Monday, September 26, 2016

October 1, 2016: Another Day That Will Live in Infamy

By Rich Kozlovich

I've been amazed at the lack of coverage of an event that will take place on October first of this year. I didn't expect anything from the mainstream media since they're part of the conspiracy..... and yes..... I said conspiracy.   It's always been an amazement to me how many people snicker at the idea of a conspiracy, unless of course it's a vast right wing conspiracy, then it's perfectly intelligent and rational to self-righteously nod in agreement.

However, for many of us who've been reading history books for all of our lives - and I've been doing that for most of my 70 years - we've learned - everything really is a conspiracy!  All of my friends used to laugh at me when I would say this, but that's pretty much stopped. Why? Because they know I believe it and I have more than enough information to justify that statement.

There's a difference between a conspiracy theorist and someone who believes in conspiracies. A conspiracy theorist needs conspiracies to explain things they don't understand. A person who believes in conspiracies understands how conspiracies bring things into reality.

So what is so important about October 1, 2016?

The internet will no longer be under the control of the United States. 

In an article by Senator Ted Cruz on September 8, 2016 entitled, "Obama’s Radical Proposal Could Result in Censorship Online" ,Cruz states:
"The Obama administration’s proposal to give away control of the internet poses a significant threat to our freedom, and it’s one that many Americans don’t know about. It is scheduled to go into effect on Sept. 30, 2016.  Twenty-two days away. Just over three weeks."
He notes the Obama administration is: 
"pushing through a radical proposal to take control of internet domain names and instead give it to an international organization, ICANN [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers], that includes 162 foreign countries. And if that proposal goes through, it will empower countries like Russia, like China, like Iran to be able to censor speech on the internet, your speech. Countries like China, Russia, and Iran are not our friends, and their interests are not our interests."
The article goes on to say:
Now, some defenders of the Obama proposal say ‘this is not about censorship. It’s about handing control to a multi-stakeholder unit. They would never dream of censoring content on the internet.’
Okay, great, there will be no censorship of content on the internet!  Really?  That sounds great except that's not been my experience.  There was a time when I almost never got a hit on Paradigms and Demographics from China.  Then after posting a number of articles about China the hits started coming, and the numbers grew until within 18 months China was the number two country on the top ten list, way ahead of the rest.  Then the hits stopped. 

Over the years Russian readers hit P&D regularly and were in the top five for years.  This year the numbers really started shooting up, and then almost stopped entirely, and the same can be said for readers from the Ukraine.  Is P&D being censored in those countries now?  I think so, but I have no way of proving it.  If I asked whomever is in charge of the internet in those countries if that's what they were doing what do you think they'd say? And if they answered me saying there's no effort to censor anyone on the internet, do you really think I could trust their answer?

On September 14, 2016 Chris Pandolfo published this article: "Freedom fighter Ted Cruz leads charge to keep the internet away from liberal censors" saying, "Sen. Ted Cruz, gave a rousing defense of internet freedom, warning that transitioning oversight of the internet to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) could put the freedom at risk"


He goes on to quote Sen. Cruz saying, "by trading the United States government’s “historic guardianship” of the internet to ICANN, First Amendment protections afforded to the Web will be removed, potentially placing censorship power into the hands of a global, multi-national corporation with limited oversight."

Sen. Mike Lee  penned this article on September 19, 2016,  "We Shouldn’t Give Away the Internet to Authoritarian Regimes", which seems to me shouldn't require explanation, yet he has to explain, "If we rush this transition and it is a failure, it will be nearly impossible to get the internet back from the authoritarian regimes that are pushing for more control."  

He goes on to say, "Today, the internet is so vast and ubiquitous that it is hard to imagine it existing in any other form."........But some governments do not like ICANN’s current hands-off approach to internet regulation. They want more control over how internet traffic is managed and what domain names are allowed to exist..........If we rush this transition and ICANN fails, it will be nearly impossible to get the internet back from the authoritarian regimes that are pushing for more control.

He concludes saying: "That is simply not a risk we can take".

On September 22, 2016 John Heyward reported on Breitbart News Daily:
"former U.N. ambassador John Bolton predicted that the impending transfer of Internet domain control from American supervision to an international body will mean the end of the Internet “as we know it.” Speaking to Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and SiriusXM host Alex Marlow, Bolton explained that we should be “very concerned” about the transfer from “a national-security perspective.”....... I will predict right here: within 10 years it will come under the control of the United Nations,........... 
"What we’ve gotten out of the Internet, under the shelter of a private American organization that contracts with the Commerce Department, [is] one of the few cases that I can think of in our history where we’ve had that kind of government involvement without regulation and interference,” said Bolton........Bolton called the Internet handover “a mistake of such colossal proportions that you would have thought we’d have a huge debate about it in this country.”
And when the U.N. takes control, and I think it would be closer to five years instead of ten, do you think they won't start charging fees to have access to the internet?  Access to publish, advertise, read, and utilize the cloud in order to access your own information.  What kind of control would they impose after that?  And how much will they charge and do we really think they won't have back door access to all that information for potential taxing purposes.  That's what the U.N. has been pushing for years to allow them international taxing authority.  One of the components of the Law of the Sea Treaty would have allowed the U.N. to charge fees for use of the ocean and it's resources.  Which - surprise - Bush the second supported.

As for Bolton's statement “the Internet handover “a mistake of such colossal proportions that you would have thought we’d have a huge debate about it in this country”, I find that amazing also.

Where's the outcry? 

"The Internet is one of the most revolutionary forces ever unleashed on the world”, and impacts everything.....Everything!!!!  Try buying a Microsoft Office package that you actually own.  You can't.  You sort of rent it now, and it's all part of the cloud.  And does anyone really know what the cloud really is and who controls it?  Ease of use and convenience isn't the issue here.  It's about control.  I have to believe who controls the internet controls the cloud.   Where's the outrage over this from the business community, Fox News, trade associations and civil rights advocates. 

Every bit of this ultimately boils down to control, and tyranny.  Controlling what you see, what you think, how you view reality, how you conduct yourself in your daily affairs. 
"Control demands conformity!  Tyranny is about controlling people.  Tyranny is a state in which a select few make decisions for everyone else."   "Liberty is derived from the principle that every individual is born with certain unalienable rights that cannot be taken away. In order to protect your individual liberty, it’s important that you retain control over your own life. Spotting a tyrant is crucial."
Governmental conformity is what's demanded by these authoritarian countries of their own citizens, why would we believe they won't impose that on the internet?

America invented the internet.  Why would we want to give it away?  Is it broken?  Apparently not, unless you calculate the censorship that's supposedly being imposed by Google, Twitter and Facebook. But does anyone believe turning this over to these corrupt entities will make that all better?   If the internet's not broken what exactly is it they're trying to fix?

On September 7, 2016 Bethany Blankley wrote this article: On October 1st the USA Will Hand Over Control of the Internet, Endangering Free Speech – Call Congress Now! saying

"Obama has once again broken federal law by instructing the U.S. Dept. of Commerce to relinquish U.S. control of the Internet’s Domain Name System to a ‘privatized’ international body, which will take place on October 1, 2016.
  • Call your senators: 202-224-3121.
  • Tell them to pass S.3034, “Protecting Internet Freedom Act.”
  • The United Nations and other countries have no authority to control access to information and eliminate Americans’ rights protected by the First Amendment.
  • Obama broke the law. Americans have a constitutional right to free speech and freedom of the press.

No comments:

Post a Comment