Posted on 05/18/2014 9:50:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
Beginning in the 1960s, shortly after the Russians shocked the world by launching Sputnik, America launched its drive to put a man on the moon. While we were racing towards the moon, we were also developing the Internet. It started out as a military project, but transitioned to academic use and then to public use. By the earlier 1990s, we began to see the Internet that we now know as the world’s largest and most accessible source for information — the world's mega-library.
You’ve likely heard that the Obama Administration plans to surrender US control of the Internet to some international entity. Russian President Vladimir Putin has made news recently by expanding his control into Crimea and Ukraine and now he has his sights on the Internet. In Crimea and Ukraine, Putin has taken advantage of Obama’s projected weakness in foreign policy. Now he is licking his chops as Obama has announced he will give away control of the Internet to “international stakeholders.”
Just as Putin skillfully played international stakeholders in the Crimea and Ukraine, he is confident that he will be able to angle his way into substantial control over the Internet. Whoever controls Internet domain names and addresses will ultimately control the global Internet. Putin understands this. Clearly, Obama does not. Or if he does, he doesn’t seem to care. Once Obama gives away American control of the Internet, the values of free speech and free press will die off.
There is nothing wrong with the Internet that will be improved by inviting an autocratic oligarch like Putin to assert his power over an American invention like the Internet.
Here’s the truth — Americans invented the Internet. Americans developed and built the Internet. It is American technology that runs and administers the Internet on a global level. The American values of free speech and free press have permeated the Internet and made it an invaluable source of information for Americans and people all over the world. This is why totalitarian governments try and sometimes succeed in shutting down or censuring the Internet within their own borders to stifle dissent and limit opposition.
Putin is one of these types. Within Russia he has imposed strict laws to shut down social networks within Russia and block Russian Internet from the rest of the world. He has asserted strict control over what can be said on all the networks that are under his control. Why would Obama want to give people like Putin more control over our Internet? What problem is he trying to solve?
Putin wants to get his hands on our Internet. I’m not surmising this — Putin has explicitly said so. He wants to exert the same control he has over Russia’s Internet over us all. He wants to limit what the American press can say. He wants to limit what you can read and post online. He wants to control the flow of information. He is a former KBG chieftain. He knows how to control things and that is what he lives to do.
Sadly, but not surprisingly, Obama is playing right into Putin’s hands. This may shed some light on what Obama meant in March 2012 when he asked Dmitry Medvedev to pass along a message to Putin saying that “This is my last election. After my election, I will have more flexibility.” This is not the sort of flexibility that Americans should support.
It is time for all Americans — regardless of political affiliation — to stand up and say that we are mad as hell and won’t put up with this anymore. We must demand that the Internet remain under American control with American values of free press. We must demand that Congress take action to prevent the President from foolishly continuing down this path. The bottom line is this — America invented, created, developed, built and governed the Internet. It must continue do so.
Those who suggest that there is some other model that can work are playing with fire and playing into the hands of control freaks like Putin. Who do you want to bet on American values like free speech or control freaks like Vladimir Putin?
“You soundlike you would have been a fan of Mussolini and Franco too, had you lived in the 1930s.”
It sounds to me like your logic is completely broken.
Wow, Putin built a church, and advocated a Christian value.
Mussolini! Franco!
So every leader who builds a church and says something good about Christian values is a Mussolini or Franco.
That’s retarded.
Of course you don’t make this comparison for the leaders who don’t even try to do anything Christian.
Oh yeah, and going in to Chechnya makes him a monster?
Russia backed off of Chechnya for years, leaving them with defacto independence. The people voted in a taliban government with kidnapping as the national industry, used it as a launching ground for further attacks into Russian provinces like Dagestan and terrorist attacks in Moscow.
I really doubt any leader would have done differently on the issue.
.that's what I call broken logic.
"So every leader who builds a church and says something good about Christian values is a Mussolini or Franco."
In case your memory is faulty: "No, only oppressive dictators who magically become devout defenders of the faith when it becomes politically convenient. None of these guys were Christian until they needed to portray themselves as traditional, Christian heroes of the nation. In other words, a personality cult tailored for the nation."
Obama also claims to be Christian and prays in public. You believe him? Or do you only believe the better and more opportunistic liar?
"Of course you don’t make this comparison for the leaders who don’t even try to do anything Christian."
Yes, because every critic of Putin on a Putin thread must also criticize Obama at the same time, lest it be insinuated that he's ignoring Obama's transgressions.
"Russia backed off of Chechnya for years, leaving them with defacto independence. The people voted in a taliban government with kidnapping as the national industry, used it as a launching ground for further attacks into Russian provinces like Dagestan and terrorist attacks in Moscow."
You mean the Russians tried and failed. In return, the Russians surrounded Grozny and turned it into the most bombed city on Earth. With civilians inside. They then committed massacres, and there are mass graves still being dug up there. In 2012, the "people" thanked Putin by giving him 99% of the vote with 99% voter turnout in 2011.
Read Anna Politkovskaya's (God bless her soul) reports and books, she documents this extensively, and Putin's hands are as bloody as the terrorists he fought against.
She was eventually killed by Putin for it. I notice you said nothing about what happened to her or all the other journalists that Putin has imprisoned and killed either. Obama aspires to be what Putin has already become in Russia. Just another corrupt, opportunistic dictator with delusions of grandeur, greatness propagated by the state organs under his control.
Building a church or standing up for a religious value does not make a leader a Franco nor a Mussolini.
It is idiocy to assert that it does.
If a person says hey that leader did a good thing rebuilding a church, or hey that leader was right to stand up for a Christian value, it doesn’t mean they are a lover of Franco or Mussolini (as you directly accused someone above of).
You insist Putin has no Christian motivation whatsoever.
Are you pretending to be God? A mind reader?
Why not be honest and admit you don’t know.
I don’t know — there I am honest.
Sure, there have been plenty of people in history of have grandstanded for religion for their own purposes.
But there also have been plenty of sincere believers, who have been demonized to say they had no good motivations when in fact they did.
Was George Bush a devil for invading Iraq?
Was Abraham Lincoln a deeply wicked individual for sanctioning the war crimes of Sherman rampaging in the South to bring the war to a more rapid close?
How about the approval of the nuclear bombing at the end of WWII, is that proof Truman was unchristian?
Many people think it saved hundreds of thousands of lives, on balance.
How about Ronald Reagan, was he Satan for the events with the Contras?
Each of these people had a virtuous consciences that were challenged by the realities of governing a nation and world affairs. Yet at the same time they were imperfect humans with selfish and corrupted desires as well. You gonna say they were simply Unchristian?
How easy for you.
For you, you can read minds and it is all black and white.
Putin killed people in Chechnya, so that’s it for you he is the devil.
Do the people victimized by Chechens factor into your thinking even a little bit?
Did you ever consider how many MORE people would have been victimized if it hadn’t been retaken?
Again, the territory of Chechnya was being used as a base to attack the rest of Russia including Daegestan. The problem wasn’t going to go away, it was just a question of how much damage it would be allowed to do.
Doing nothing would make Putin guilty for doing nothing. And how many more people would have been kidnapped and killed by Chechnya’s kidnapping industry? The invasions from expansionist muslims? Then there is all the airplane, school, and theatre terrorism that came out of there.
Would letting that continue really have been “Christian”?
How was he supposed to deal with the problem, ask nicely?
No...
"In case your memory is faulty: "No, only oppressive dictators who magically become devout defenders of the faith when it becomes politically convenient. None of these guys were Christian until they needed to portray themselves as traditional, Christian heroes of the nation. In other words, a personality cult tailored for the nation.""
If someone called a man a "heroic figure", and that man happened to make himself dictator, consolidated the state under his sole control, consistently acted to restrict freedoms and enforced all of this with killings, torture and imprisonment, then yes I'm perfectly fine with saying that that person might have supported Franco and Mussolini as well.
Because all three acted oppressively, and used brute force to suppress dissension, yet all the while hid behind a Christian facade. Just because he builds a church, and makes himself the champion of the Roman Catholic Church or Russian Orthodox Church, doesn't even begin to wash away the criminal acts that Putin has done.
You insist Putin has no Christian motivation whatsoever. Are you pretending to be God? A mind reader? Why not be honest and admit you don’t know. I don’t know — there I am honest.
I'm about as sure that Putin is not a real Christian, as I am sure Mussolini, Franco, Obama, Pelosi and Hillary are not real Christians. Because they profess to be Christian, and act to some degree as a Christian would, but at the same time continue to push policies that are distinctively un-Christian.
Was George Bush a devil for invading Iraq? Was Abraham Lincoln a deeply wicked individual for sanctioning the war crimes of Sherman rampaging in the South to bring the war to a more rapid close? How about the approval of the nuclear bombing at the end of WWII, is that proof Truman was unchristian? Many people think it saved hundreds of thousands of lives, on balance. How about Ronald Reagan, was he Satan for the events with the Contras?
First, all of those President was elected in a fair elections. None of these Presidents instituted policies that suppressed dissension with killings, detentions and torture.
Bush, Truman, Lincoln were given explicit authority from Congress to prosecute the wars that they led. All of them made controversial decisions in the national interest, and not their own. While Putin made his bloody decisions to keep himself in power, and enrich himself. The killing of journalists, and contract killings of the opposition make that fairly obvious. (14 years now...)
Bush, Lincoln, Reagan and Truman also had a long history of being a devout Christian. Contrast that to Putin, who conveniently converted to Christianity in 1996 when he first entered politics. And I'm pretty sure Reagan didn't know about the Iran-Contra scandal, negligent to be sure, but hardly criminal.
As for Chechnya, the terrorists that seized the province were evil and indiscriminate. But Putin, the way he shelled entire cities into oblivion, exterminated entire villages, acting in a manner that appeared to be motivated more by inspiring terror and revenge, is as bloodstained as they are. This was overseen by his Muslim lackeys, especially Kadyrov. In short, instead of just targeting the terrorists he targeted everybody in Chechnya that didn't actively support him.
Putin is also perfectly happy with being Iran's lifeline to a nuclear bomb. This is the country that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. And he also invaded Georgia.
Putin has enough blood on his hands, and his oppression and dictatorial policies that advocate imprisonment and killings of his enemies seems solely focused on keeping himself in power. And the reasons for this is apparent.
What leader circumvents the Russian Constitution like Putin has, running as Prime Minister and then as President again? How would it seem in America, if after 8 years of Bill Clinton, he decided to run as Vice-President to Al Gore and won through rampant electoral fraud. And then after 4 years of Gore, Clinton changes the rules and runs as President again for 6 years?
Simple explanation, somebody had more artistic talent than brains...
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.