Quick: name a company in any industry that's not dependent in some way on the Internet for sales, communication with customers, collaboration, scheduling, marketing, bill payments, commerce, and so on.

In our online-powered world, that list of companies totally detached from the Internet would be incredibly small.

But all the rest of us—the remaining 99.8%--are on the verge of having that indispensable Internet regulated, stifled, babysat, and compromised by a rogue Federal Communications Commission whose imminent power grab over the Internet is coming in defiance of courtroom decisions and in the absence of Congressional authorization.

What's particularly insidious is that the supporters of this power grab to hamstring the Internet by placing it under bureaucratic control are calling their scheme "net neutrality."

But three months ago at election time, the American people had a chance to let their voices be heard on whether they wanted to let a bunch of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats begin smothering the Internet, and the results could not have been more clear: as we wrote in November, 95 candidates for Congressional office signed a petition expressing their support for "net neutrality," and every single one of those 95 "net neutrality"-supporting candidates was defeated.

So in that spirit, I'm going to drop the 1984-ish war-is-peace terminology of "net neutrality" and from here on out call it what it actually is: Internet regulation.

But, clever schemers that they are, the supporters of governmental regulation of the Internet know that their efforts would never have a chance of succeeding if they used such plain talk, and instead they try to frame their arguments with gasball nonsense like this sentence that was a part of that suicidal pledge signed by those 95 candidates before the last election (oh—and did I mention that all 95 of those candidates who pledged to support governmental regulation of the Internet were defeated at the polls?):