Posted on 09/29/2016 10:50:13 AM PDT by VitacoreVision
October 1 is D-Day for the start of the international takeover of the Internet, a scheme the Obama administration and the United Nations have been advancing for years. Why are GOP leaders AWOL as President Obama and the United Nations move to transfer critically important jurisdiction over the Internet to an unaccountable UN-aligned monopoly? Why are Ryan and McConnell doing nothing?
On October 1 — which is only hours away — U.S. oversight of the Internet’s domain name system is scheduled to be stripped from the U.S. and transferred to the new Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) designed by global “multistakeholder” activists. Members of Congress, national security experts, military professionals, constitutional authorities, privacy advocates, and human rights activists are warning that this pending transition to “independent” oversight by “the international community” is fraught with danger.
However, as on so many other crucial issues, the Republican-controlled Congress is acting as a rubber stamp for Obama. Although few Americans are aware of the serious threat posed by this impending transition, the UN’s Internet takeover scheme is not something that has sprung upon us recently or ex nihilo; we have been reporting on this growing peril for the past several years (see here and the articles linked below, following this story).
Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG), yesterday blasted House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for failing even to attempt to block the Internet giveaway, while at the same time caving in to threats of a government shutdown by President Obama and the Democrats if the Republicans didn’t give them all the funding they demanded. One of the key issues was a deal to provide the city of Flint, Michigan, a liberal Democrat stronghold, with $170 million in federal funds for their municipal water supply.
“So, Democrats block the continuing resolution, demand money for the Flint, Mich. water supply,” noted Manning. “House Republicans led by House Speaker Paul Ryan relent and agree to add it to the House water bill after that proposal was defeated in the House Rules Committee, and got nothing in return.”
“Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress, Democrats were actively demanding extra add-ons for these bills, and they couldn’t even get a rider stopping the irreversible transition of U.S. oversight of the Internet’s domain name system," ALG’s Manning charged. “That, even though the Department of Justice has repeatedly failed to respond to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on a number of outstanding legal concerns with the Internet transition of U.S. oversight of the domain name system,” he said, referring to the most recent letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).
In their September 21 letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the chairmen raised serious national security concerns and important constitutional matters that the Department of Justice has failed to address, despite repeated requests. The DOJ has failed to address, the chairmen pointed out, “how the transfer will effect free speech and the openness of the Internet, if U.S. control of the .mil and .gov domains will be compromised, if the transfer will open the Internet to undue influence from foreign nations, if the transfer will lead to the improper conveyance of United States government property, or if the transfer affects any existing antitrust immunity and increases the likelihood of significant antitrust litigation.”
ALG’s Rick Manning charges that “these issues risk either creating an unaccountable global Internet monopoly or a potentially fractured domain name system if antitrust does come into play. The transition proposal contemplates neither scenario, and these issues cannot be addressed once the transition occurs on October 1.” (See here for a detailed legal analysis by ALG’s senior editor Robert Romano of the anti-trust issues involved in the transfer.)
The letter by chairmen Grassley and Goodlatte asked Attorney General Lynch to answer “whether or not the administration has the constitutional authority to conduct the IANA transition without the authorization of Congress because of the United States property interests in the root zone file — or other similar components of the Internet that were created and financed by the United States.” The chairmen pointed out that under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.”
On September 26, a stellar coalition of 77 generals, admirals, intelligence experts, cybersecurity professionals, and industry leaders sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph Dunford, calling on them to intervene in opposition to President Obama’s radical plan to jeopardize the security of the Internet, which is vital to national (and global) security.
“As individuals with extensive, first-hand experience with protecting our national security, we write to urge you to intervene in opposition to an imminent action that would, in our judgment, cause profound and irreversible damage to the United States’ vital interests,” the letter states. Of immediate concern, say these national security professionals, “is the prospect that the United States might be transferring to future adversaries a capability that could facilitate, particularly in time of conflict, cyberwarfare against us.” The letter continued, “In the absence of NTIA’s stewardship, we would be unable to be certain about the legitimacy of all IP addresses or whether they have been, in some form or fashion, manipulated, or compromised. Given the reliance of the U.S. military and critical infrastructure on the Internet, we must not allow it to be put needlessly at risk.”
Among the signers of the letter are Adm. James A. “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.), former commander-in-chief U.S. Pacific Fleet; Lt. General William “Jerry” Boykin, USA (Ret.), former deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence; Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, USAF (Ret.), former deputy chief of staff, United States Air Force; Hon. Charles E. Allen, former under secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for intelligence and analysis; Lt. Gen. C. E. McKnight, Jr., USA (Ret.), former director, Command and Control Systems for Nuclear Forces, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Dr. Lani Kass, former firector, Air Force Chief of Staff’s Cyber Task Force; Rear Adm. Philip S. Anselmo, USN (Ret.), former director of Command Control Communications Computers and Intelligence (C4I); Rep. Brian Babin (R-Tex.), Chairman, House of Representatives’ Committee on Science Space and Technology Subcommittee; Jody R. Westby, CEO, Global Cyber Risk LLC and former chief administrative officer & counsel, In-Q-Tel.
Considering the Obama administration’s contempt for the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, its record for ignoring Congressional requests and concerns, and President Obama’s penchant for “legislating” by executive order, it is not surprising that the administration has completely ignored these appeals by Congress, as well as military and cybersecurity experts. Nor is it a surprise that the Republican leaders have failed, once again, to fight for America’s vital interests. As ALG’s Manning notes, their failure even to engage Obama on this issue is inexcusable.
“Did they even try?” Manning asks. “Ryan and McConnell have not issued any public statements on the matter, so we must assume they actively agree with surrendering U.S. oversight of the Internet. They didn’t even put up a fight. House and Senate Republicans are not what they say, they are what they do. And what they are doing is allowing President Obama to give away the Internet to the international community, threatening the American people’s vital Internet freedoms. And don’t let any Republican tell you different.”
The clock is ticking; October 1 is only hours away. Opponents of the Internet giveaway are urging voters to deluge their U.S. senators, representatives, House Speaker Paul Ryan, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with phone calls and e-mails urging them to take action to stop the transfer before the October 1 deadline.
Related articles:
The United Nations Grabs for Internet Control (Video)
U.S. Lawmakers Aim to Block Obama's Internet Giveaway
Internet “Governance” Summit in Brazil Advances UN Control
Chinese Communist to Lead UN Agency Seeking to Control Internet
UN, Islamists & Communists Push Global Internet Regime
Secret UN Document Lays Out Plan to Seize Control of Internet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3474923/posts
State AGs sue to stop Obama’s internet transition
I imagine someone could lease pipes from the Internet Service Providers and start their own version of the internet. It would be a complete different world with its own assignments of internet addresses and domain names.
I’m not sure the internationalization of ICANN is anything to worry about.
Well, that should hasten the rise of IPV6 if nothing else...What's probably a more concern here is the possibility of international taxation through this proxy. And we'll find out if we really need ICANN and the root name servers, heheh.
That’s interesting
perhaps some kind soul could tell us
what is FR’s internet-number address.
it would be something like 123.123.123.123
thanks
FreeRepublic: 209.157.64.201
SHTF: 67.43.5.170
Drudge: 98.158.27.203
foxnews: 66.171.225.158
Reddit: 198.41.208.138
Democrats and Obama passed Net Neutrality to pave the way for this UN takeover of the Internet. Obama is giving away internet control to the UN. It will mean censorship and taxing of U.S. internet customers by foreign countries :
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8483/obama-about-take-over-internet-heres-everything-aaron-bandler
I’m a Trump supporter
Great Info. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet
freepers can meet up on the freenet
I'm looking into that now. Another thing to consider is Winlink using the HAM radio system. It is setup so that even if the internet goes down, email can be sent by radio only. Very slow but if you can reach family or friends in a grid down scenario it would be priceless.
yep
Giving away control of the Internet won’t just limit free speech, it will also result in a command and control economy. Corporations and small businesses alike will have to cowtow to whatever rule or pressure the globalist come up with because so much business is conducted on the Internet.
Giving away the Internet will make the globalists rich and powerful beyond their dreams.
But if it’s so insignificant why, oh why is Obama and the Dim Congress hell bent on doing it despite the growing public outcry?
Please read this. This is the means for the UN SDG 2030 ro gain information for further control. You have no idea the implications of this take over and these are just some reasons:
UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22267-un-agenda-2030-a-recipe-for-global-socialism
UN Seeks “Unprecedented” Amount of Data to Impose Agenda 2030
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/22898-un-seeks-unprecedented-amount-of-data-to-impose-agenda-2030
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3474935/posts?q=1&;page=21
2005 implementation with 10 year goal
http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/11/16/internet-governance-forum-ten-years-after/
2030 SDG goals
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs
20+ years in IT and several industry certifications disagree with your assessment, but if you have something to rebut my claims, please feel free to opine.
I’m not advocating for this in any way, shape, or form. I couldn’t agree more with everything everyone’s said about how this is a terrible idea.
As an engineer, however, I can tell you that this isn’t so much a big deal for those of us who understand the bigger picture. The networks that interconnect the world are so robust that I can guarantee that as soon as they try to shut down one avenue, another will be made available.
The analogy I’ve used is that this is like the government shutting down interstates and handing over their control to the UN. They can’t possibly control the side streets, easements, and surface streets. You can still get from point A to point B, it’s just a bit more roundabout.
This is, however, a big lurch forward into the pit of one-world totalitarian rule, which is why Obama and his ilk are so proud to support it.
Just another reason why it’s NOT a good idea to have authoritarian governments in charge of Internet domain control...
Indonesia’s Government Wants To Make Memes A Crime
The country’s citizens are opposed to the vague proposition which is meant to prevent cyberbullying -
http://www.vocativ.com/363615/indonesia-memes-crime/
When you have an entire data base collecting information, it can then use algorithms to point in directions which are of concern.
I don't like ceding ANYTHING related to the internet, but rarestia is right.
My credentials are 25 years in internet/web IT.
Political ownership and control in hands of Chinese or any other UN dictators trumps any naked technical solutions. It is who owns the firewall or any security or filtering that matters...wouldn’t you agree?
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.