Texas Sues to keep Obama from forcing a "Like Your Twitter? Keep your Twitter" Moment


Texas Sues in Federal Court

Attorney General Ken Paxton Works to Prevent Hand-Over of Domain Names

Joining Senator Ted Cruz, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has made his way to a federal court in Galveston to keep lawless President Obama from handing the private property of a portion of the Internet over to the UN.

“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is jumping into Ted Cruz‘s fight to stop what the U.S. senator calls President Barack Obama’s illegal internet’giveaway.’

Paxton and three other attorneys general filed a lawsuit Wednesday night aiming to halt the Obama administration’s plan to cede oversight of the internet domain-name system to an international body. Critics claim the transition, which is set to go into effect within days, could open up the Internet to censorship by countries like China and Russia.

‘Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,’ Paxton said in a statement. ‘The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.’

The lawsuit argues that the transfer, among other things, violates the property clause of the U.S. Constitution by letting go of government property without Congress’ approval. It also says the plan will have a negative impact on Americans’ free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

A spokesperson for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, one of the defendants, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But administration officials and technology experts have said concerns like those raised by Cruz are unfounded and demonstrate a lack of understanding about how the internet works.

The transfer has been years in the making, with the United States looking to relinquish control over domain-name registration to an international nonprofit known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. The transfer is scheduled to go into effect Saturday.

In Congress, Cruz has made stopping the transition his top priority since returning from the presidential campaign trail in May. His efforts, however, have largely stalled, especially after Congress passed legislation Wednesday that will keep the federal government open through mid-December. That bill did not address the internet issue, as Cruz had hoped.

Cruz and Paxton, both tea party favorites in Texas, have long been allies in fights against the federal government. The three other attorneys general joining Paxton in the lawsuit are Mark Brnovich of Arizona, Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma and Paul Laxalt of Nevada.

In Congress, Cruz has made stopping the transition his top priority since returning from the presidential campaign trail in May. His efforts, however, largely stalled after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled a spending bill last week that did not address the issue.

Hat tip to KSEV AM700 morning Lance Roberts Show 30 September 2016 (hour 3).

To Anyone Who Has Had an Independent Thought,

Remember the Promise “Like Your Doctor, Keep Your Doctor” of Obama, Now It’s the Internet

If you don’t like what Obama has done to your healthcare, you’ll want to listen to a founding leader within the Internet community, Frank Gaffney:

Center for Security Policy president and founder Frank Gaffney offer(s) his thoughts on impending surrender of U.S. control of Internet registration.

“Look, the Iran deal, as you know, Alex my colleague Fred Fleitz at the Center for Security Policy (said),” he said, continuing:

This is national security fraud, of an epic character. And Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it, her support for it, her complicity in the Congress going along with it, in a fashion – I mean, these are very powerful indictments, I believe, for a woman who runs on her record of having been this great maven of national security. Ain’t so.

The conversation turned to the impending handover of Internet control to a foreign body, a topic that should be of major concern to American voters, although Marlow sarcastically observed there was no time for it during the debate because moderator Lester Holt thought it was more important to discuss Donald Trump’s thoughts on Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

“A lot of people in this audience have absolutely no clue why we would do this and can’t even interpret what Obama and the globalists are thinking,” Marlow said.

“Well, quite frankly, I’m among them. I can’t figure out what the argument is for doing this,” Gaffney replied. He went on to explain the situation:

What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. It gets pretty arcane, but the point is, if you think that the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it, or whether you think of it as an engine for free enterprise, let alone if you understand the contribution that it makes these days to national security – including, by the way, the operations of our critical infrastructure – you will understand that the United States retaining a measure of quality control as to what’s going on with how the Internet is populated with names and numbers, domains, websites and the like, is a very important thing.

And for absolutely no good reason, other than people – or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this and would like to be able to change things around so that they cannot only restrict all the things the Internet does to help their own people become familiar with the terrible they’re being subjected to, at the hands of their totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, but they want to take those freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise – away from us, as well.

So this is what it comes down to, Alex: there’s no good reason for doing this, certainly not in the next three days, which is what’s going to happen unless Congress intervenes.

And there’s an interesting point here: Hillary Clinton could make all the difference on whether that happens or not.

Gaffney agreed with Marlow’s criticism of how this vital issue was bypassed at the debate, adding that he was hoping Trump would “jump in on it because he’s taken the right line.”

Gaffney pleaded:

If every one of your impressive audience – and I do think of you as a hotshot, I don’t care what they say – this audience is important, and if they will come up on the net, today, with calls into Mitch McConnell urging him not to give up the Internet – don’t let this happen, make sure the Continuing Resolution doesn’t permit that.

He recommended bringing pressure to bear on the Democrats through their presidential candidate:

Let’s call out Hillary Clinton, to find out whether she supports Barack Obama in diminishing our country, undermining our friends and our own interests, and emboldening our enemies. I call that the Obama Doctrine – whether she’s actually gonna stand with Donald Trump and say, “Don’t give up the Internet.” We need her help on this, and if she does it, I think most, if not all, of the Democrats in the Senate will agree, and will stop being obstructionists, will support a sound measure on this count, at least, on the Continuing Resolution.

And again, we’ve got three days to fix this, folks. This is no drill. This is a live-fire exercise. We need your help, now.

I think the more people understand what’s going on here, the more we’re gonna have the right outcome. The challenge, as with so much of the Obama agenda, as you know, Alex, is trying to slip it under the radar. Keep people from figuring it out until it’s done.

And this is the real hook. This will be irreversible. Once this so-called mechanism known as the numbering and naming function is permanently and irreversibly to some multinational non-profit – which will, trust me, be dominated in due course, if not right away, by the Russians, and the Chinese, and the Saudis, and so on – we’re not getting that back. There’s not anything a President Trump is gonna be able to do about it, if he does, in fact, become president.

It’s three days from now. It’s October 1st, the end of the fiscal year. It’s what Obama’s been striving for, is to jam this thing through, while nobody’s paying attention. We can’t let that happen.

“Come up on the net, folks. Call other talk radio show hosts, other folks that you’re dealing with, your editorial boards. Get engaged in this thing,” Gaffney implored, concluding:

It’s one of those places where your own equities – your freedom of expression, your right to use the Internet for small-business innovation and enterprise in the future, and so on – is going to be on the line because we’re going to turn it over to people who don’t want us to do that sort of thing. We mustn’t let that happen.

To Anyone Who Enjoys Free Expression

Please Listen to the FCC Commissioner

From someone who knows about freedom of speech on broadcast media, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai pointed out that a surrender of our Internet would result in a loss of freedom of speech currently available on the Internet.

“On Wednesday’s ‘Sean Hannity Show,’ FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai (R) stated that the plan to “essentially give up the US oversight role…of the Internet” to ICANN is something that should worry anyone who cherishes “free expression, and free speech rights generally,” and could potentially cede oversight of the Internet to ‘foreign governments who might not share our values.’ He further stated that such a move is ‘irreversible.’

Pai said, ‘This proposal is to essentially give up the US oversight role that it’s had for the last 20 years, basically for the entire commercial lifespan of the Internet to a company called ICANN, which is an international organization, which includes a number of foreign countries. And, it’s an unprecedented move, and one that, as Mr. DeMint pointed out, is irreversible. Once we give up this oversight role, we can’t get it back.’

He added that Internet oversight is a case of, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ Pai further stated, ‘[I]f you cherish free expression, and free speech rights generally, you should be worried, I think, when there’s — this oversight role’s going to be ceded to potentially, foreign governments who might not share our values.’ “

What Can I Do?

Contact Your US Representative

Go to the US House of Representatives Find Your Representative web page. Contact them and let them know how important your web is to you.

Contact Democrats

Tweet @NancyPelosi. E-mail  Nancy Pelosi and let SanFranNan know that this is not a time to “pass it to know what is in it” situation. This is a “time to stand for America time.”

Magnify Your Voice

 Make a hashtag.

Join with others to make your voice heard.

If you do not want to create your own petition, consider signing the ACLJ petition.

Cruz Warns of Obama’s Effort to Hand the Internet to the United Nations


Refer also to the Conservative Review

The First Warning Comes from Senator Cruz

As shown by the below video and 8 September 2016 article in Politico, the Senate has started steps once again to stop Mr. Obama from facilitating censorship of the Internet through giving the ICANN to the UN.

Ted Cruz and other Republicans are barreling toward a September showdown with the White House over its plan to give up oversight of the internet, as the Obama administration tries to rally support from the tech and telecom industries.

GOP lawmakers have long warned that the administration’s plan to relinquish its authority over ICANN, the global nonprofit that manages the internet’s domain name system, could give authoritarian countries like China and Russia an opening to make an online power grab. Now, as the actual date of the transition approaches — Oct. 1 — Republicans are looking at throwing up new obstacles.

“Today our country faces a threat to the internet as we know it. In 22 short days, if Congress fails to act, the Obama administration intends to give away the internet to an international body akin to the United Nations,” Cruz said in a speech on the Senate floor Thursday. “I rise today to discuss the significant, irreparable damage this proposed internet giveaway could wreak not only on our nation but on free speech across the world.”

Cruz is pledging to make the issue his primary focus this month. He’s already launched a website warning about the dangers of the administration’s strategy, complete with a countdown clock against a black background. And he’s scheduled a hearing of the Senate Judiciary oversight subcommittee he chairs next week to “investigate the possible dangers” of the plan.

Meanwhile, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said Wednesday that language to delay the transition could be included in the continuing resolution to fund the government past this month. And House Republicans are considering their options in the coming appropriations bill, a GOP aide confirmed this week.

“I don’t think the foundation has been appropriately laid for this,” Thune said in an interview. “Some members are adamantly opposed to transition, period, and a lot of them just think now is not the time, and it really just hasn’t been vetted, and it’s not ready yet.”

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), another member of the Commerce committee, said the administration’s deadline is “arbitrary.”

“The transition should not move forward until our many concerns have been addressed,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “There won’t be a second chance to get this right.”

Fearing congressional roadblocks, the Obama administration has quietly been urging tech and telecom giants to go to bat for its strategy.

Senior officials at the Commerce Department encouraged companies and trade groups at a private meeting on Wednesday to make public shows of support — and contest criticisms that the plan jeopardizes internet freedom, two sources who attended the session told POLITICO.

Among those represented at the session were trade organizations like the Internet Association, NetChoice and CCIA, companies like Verizon and 21st Century Fox, and groups like the Internet Society, the sources said. In his pitch to industry, Deputy Secretary of Commerce Bruce Andrews stressed that the credibility of the U.S. government and its commitment to the international community are on the line, the two attendees told POLITICO after the meeting.

But Andrews also indicated the agency would have no choice but to adhere to what Congress prescribes — suggesting, the sources said, that the Commerce Department might not try to find a legal workaround to any ban imposed by lawmakers. He also said the agency is keeping an eye on potential lawsuits. The libertarian group TechFreedom — which sources said did not attend the meeting Wednesday — has threatened such a move. And on Thursday, it again questioned the legality of the internet transition.

“In the event that Representatives prove unable to provide the requisite authority required to defend these interests,” the group said in a statement, “then we will explore all remaining options, including legal action brought by the people that Congress represents.”

The Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced the transition plan in 2014, saying it would enhance the “multistakeholder model” of internet governance. The agency said it was always envisioned that the U.S. role in overseeing the functions would be temporary. The announcement came in the wake of Edward Snowden’s leaks about NSA surveillance — which sparked questions in Europe and elsewhere about the U.S. role in managing the internet’s architecture.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Facebook Post that Originally Brought Light to the Issue

The following 14 September 2016 post explains the problem most succinctly.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Ftedcruzpage%2Fposts%2F10154450481142464&width=500

Why Can’t Obama Give ICANN Away?

As Computerworld Explains, ICANN and other Internet Parts are Private Property

In a 14 September 2016 article, Computerworld explained that the US government does not own the Internet:

“The U.S. Government Accountability Office has said that the internet domain name system is unlikely to be government property. This comes just ahead of the planned transfer of the oversight of key technical functions supporting the internet, including the domain name system, to an independent multi-stakeholder body.

‘It is unlikely that either the authoritative root zone file — the public ‘address book’ for the top level of the Internet domain name system — or the Internet domain name system as a whole’ is U.S. government property, the GAO said in a legal opinion provided to legislators.

The report by the Congressional watchdog comes ahead of a hearing on the issue Wednesday chaired by Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas. The Republicans are intent on blocking the transfer of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, currently being operated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) under a contract with the Department of Commerce, which expires on Sept. 30.

Some of these legislators have raised questions about whether the administration of President Barack Obama can go ahead with the transfer without approval of Congress. In a letter this month to Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, the legislators said there is still no legal certainty about whether the termination of the IANA functions contract would amount to relinquishment of U.S. government property, which would then require approval from Congress.

The legislators — who are asking the administration to reconsider current plans to transition the supervision of the IANA functions on Oct. 1, 2016 as there are outstanding issues — said a request for an audit on the transfer of property issue had been submitted in 2015 to the GAO. .

The U.S. government does have “certain rights under a series of contracts and agreements related to the domain name system and the IANA functions, and has title to limited intellectual and tangible property related to performance of these functions,” according to the GAO. “We find that almost all of U.S. Government property that we have identified will be retained and not transferred or otherwise disposed of in connection with the proposed transition,” it added.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency within the Department of Commerce, said last month it will go ahead with its plan to transfer supervision of the IANA functions to a multistakeholder body on Oct. 1, in line with a plan first announced in March 2014.

“We thank the GAO for its thorough analysis of the property implications of the IANA transition. We are pleased that GAO concluded that the transition does not involve a transfer of U.S. government property requiring Congressional approval,” NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling said in a statement on Tuesday.

Last week, Cruz indicated that the Republicans would not give up without a fight against what he described as a “giveaway” of internet control by the Obama administration. Besides pushing for legislation called the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, which would prohibit any transfer of internet DNS functions unless expressly allowed under a federal statute passed after the new legislation has been enacted, Cruz will likely invoke riders passed by Congress earlier that prohibit spending taxpayer money on the IANA transition.

A number of tech companies including Google and Facebook have written to Congress asking them not to delay the transition.

Ahead of the hearing by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, ICANN released a document to clarify that the transition “isn’t the U.S. Government handing over the Internet to any one country, company or group.”

“The truth is that nobody, including the U.S. Government, has a ‘control of the Internet’ to hand over,” ICANN wrote in a brief. “The community of stakeholders that has flawlessly coordinated the Internet’s domain name and addressing systems since their inception will continue to do so.”

The Republicans have raised concerns that the transfer could increase the influence of authoritarian regimes like those in Russia, China and Iran over the Internet.

The IANA functions are very technical, invisible to average users and narrow in scope, and should not be equated with the Internet as a whole, Kathryn C. Brown, president and CEO of the Internet Society, wrote in a letter to legislators. “Legitimate public policy issues like net neutrality, censorship, and human rights are being addressed elsewhere, and are not part of this discussion,” she added.

GAO distanced itself from this part of the dispute by stating that its opinion does not express views on the merits of the proposed transition. “Congress may wish to take steps to address the broader issues raised by the transition if it believes there should continue to be direct U.S. oversight and control,” it said.”

What Can I Do?

Follow the suggestion of a 29 August 2016 article by the Gatestone Institute, call your senators and representatives.

The Results of Obama’s Weakening America


For the longest time, Obama has ignored (or at least not acted on) the Russian planes buzzing American shores, Russian warships parking offshore during the G20 summit, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.  Additionally, China has built man-made islands to expand their claim to South China Sea waters, support fighter aircraft, surveillance systems, and electronic warfare capabilities.  During the same time, Obama has snubbed allies like Egypt and Israel and refused aid to Ukraine.

So, in the light of all of these acts that could be interpreted as American weakness, China and Russia have stepped up their defiance of America.  Also, not wanting to be abandoned like Israel or Egypt, Canada has decided to reduce its support of us.

Chinese Ships Shadow US Navy Near Man-Made Islands

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Canada withdrawing fighter jets from Iraq, Syria, new PM tells Obama

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Russian Submarines Threaten Undersea Internet/Telephone Cables

New York Times: Russian Vessels Too Close for Comfort

In a 25 October 2015 New York Times article, Russia has found one more front to challenge America:

Russian submarines and spy ships are aggressively operating near the vital undersea cables that carry almost all global Internet communications, raising concerns among some American military and intelligence officials that the Russians might be planning to attack those lines in times of tension or conflict.

The issue goes beyond old worries during the Cold War that the Russians would tap into the cables — a task American intelligence agencies also mastered decades ago. The alarm today is deeper: The ultimate Russian hack on the United States could involve severing the fiber-optic cables at some of their hardest-to-access locations to halt the instant communications on which the West’s governments, economies and citizens have grown dependent.

While there is no evidence yet of any cable cutting, the concern is part of a growing wariness among senior American and allied military and intelligence officials over the accelerated activity by Russian armed forces around the globe. At the same time, the internal debate in Washington illustrates how the United States is increasingly viewing every Russian move through a lens of deep distrust, reminiscent of relations during the Cold War.

Inside the Pentagon and the nation’s spy agencies, the assessments of Russia’s growing naval activities are highly classified and not publicly discussed in detail. American officials are secretive about what they are doing both to monitor the activity and to find ways to recover quickly if cables are cut. But more than a dozen officials confirmed in broad terms that it had become the source of significant attention in the Pentagon.

In private, however, commanders and intelligence officials are far more direct. They report that from the North Sea to Northeast Asia and even in waters closer to American shores, they are monitoring significantly increased Russian activity along the known routes of the cables, which carry the lifeblood of global electronic communications and commerce.

Just last month, the Russian spy ship Yantar, equipped with two self-propelled deep-sea submersible craft, cruised slowly off the East Coast of the United States on its way to Cuba — where one major cable lands near the American naval station at Guantánamo Bay. It was monitored constantly by American spy satellites, ships and planes. Navy officials said the Yantar and the submersible vehicles it can drop off its decks have the capability to cut cables miles down in the sea.

CNN Confirms Reports of Russian Ships Near Undersea Cables

A 28 October 2015 article by CNN confirms:

When a Russian military ship called the Yantar suddenly crossed the Atlantic and started moving down the East Coast of the United States last month, it set off alarm bells inside the world of U.S. naval intelligence.

U.S. spy satellites, aircraft and submarines tracked the ship all the way down the coast to Cuba, according to two U.S. defense officials.

It had been years since the U.S. had seen this type of activity by the Russians, officials said. While the Russians have insisted the Yantar is not a spy ship, U.S. naval intelligence believes it has one significant and unsettling capability: small underwater vehicles that can cut vital undersea cables carrying vast amounts of commercial and military data, voice communications and Internet service between the U.S. and Europe.

U.S. officials told CNN there was no indication that the Russians have any intention of cutting the cables, but they said that they are showing off their capability to U.S. naval intelligence by their actions.

It comes as the U.S. has watched for the last several months as Russian submarines in deep water have come close to the undersea cables. A classified network of Navy undersea sensors have been set off several times as the submarines approached the cables. The officials said the Russians would be aware in broad terms that their actions would cause the network to detect them.

Navy Times Confirms Discussions About Russian Subs

According to a a 30 October 2015 article in the Navy Times, Russian submarines figure significantly in Naval thoughts:

U.S. leaders are increasingly worried that Russia’s submarines could sever the communication arteries that drive global commerce.

The communications cables criss-cross tens of thousands of miles of ocean to relay Internet and phone data between continents. The concerns arose in September, when a Russian spy ship armed with two unmanned submersibles was detected in the vicinity of the cables,according to an Oct. 25 article in The New York Times.

The Russian operation has brought discussions normally held in classified settings to the fore: How can the U.S. Navy safeguard thousands of miles of critical infrastructure? It’s a vexing issue at a time when the Navy’s forces are stretched thin in the Middle East and while confronting emerging near-peer competitors like Russia and China.

Navy leaders are starting to raise the alarm about this potential choke point, and the solution they propose is autonomous underwater systems.

The head of the nuclear Navy said that the Navy needed to invest heavily in unmanned underwater systems to protect undersea infrastructure.

“The necessity exists because of challenges we face from potential adversaries,” said Adm. Frank Caldwell Jr., head of Naval Reactors, in an October briefing. “It exists because of the submarine [building] hiatus we took in the 1990s and the impending dip [in] force structure we’ll have late in the 2020s … and we may be called upon in the future to protect undersea infrastructure, something we haven’t really considered before.”

Purported Questions about Obama’s Mental Health

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

President Obama Fixes the Internet


The following announcement has been provided by the same crowd who promised to lower your healthcare bills by $2,500 per year.

This entertaining and illustrative video comes to you via the imaginative efforts of the office of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz.  Make certain to thank the Senator for his efforts to work for conservatives.

Obama Proposes New FCC Regulation of the Internet


This illustration comes via a link to GigAOM.

Obama Proposes New Governmental Intervention in the Internet

On 10 November 2014 (just after he and his party received a drubbing largely due to his intrusive, government-controlled healthcare system), Obama proposed placing the Internet under the control of the Federal Communications Commission.

A Point-by-Point Answer to Obama’s Words in the Above Video

 Hi everybody.  Ever since the Internet was created, it’s been organized around basic principles of openness, fairness, and freedom.

Due to the fact that the Internet was created as an exercise in packet networking and was funded by Advanced Research Projects Agency in support of the Department of Defense, the three principles named by Obama were probably not central to computer scientists dealing with top-secret information.  However, due to American commercialism and our open society, these have become central to the Internet.

There are no gatekeepers deciding which sites you get to access.

Obviously, if Obama thinks the Internet has no gatekeepers, then he has not attempted to access a Bible website from Saudi Arabia, an evangelical Christian site from Iran, or a news site for freedom groups from China.

There are no toll roads on the information superhighway.

What does Obama call the money spent by communications companies on the laying of high-speed lines?  Don’t they get to charge for their services?  Nonetheless, the Internet does facilitate a very low-cost means of transmitting data due to the generosity of the American government.

This set of principles, the idea of net neutrality, has unleashed the power of the Internet, and given innovators a chance to thrive.

Here, Obama overlooks the fact that the Internet has been built upon American values and foibles.  The Internet’s commercial orientation did not originate in Vietnam.  The open sharing of data and information has more in common with the New York Times than Pravda.  While, admittedly, the pornography and other undesirable parts of Internet fare also can also be traced to American foibles — they are all American attributes shining in the Internet.

Abandoning these principles would threaten to end the Internet as we know it.  That’s why I’m laying out a plan to keep the Internet free and open.  And that’s why I’m urging the Federal Communications Commission to do everything they can do to protect net neutrality for everyone.

First, if abandoning these principles would hurt the Internet, then don’t do anything.  Second, the FCC is not the governmental agency that has managed the Internet since its inception. That is the semi-autonomous Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Third, if Obama is really devoted to the concept of Internet freedom, then he would keep it under ICANN rather than the Federal Communications Commission — which is more directly answerable to the President.

They should make it clear that whether you use a computer, phone, or tablet, Internet providers have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a website.  Cable companies can’t decide which online stores you can shop at, or which streaming services you can use. 

Either Obama really does not understand the Internet or he still thinks the American voter to be so stupid as to be swayed by a poorly-built straw man.  In other words, the current system under ICANN does not block access to sites, route users to “preferred” online stores, or choose your streaming services.

And they can’t let any company pay for priority over its competitors.

Here, Obama demonstrates his opposition to the free-enterprise system where big companies like Netflix can pay for faster

To put these protections in place, I’m asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act.

Translation:  This is another Obama power grab.  Under the Constitution, Obama cannot make the law by calling his underlings and telling them to make changes — he is supposed to enforce the law as it is currently written.

In plain English, I’m asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.  The FCC is an independent agency and ultimately this decision is theirs alone.  But the public has already commented nearly four million times, asking the FCC to make sure that consumers, not the cable company, gets to decide which sites they use and standing up for the principles that make the Internet a powerful force for change.  As long as I’m president, that’s what I’ll be fighting for, too.

Translation:  Any time Obama says “To tell the truth” or “It’s a fact” or “In plain English,” we should all grab out billfolds and our Bill of Rights.  For the fact that the Internet has become so central to communication, we need to keep it out from under the direct control of Obama.  Because the FCC is more under the control of Obama than ICANN, we need to keep the status quo.  In response to his claim that four million commented in support of his straw men, I would like to see his data source.  I would be surprised if even a fraction of 4 million of our 316 million mentioned the FCC.  Finally, as long as he is president, I’ll be fighting, too.

Before Approving Any Intervention over the Internet, ask How Obama’s Record Fares Regarding

Constitutionally-Guaranteed Rights: First Amendment – Freedom of Religion

At least within a number of speeches by Obama (for example, in Cairo, Fort Hood, Japan, China, Ghana, and eight other speaking engagements), the First Amendment’s freedom of religion has metamorphosized into a “freedom to worship.”  At its core, this statement strips out the believer’s right to protest the immoral policies of a corrupt administration, removes our right to witness during everyday life, and muzzles our ability to live our objection to immoral behavior.

Additionally, Obama has violated Americans’ religious freedom rights in ways listed by Alliance Defending Freedom in their 15 April 2014 publishing of THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S ATTACKS ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, SANCTITY OF LIFE, MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY.

Constitutionally-Guaranteed Rights:  First Amendment – Freedom of Assembly

When thousands of vets stormed the World War II Memorial on the National Mall — tearing down the barricades that Democrats had installed to block access to our national monuments — Obama sent in federal police in response to the “Million Vet March” (including an “Honor Flight” of World War II veterans). In support of the federal police, he sent government helicopters to harass and hover over the marchers.

Constitutionally-Guaranteed Rights:  First Amendment – Freedom of Speech

Despite Obama’s squelching of the freedom of religion of the Little Sisters of the Poor,  an employee of his (Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee) was quoted in the 21 May 2013 issue of the Tullahoma News saying that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws.  That is, in response to a How to Wink at a Muslim Facebook post by Barry West of the Coffee County Commissioner Court, Americans need to lay down their free-speech rights.  According to Killian:

“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion. This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

 Additionally, Killian suggested:

“If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?  We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”

However, I might suggest that Killian consider looking at Ismaaiyl Brinsley’s Facebook post (since taken down, but available by Walid Shoebat) of Surah 8:60:

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”

Similarly, why didn’t anyone in the Obama administration consider the Islamic Facebook page of Alton Nolen (Jah’Keem Yisrael) and his posts praising ISIS, beheadings, and Islamic supremacy?  Certainly, Obama had the time to send a letter of congratulations to Yisrael’s Oklahoma City mosque; therefore, why couldn’t he reprimand either of these Muslims?

Jah’Keem Yisrael
Jah’Keem Yisrael
Jah’Keem Yisrael

Constitutionally-Guaranteed Rights:  First Amendment – Freedom of the Press

Who (other than the liberal-leaning press) can forget that the Justice Department has “secretly obtained two months of telephone records” of reporters and editors who worked for the AP?

Who can forget the 27 January 2013 Washington Post article that shared the FBI’s investigation into the email accounts and phone records of current and former government officials linked to journalists.

Additionally, Think About Obama’s Affordable Care Act Record Regarding:

Protection of Religious Freedom

Remember Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood Specialties, the Little Sisters of the Poor in their struggles against the Affordable Care Act?  Although each won their cases against Obama’s mandate, their victories do not automatically extend to all companies and organizations with similar situations.  This decision only applies to “closely heldprivately-held corporations (no corporate giants) with religious objections (specifically, closely held for-profit corporations and — by emergency order —  non-profit corporations).  Nonetheless, for all faithful people working outside of this small subset of the American business world and for those non-religious objectors, nothing changes due to the Hobby Lobby decision.  Furthermore, there are plenty anti-religious, big-government proponents that maintain their belief in forcing their progressive programs on those who they see as the stupid American faithful (much as many post-apocalyptic, liberal authors suggested conservatives would do to liberals).

Not only did Obama’s Affordable Care Act violate the consciences of many Americans, the ACA cut heavily into their pocketbooks.  I am not talking about the increases in the average American’s insurance premiums for 2014 and 2015.  Rather, I refer to the legal expenses required for the victory of the Sisters, Hobby Lobby, and Conestoga Woods. Although the costs for the Little Sisters were covered by the Becket Fund, some claim the defense cost millions.  Likewise, the money required of Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby (in legal fees and potential ACA penalties) is staggering.

Flawless Rollout

Do we really want to entrust the Internet to an entity that:

  • Could not roll the Obamacare website out on time
  • Could not handle a fraction of the traffic that had been expected when it finally rolled out
  • Crashed three times in the first month
  • Shut down nightly during the next months to fix errors
  • Hired felons as navigators (giving them access to Social Security numbers and other data)
  • Has seen insurance plan increases for 2014 and 2015 (instead of the projected $2,500 savings)

Special Deals for Special Groups

Considering the track record of Obama cutting special deals for groups that have special sway with the administration (such as the backroom deals made for 9 states and a group, special deals for drug manufacturers and hospitals, waiver of fees for unions, subsidies for $174K-salaried members of Congress, and a number of other perks), who can believe that Obama will not shut the Internet off from all who are not Democrat party faithful?

Obama’s Promise to Reduce Costs Related to Health Care

In the video presented by Obama and included at the top of this post, Obama suggests that “(t)here are no toll roads on the information superhighway.”  With that financial allusion in mind, consider that Obama promised that the average American family would experience $2,500 annual savings under his Affordable Care Act.  Contrast that with the increases in the average American’s insurance premiums for 2014 and 2015.  Do you really want to have him do to the Internet what he has done to your health care?

Other Facts that Diminish the Feasibility of This Take-Over

This would put Obama over the Greatest News Resource for Those Who Criticize Him

Try visiting PJ Media, Acts 17 Apologetics, and Operation Rescue.  Considering the way that Obama has used the IRS to limit his political opponents, will he let any of these continue should the Internet be moved to an agency that is under his control?  Considering the mandates of Obamacare and the provisions of the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, will Obama seek to silence them?  Thinking of the way he trampled Americans’ free-speech rights in deference to Muslims, will he let Acts 17 Apologetics stand?

Remember Obama’s Desire to Reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine?”

The Negative Consequences of Obama’s Plan in Less than Two Minutes

Weaponizing the Government

Bill Whittle explains the connection between our current loss of free speech rights and the government’s over-reach.

For example, Ann Ravel, the head of the Federal Election Commission, is a Democrat in a Democratic administration who is seeking the Democratic party’s goal of intimidating, jailing, and otherwise harassing any political opponent who is mean (that is, Libertarians, Republicans, or Independents who don’t like being told what to do — unlike nice people like Democrats, who just fall in line).  She has been given the task of weaponizing the government against unregulated speech on the Internet.  (The new term for “free speech” is “unregulated speech,” since “free speech” is likely both racist and archaic.)   Please consider listening to the balance of the video below in order that you might enjoy Bill Whittle’s illustration of how Obama minions Ann Ravel and Lois Lerner have worked to ensure your loss of free speech rights — unless you are a loyal Democrat.

If Obama Really Wants to Make a Case for Moving Control of the Internet to the FCC


This illustration comes via a link to Bloomberg.

If Obama wants to put the Internet under the FCC, why didn’t he potentially save lives and have the directors of the current Internet block hate speech like that demonstrated by the Islamist rag Inspire

Islamist Magazine: How to Build an Airline Bomb

On 28 December, the New York Post reported that Inspire published instructions on the making of a bomb that could take down an airline.  This article, in my opinion, steps over the threshold of free speech and into the realm of actions that threaten public safety.  Had the Obama administration acted responsibly in the small degree of control of the Internet that the government currently commands, this article would never have made the light of day.  In contrast, Obama has now shown that he and his underlings cannot be trusted with the oversight of the Internet.  This and other recent actions show that Internet control should remain in the hands of the semi-autonomus Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) rather than the Federal Communications Commission (which is more directly answerable to the President).

I say this because Obama has recently asked Americans to hand more of our freedoms over in deference to the feelings of others.  That is, the Obama administration has asked common Americans to give up their free speech rights in deference to Muslim sensibilities due to the idiocy of one county official recorded in a Tullahoma News article.  Admittedly, the “How to wink at a Muslim” post was out of place; however, why isn’t the same standard applied to Ismaaiyl Brinsley’s Facebook posts?  Similarly, why didn’t anyone in the Obama administration consider the Islamic Facebook page of Alton Nolen (Jah’Keem Yisrael) and his posts praising ISIS, beheadings, and Islamic supremacy?  Certainly, Obama had the time to send a letter of congratulations to Yisrael’s Oklahoma City mosque; therefore, why couldn’t he reprimand either of these Muslims?  Until these questions are answered, the control of the Internet should be kept as far from presidential control as possible while not putting it into the hands of countries like China, Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia.