Friday, October 28, 2016


by -

Right now the US government controls the Internet and has the ability to shut it down, but Obama doesn’t want the responsibility.

The Department of Commerce is going to turn over American control over the Internet to an international group. The transfer is to be finalized by October 1st.

Control of the Internet is moving to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which is a multistakeholder group that includes countries like Russia and China.

China already regulates the Internet for it’s citizens and controls the news and information they get. Now the leaders in China that censor information to their people will also be one of the groups in charge of our Internet.

By giving up control of the Internet, it does allow the possibility that a foreign group could shut down of web or all of it.

Why would Obama do something like this?

Obama has been pushing to give up the control of the Internet, but there is no concrete reason. IT could have something to do with his legacy or even plans he has after the White House, but many people think this is a bad idea and could be illegal.

Republicans are trying to fight the move by saying the President does not have the authority to use tax dollars to give federal property to foreign countries.

Many group are concerned about the move to. 25 conservative groups like Heritage Action and Americans for Tax Reform sent a letter to Congress urging them to stop the transfer.

Many are upset that this was done unilaterally again and without Congress’ approval. You would think if we are giving up the power to control one of the greatest inventions of all time, then we should at least get Congress to approve.

That is not the case, Obama doesn’t need Congress and apparently we don’t need control of the Internet.

Do you think Obama should give up the control of the Internet? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

In a speech earlier this week in South Korea, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Internet “needs rules to be able to flourish and work properly” even though it is “a technology founded on freedom” and serves as “a key component of our foreign policy.”

Translation: America should, for no reason whatsoever, surrender control of the Internet – a technology that the United States invented and perfected – over to international bodies like the United Nations and unaccountable policy and enforcement committees made up of rouge countries like Cuba, Venezuela and Iran.

Pointing out the obvious using the detached pointy-headed Ivy League thinking, Kerry said, “Acts of aggression (in cyberspace) are not permissible” and that those hurt by an attack have a right to respond in ways that are appropriate, proportional, and that minimize harm to innocent parties.

He made these statements without defining what “hurt” means, who determines if an “attack” has occurred and in what ways a “response” would be “appropriate” and “proportional” to the harm done.

Would regimes in China, Russia and Iran regard free speech and dissenting opinion an “attack” on their Internet infrastructure? Would intellectual property theft, privacy hacks, cyber warfare and other digital Internet attacks be MORE illegal under Kerry’s amorphous plan? Kerry continues:

“We…support a set of additional principles that, if observed, can contribute substantially to conflict prevention and stability in time of peace. We view these as universal concepts that should be appealing to all responsible states, and they are already gaining traction.”

These principles – which are already well established – include:

• No country should conduct or knowingly support online activity that intentionally damages or impedes the use of another country’s critical infrastructure.

• No country should seek either to prevent emergency teams from responding to a cybersecurity incident, or allow its own teams to cause harm.

• No country should conduct or support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or other confidential business information for commercial gain.

• Every country should mitigate malicious cyber activity emanating from its soil, and they should do so in a transparent, accountable and cooperative way. And;

• Every country should do what it can to help states that are victimized by a cyberattack.

In a classic example of a solution in search of a problem, Kerry says:

“I guarantee you if those five principles were genuinely and fully adopted and implemented by countries, we would be living in a far safer and far more confident cyberworld.

“But even with these principles, ensuring international cyber stability will remain a work in progress. We still have a lot of work to do to develop a truly reliable framework – based on international law – that will effectively deter violations and minimize the danger of conflict.

Finally, Kerry returns to form by saying:

“To build trust, the UN Group of Governmental Experts has stressed the importance of high-level communication, transparency about national policies, dispute settlement mechanisms, and the timely sharing of information – all of them, very sound and important thoughts.

The bottom line is that we who seek stability and peace in cyberspace should be clear about what we expect and intend, and those who may be tempted to cause trouble should be forewarned: they will be held accountable for their actions.”

How surrendering American sovereignty over the Internet to a “UN Group of Governmental Experts”… pursuing his vapid “important thoughts”… and how offenders – who could be a single computer nerd in his basement causing chaos rather than an identifiable nation state – would be “held accountable for their actions” Kerry does not say.

If anything, Kerry’s comments reveal one truth. We need a new team in Washington that puts American interests first before Kerry and his ilk can complete the task of giving away the Internet store.



When Comey, the director of the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton, it looks like it had more to do with money than...