoundments of jurisdictional waters, and wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters would be federally regulated. It also details what are not “waters of the United States,” such as features that only contain water during or in response to rainfall (e.g., ephemeral features); groundwater; many ditches, including most roadside or farm ditches; prior converted cropland; stormwater control features; and waste treatment systems.

This is a win for science and property rights.

Elizabeth Warren is Dead Wrong About Eastern European Success With Free Markets

The Massachusetts senator blames the U.S. for spreading “cutthroat capitalism” to the former Eastern Bloc.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is not only mulling a run for president in 2020, she’s trying to market-splain to formerly Soviet-occupied Eastern European countries why shouldn’t have embraced “cutthroat capitalism” after regaining independence.

“Champions of cutthroat capitalism pushed former Soviet states to privatize as quickly as possible despite the enormous risk of corruption,” Warren said in remarks at American University on foreign policy. Watch her full remarks below:

Her statement is tone deaf and would be rightly laughed at by nations like the Baltic Republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (the latter of which is my ancestral homeland).

They are enjoying free enterprise very much and succeeding at it. Per Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index, Estonia is the 7th most economically free country in the world. Lithuania is down to the 19th spot, while Latvia is the 28th most economically free country in the world, in this year’s world rankings. They all have free market institutes.

Here’s a good recap of why the three Baltics were quick to embrace free enterprise after their regained independence:

The recessions of the early 1990s overwhelmed Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. A few years earlier the Soviet Union had collapsed, and with it the economic system that the occupying communist regime had enforced in the Baltic nations. In the span of only two years– from 1991 to 1993 – Estonia’s GDP dropped by 35 percent, while the economic output in Latvia and Lithuania fell by around 50 percent. In response, the three countries introduced an ambitious plan to reform and open up their markets. Flat income tax systems at low rates were put in place; general business-friendly regulations were established; governmental influence on the labour market was minimised.

Many economists viewed these changes as a gigantic gamble. The result was a resounding success. The average inflation adjusted growth rate* in the Baltics states from 1995 to 2014 was, as shown in the image below, over 5 per cent, or nearly four times the EU-28 average. No other European country matched this strong performance, driven in part by catch-up and growth-oriented economic policies. But it wasn’t all smooth sailing. In 2008 and 2009, the Baltic states were again hit hard by economic crises. The three nations were particularly sensitive to the global recession, since they had made the decision to maintain fixed exchange rates. Another factor was that foreign investment had contributed strongly to the rapid growth.When the global financial crisis hit, the flow of capital was reversed, deepening the crisis.

Do people really believe that countries occupied by tyrannical, socialist regimes would dip into that experiment again or allow that to transpire again after the bloodshed that ensued in 1939?

Not all the other formerly occupied republics share the same success, especially as Ukraine constantly struggles to ward off aggression from Russia. However, other countries that were coerced into communism – like Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary— have also embraced a more market based system following the physical collapse of the U.S.S.R. and succeeded.

As an American of immediate Lithuanian descent, I’m grateful that my parents’ homeland is rejecting global socialism and succeeding economically. In fact, both Estonia and Lithuania are more market-friendly than the U.S. in its current standing.

Senator Warren need not shame Eastern European countries for embracing free enterprise. Perhaps she could learn a thing or two from them about sound economic policies.

h/t Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti

Two Country Music Stars Endorse Universal Background Checks

Dierks Bentley and Tyler Hubbard of Florida Georgia Line have jumped on board’s Toms’ #EndGunViolence campaign.

Is Nashville becoming too much like Hollywood? It seems to be the case with a slew of major country singers and alleged country singers embracing gun control. In this instance, unlike Erick Church blaming the NRA for the Las Vegas shooting, singers Tyler Hubbard of Florida Georgia Line and Dierks Bentley have endorsed Toms’ #EndGunViolenceTogether campaign. It’s being put on by Blake Mycoskie of TOMS Shoes.

The former posted two posts on his Instagram urging fellow country singers to jump on board this campaign. Not surprisingly, he turned off comments for both posts.

From Billboard:

On Nov. 29, Hubbard delivered an impassioned endorsement of the TOMS CEO’s new initiative. In a solemn video, he referred to the staggering statistics regarding the 307 mass shootings that took place over the last 311 days in the United States and said that he believes that “we can all come together and all agree that something has to change” by contacting congress and demanding stricter gun laws.

That statistic is highly suspect, as gun control groups label all shootings – with four or more people shot – as mass shootings.

Here’s Bentley’s more general call for action, without explaining why he supports it:

Last month, the “woke” shoe company donated $5 million to support gun control affiliated groups. Here’s what the campaign entails, with respect to promoting universal background checks (UBC):

The Toms funds will go to organizations working to end gun violence in the U.S. by addressing issues such as urban crime, domestic violence, mental health and suicide. Campaign partners include: Moms Demand Action, The Black and Brown Gun Violence Prevention Consortium, March for Our Lives and Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence.

The aforementioned “gun safety” groups aren’t for gun rights nor offer remedies for true gun safety measures. They are outfits to elect and support pro-gun control members of Congress.

For supposed gun owners, Hubbard and Bentley need to read up on universal background checks.

John Lott explained in New York Times why this policy does nothing to deter crime:

The background check measures before Congress aim to improve enforcement of existing law and increase such reporting by imposing financial penalties on government officials whose agencies fail to provide required information. That’s a good goal, but any proposal should also fix another major problem with the background check system: false positives that stop law-abiding people from getting weapons that they might need to protect themselves and their families.

The background check system confuses the names of law-abiding individuals with those of criminals, resulting in thousands of “false positives” every year. Relying on phonetically similar names along with birth dates just doesn’t allow for much accuracy.

Even more people would face such problems if background checks were made “universal,” meaning to include the private sale or transfer of firearms, which are exempt from checks in most states. Many people consider this a common-sense policy, but there would be a cost: Background checks involve fees that drive up the price of guns in private sales and make it harder for poor people to defend themselves.

Donald J. Mihalek, executive vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, argued in a CNN column that fixing the NICS system to make it more robust would be more effective than universal background checks:

The system should be as robust and include the types of identifying, warning, cross checking and criminal and mental history information as the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC). NCIC is the repository of all local and state information related to arrests, criminal history, criminal activity like stolen cars and permits law enforcement to input danger, warning or safety notifications.

If NICS doesn’t have that same type of robust information, it may never be able to do what Americans demand — block prohibited people from legally obtaining firearms. Until it is, we may continue to see people who should be prohibited from owning a weapon turn a tool of protection into a tool of terror.

Also, when universal background type laws are implemented, they don’t work to deter crime—just look at Colorado and Washington State.

Hubbard and Bentley will likely alienate their fan base, especially with the former not having real country bonafides to speak for. Learn from Miranda Lambert and Carrie Underwood: don’t get political.

John James is Being Considered to Replace Outgoing UN Ambassador Nikki Haley

Other contenders include current State Department spox Heather Nauert.

President Trump want be appointing Detroit businessman and recent GOP nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan, John James, to replace outgoing US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley. James recently lost his general election race against incumbent U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow by a [52 to 46% margin](https://ballotpedia.org/John_James_(Michigan%29), signaling that he has a bright political future in Michigan with such a narrow loss.

Here’s more on the matter:

The Trump administration is considering putting a person without ambassador’s experience into the job, a source said. James has never been an ambassador, but a source said a person with ambassador’s experience would likely be his deputy if he is chosen.

A White House spokesman said Monday he had “no personnel announcements at this time.” A call to James’ office was not returned.

James visited the White House last week to discuss an administration job with Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, unidentified sources told Bloomberg News, which first reported James’ candidacy for the UN ambassadorship.

Former Fox News host and current State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert is also considered a top choice to replace Haley when she bows out of her post at the end of the year.

James attended West Point and went on several deployments during his military career. Haley also didn’t have much of diplomatic experience, but has served the U.N. post well. We shall see.