Article Image
News Link • Internet

Controlling the Ability of People and Organizations to Access the Internet

The ability to “turn the Internet off or shutting down sites that Obama considers “dangerous” including particular political groups, individuals or organizations who espouse differing views has far reaching political, financial, moral and legal implications. Such a policy imposed under Executive Order to control what enters Internet sites and what is shared daily would stifle free speech in direct violation of the First Amendment rights of all Americans. During the elections in Iran, its citizens using Facebook and Twitter got out 95% of the news from Iran. In America would our social sites be shut down if enough people using them “dared” to question the current political regime in power at any given time? Sitting ominously in the Senate is the Rockefeller Bill S. 773 to takeover the Internet in emergencies. As we all know, once taken over, we will never get it back the way it was before. This is what elitists have in mind for us. America’s brightest minds and taxpayers funds made the Internet happen, and now there are indications that the Obama administration is moving quietly to allow control of the web to move from the US to foreign powers. Such a transfer of power and control would change the future of mankind. This would be affected via our Department of Commerce. America controls the Internet via the Domain name System (DNS), and the servers that serve the Internet. They are managed by IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, which operates via the Department of Commerce, being responsible for global cooperation and coordination of the DNS, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol sources. Without these elements one would not have access to the Internet. Over the years, the UN and others internationally have been pressing the US to give away control and management to an international body. Those thirsting for this power are the UN and the International Telecommunications Union, which coordinates international telephone communications. Their argument is that the Internet has become a powerful and dependent form of communications, that is dangerous and inequitable for one nation to control and manage. Our President has agreed to relinquish some control over IANA and its governance. Foreign companies and countries would have a greater say in what goes on in the Internet. This is the foot in the door. Before you know it the UN will have control and censorship will begin. No control should be given to any other country or body. It is not only our Internet; it is a matter of national security, which our government is up too. The world has been allowed to share this miracle free and without censorship or restriction. Do we want to end up like the Chinese, where their communist government recently told Google to censor the Internet? Do we want the UN to use the Internet as a source of funding? Do we want the UN or any participant country to restrict what we can say or do on the net? Do we want limitations on free speech? That is what the UN has planned for us. The Internet will no longer be a vehicle of free speech. Why would we want to give away one of our most precious and greatest assets for nothing to a group that is bent on enslaving us via one-world government? Once our control is gone we will never get it back. The Council on Foreign Relations, literary house organ that we have subscribed to for 50 years, Foreign Affairs, tells us that many governments feel that, like the telephone network, the Internet should be administered under a multilateral treaty. They view ICANN as an instrument of American hegemony over cyberspace and that its private-sector approach favors the US and gives it oversight authority, and that other nations have no say as to what goes on in the Internet. Then again, we did invent it and do own it. Its private construction was deliberately implemented to keep government out of the net, not for the US or any other government or body to control it. South Africa, Brazil and China as stooges for one-world interests are demanding an international treaty, so the UN can control it. Adding to the demands are the intellectually void countries of Zimbabwe, Cuba and Syria. These three paragons of peace and prosperity want the UN to tell us how to run our Internet.

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ross Wolf
Entered on:

I got to ask, where did this great—Maobama portrait—come from. Is this picture of Obama Public Domain? I could make a fortune having printed this Maobama portrait on toilet paper then selling it at TEA Parities and other Anti-Obama meetings, even in this Recession.

Comment by Ross Wolf
Entered on:

Americans definitely don’t want Obama giving the UN or any foreign entity power over the Internet to block and sensor the free exchange of information. But what steps should U.S. government take to protect its Citizens from terrorists that use the Internet to recruit followers and facilitators in America? Currently in the U.S., it appears not possible to stop Al-Qaeda and other terrorists recruiting followers, if our Government is constrained from arresting extremists that advocate ideologies, understood by followers to condone killing Americans. In the U.S. when someone personally or via the Internet advocates a terrorist ideology (understood) by his or her followers to cause harm to Americans, should that "Advocator" be protected by Free Speech? Or should that “Advocator” be charged with facilitating terrorism? Despite Advocators disseminating in America ideologies that inspire murder of our People, some Americans allege Protected Speech prevents U.S. Government arresting those “Advocators” because they spoke about an ideology not murder. If Al-Qaeda and other terrorist recruitment in our homeland is going to be stopped, U.S. Government must have the power not only to arrest “Terrorist Advocators” before they inspire catastrophic damage, but block their ideological messages on the Internet from permeating America.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: