Posted on 09/17/2016 9:16:46 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
At this phase the Internet Giveaway is a lot like Bunker Hill.
For whatever reason we had to 'see the the whites of their eyes' before it was guns blazing, and odds are that our 'generals', Paul Ryan and McConnell, have sold us out.
But if we are forced into political retreat?
They will PAY.
If worse comes to worst the USSR did not need much internet access to topple their regime. Nor do we.
I doubt it will get that bad either. But one way or the other we will march over their political carnage. And if it DOES get that bad? Full fury counter-attack. The backlash will match the tyranny.
In the long run this is a win-win:
1. If this transition so much as harms a single hair on the head of free speech we are vindicated.
2. If ICANN turns out to have a heart after all, this would only be a minor embarassment for those not savvy enough to anticipate that contingency. [But after Y2K I think most of us are savvy enough.]
3. If congress actually outmanuevers the President? Hard to believe, but we simply celebrate the victory with them.
For the other side it's lose-lose if this modern day 'Sedition Act' has any teeth.
The Hazards of ICANN as an issue:
1. It would be disastrous to overstate it. The sky will be blue on October 1 and the internet will most likely function the way it always did. The last thing ICANN wants is to make this a campaign issue. So they will lie low until it's too late to affect the election.
2. It is important to point out that over thirty republicans in the senate oppose the globalization. Let's not stab our friends in the back and make it clear that it's only the career politicians of the GOP who support this monstrosity.
Ignoring this issue or assuming 'Trump will fix it' -- either is a fig leaf for the globalists.
[Even if we fail to score, why not pick up some yards?]
The United States built it, and Obama wants to give it over to the U.N. where they can tax, regulate and censor it.
No one is complaining about it. So why fix something that is not broken?
Basics for Understanding Obama’s Internet Giveaway
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3464721/posts
— and listing/linking the senators and news sources sounding the horn.
~~~
ICANN Transition Even Endangers ‘.gov’ and ‘.mil’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3469586/posts
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/09-14-16-rosenzweig-testimony.
ICANN transition insider Paul Rosenweig warns:
1. Foreign powers will “indisputably have increased influence”.
2. Transition a “leap in the dark”.
3. ICANN planning to move overseas.
4. ‘.gov’ and ‘.mil’ “not assured by any enforeable mechanism”.
~~~
Europe is seeking to form of ‘internet ostracism’ to regulate all domain names [aka web addresses] throughout the world, and Obama is on board.
Research here including followup posts ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3394704/posts
~~~
Senator Grassley in ICANN Hearing [internet giveaway]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3469467/posts
— “Unconstitutional”
— His concerns concur with Paul Rosenweig’s
~~~
Open Letter of Concern by Senators Cruz, Lankford, and Lee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3463938/posts?page=113#113
[ICANN is stalling on specifics and holding secret talks with China.]
Open Letter by 25 advocacy groups incl. ‘Americans for Tax Reform’
http://docs.techfreedom.org/Coalition_Letter_IANA_8.10.16.pdf
2. It is important to point out that over thirty republicans in the senate oppose the globalization. Let’s not stab our friends in the back and make it clear that it’s only the career politicians of the GOP who support this monstrosity.
—————————————\
Where can we find a listing of who is wearing the white hats?
I can start off with a few names [and will dig deeper ASAP] ...
Louis Gohmert [he’s actually in the House].
Various senators:
Grassley, Cruz, Rubio, Lankford, John Thune, and Lee.
And ALL FOUR relevant chairmen — two in each relevant oversight commitee in the House and Senate — are opposed.
Senator Thune is trying a desperate ‘defunding’ of the transition. But no one has explained how that prevents ICANN’s IANA functions contract from expiring on September 30. In fact, a full government shutdown would cause the federal government to fail to uphold its part of the contract. That could mean a double-breech of contract I would think [although I’m not a lawyer].
Louis Gohmert is pushing for a lawsuit against this transition.
Senator Grassley is at least one brave enough to call this transition unconstituional. If true, that’s a High Crime and should lead to impeachment.
Black hats: Neither McConnell nor Paul Ryan are doing much of anything about this. They are complicit.
‘No one is complaining about it. So why fix something that is not broken?’
Foreign powers are whining that we are saying hurtful things online and we have been snooping on them via the internet too [not that spying has anything to do with who owns websites — a cheap cassis belli]. They are pushing for globalist oversight:
Swedish telecom chief to steer web body ICANN to independence [USA Internet control expires Sept 30]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3394704/posts
[my take]
Europe is seeking to form of ‘internet ostracism’ to regulate ALL domain names [aka web addresses] throughout the world, and Obama is on board.
Here’s a puff-piece I dissected:
http://betanews.com/2016/01/24/the-clock-is-ticking-for-the-us-to-relinquish-control-of-icann/
It’s packed with empty assurances, but here’s the ‘meat’ ...
‘For decades, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) — the non-profit organization that manages IP addresses and domain names — has been overseen by the US Department of Commerce ... Most upset are those who point to the independent nature of the internet, and the need for any body with global power to be similarly indpendent. Later this year ICANN is set — at long last — to completely separate from the US government.
While this does hinge on US government approval, by the end of September, ICANN could instead be in the hands of businesses, individuals, and multiple global governments.
[The tacit concern is over US surveillance by the NSA etc. But how does control of domain names affect that?]
... The new arrangement, announced back in March 2014, would introduce a great degree of diversity of oversight, although ICANN insists that despite the involvement of the US government, it has still been able to operate independently.
... Ultimately, this is little more than a common sense PR move that decentralizes control of the internet.
... a move to a more diverse structure should mean that it is better at self-policing and allows for far greater transparency and accountability ...
Been trying all this time and can’t find the list of senators. I ran into a helpful list somewhere this week and failed to copy it.
Here is another small list:
Cruz-Duffy language [Back in June]
Sens. Grassley, Sasse, Lee, Lankford back renewing Cruz-Duffy amendment to save the Internet
https://getliberty.org/sens-grassley-sasse-lee-lankford-back-renewing-cruz-duffy-amendment-to-save-the-internet
Let’s compile a list of all congressmen or others who have tried to sound the alarm about this Panama Canal part 2 giveaway.
Thank you for so much research on this...It is a big deal, and I hope it can be delayed if not stopped in its tracks!
Always harder to retake Liberty once it is lost.
You mentioned:
And ALL FOUR relevant chairmen — two in each relevant oversight commitee in the House and Senate — are opposed.
Do you know which committees are charged with oversight?
This helps.
Sad, though not surprising, I don’t see my Senator on any of these lists :(
Do you know if the general public is starting to wake up and starting to pressure the Senate or House?
I think the public is still largely unaware. What few are aware? Most got confused by all the Establishment double-speak. In fact, I suspect that the ‘defund the transition plan’ might be a trick to calm people down.
Public awareness is the first step before calling congress. We need social networking to get the word out.
And I bet Facebook is ready with misinformation the moment the public wakes up.
Of the four chairmen, one is Cruz of course. I was piggybacking off of Rosenzweig:
“The Chairmen of the four relevant committees (Senate and House, Judiciary and Commerce), however, have called for the administration to reconsider its decision.”
That was part of his testimony at the hearing.
Both of you are seeking lists. So ...
“The Chairmen of the four relevant committees (Senate and House, Judiciary and Commerce), however, have called for the administration to reconsider its decision.” — Paul Rosenweig
And I would bet that other GOP members of those committees agree with their chairmen.
God bless both of you!
This has a list of signatures that would help us know who many of the ‘white hats’ are:
Please disregard Post 14 ... I found no list.
Been scouring google. No luck. And my system is laggy. Sorry but I’m not the one to compile a decent list.
FRegards ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.