how he should
|Items on this page are archived in
the order of discovery.
|Obama Surrendering Internet To Foreign Powers
|Without the ingenuity of America’s brightest minds and the
investment of U.S. Taxpayer dollars, there would be no Internet, as we
now know it today.
Now, the Obama administration has quietly
moved to cede control of the web from the United States to foreign
Some background: The Internet came into being
thanks to the genius work of American's, Dr.Robert E. Kahn and Dr.
Vinton G. Cerf. These men while employed by the Department of
Defense, in the DARPA office (Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency), in the early 1970’s, went to work conceiving, designing and
implementing the idea of "open-architecture networking." This
breakthrough in connectivity and networking was the birth of the
These two gentlemen had the vision and the brainpower
to create a worldwide computer Internet communications network that
forever changed the world and how we communicate in it.
discovered that by providing a person with a unique identifier,
(TCP/IP), which was able to be recognized and interact through a network
of servers, all users then could communicate amongst themselves and with
others. The servers would recognize the identifier and connect
networks-to-networks, (utilizing a series of giant servers), that would
pass on information from computer to computer in a seamless real-time
exchange of information. This new process of communication became
know as the "information super highway," the Internet.
the bad news -- in an effort to show the World how inclusive, sharing,
cooperative and international America can be, the Obama administration
has set off on a plan to surrender control and key management of the
Internet by the U.S. Department of Commerce and their agents.
Continue reading Bradley A. Blakeman
here . . .
New Bill Gives Obama "Kill Switch" To Shut
Down The Internet
Prison Planet says the government would have
"absolute power" to seize control of the world wide web under pending
The federal government would have
"absolute power" to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US
Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand
Obama a figurative "kill switch" to seize control of the world wide web
in response to a Homeland Security directive.
Lieberman has been
pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the
guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing
emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free
speech under the pretext of a national emergency.
legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search
engines or software firms that the US Government selects "shall
immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by
the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply
would be fined," reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.
is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA).
Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation
created "the potential for absolute power," while the Center for
Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers
"include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private
The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay
Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, "Would
it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?" while
fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.
largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill,
primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from
civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the
Internet is shut down for a period of time.
"If there’s an
"incident related to a cyber vulnerability" after the President has
declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal
standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm.
And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only
does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury
will even pick up the private company’s tab," writes McCullagh.
here . . .
|Obama's War On Science
says Obama is a liar. That has been firmly established.
He lied about closing Gitmo. He lied about Medicare cuts. He
lied about the cost of the health care bill. He lied about being
able to keep your insurance plan under the health care bill. He
lied about lobbyists in his administration. He lied about making
sure that there was enough time for the public to read legislation
before it was passed. I could go on for pages, but everyone has
his own favorite list of Obama lies.
One of his most egregious
lies is about the abuse of science in the interest of politics.
The Left repeatedly accused the Bush administration of this. Here
is Jonah Goldberg on the subject.
.. all of the Democratic candidates [and
Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, The New York Times, et al] bemoaned
the Neanderthalic "Republican war on science," to borrow a phrase
from a popular liberal book. Hillary Clinton, for instance,
promised that her administration would "restore scientific integrity
by supporting the independent work of government scientists" and end
the "open season on open inquiry."
For good or for ill, Obama
beat Hillary for the nomination, but he carried the "liberals love
science" torch nonetheless. At his inauguration, he pledged,
"We will restore science to its rightful place."
Fast forward to the oil spill in the Gulf.
The White House issued a blanket moratorium
on deepwater oil drilling. Obama cited a report commissioned
by the Interior Department that purported to recommend the ban.
"The recommendations contained in this report," declared the
document, "have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by
the National Academy of Engineering."
Except that was untrue.
In fact, it was such a glaring lie that the seven engineers who
peer-reviewed an earlier version of the document felt obliged to
come forward to clear the air.
"The Secretary should be free
to recommend whatever he thinks is correct," wrote the scientists,
"but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political
The draft these experts saw was substantively
different from the document that bore their names. The draft
called for a moratorium on issuing new permits, not stopping
existing drilling (a move many experts believe would be unsafe).
One of the experts, Benton Baugh, president of Radoil, told the
Wall Street Journal, that if the draft had said to halt drilling,
"we'd have said 'that's craziness.'" ...
Needless to say,
there is something ugly and hypocritical about glorifying the
absolute authority of scientists and sanctimoniously preening about
your bravery in "restoring" that authority -- and then ignoring the
scientists when politically expedient.
But it is bordering on
the grotesque to handpick scientists to give you an opinion and then
lie about what they actually said, and implement a policy they don't
After the election, one in which I was firmly
against his candidacy, I wondered if I could have been wrong in my
judgment. I was ready to reconsider if he proved to be a good
chief executive. I now admit I was wrong. He is proving to
me and millions of others that he is worse than we feared. Brazen
lies cloaked in empty rhetoric surrounded by total ineptitude, careless
cruelty, and a lifestyle reminiscent of Versailles before the revolution
are the characteristics of the Obama administration. I'm sorry I
was wrong. So is the country.
|Obama’s Tech-Related Ethics Problems Grows
says a top ethics watchdog group is calling for yet another
investigation into the Obama White House’s ethically and legally
questionable use of technology -- this time for bypassing electronic
archiving requirements and visitor logs in holding a hundreds of
meetings with lobbyists at a coffee shop close to the White House.
Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW), which
recently called for an investigation into revelations reported by The
Daily Caller, told House oversight committee Chairman Edolphus Towns,
New York Democrat, in a June 28 letter he should launch an investigation
into these latest charges, too.
At issue are hundreds of meetings
at a Caribou Coffee close to the White House between high-ranking
administration officials and top K-Street lobbyists. The meetings
were reported by the New York Times June 24.
CREW, in its letter
to Towns, said he should investigate "whether the White House is
purposefully flouting its responsibilities under both the Federal
Records Act and the Presidential Records Act," citing claims by the
Times that the coffee-house lobbyist meetings were often initiated with
e-mails from White House aides' personal e-mail accounts -- bypassing an
archiving system -- and appear geared towards hiding the meetings from
disclosing them in a published list of visitors to the White House.
At issue legally is whether administration officials are conducting
"official business" outside of record-keeping requirements in federal
law. At issue ethically is an apparent attempt to hide from
disclosure hundreds of lobbyist contacts by a White House which pledged
to be the most transparent in history.
The lobbyist meetings join
a growing list of technology-related ethics problems for the Obama
administration. But while CREW and top GOP oversight official Rep.
Darrell Issa, California Democrat, are eager to get to the bottom of the
problems, Towns appears less anxious.
Towns abruptly canceled a
hearing scheduled for June 24 likely to be a showdown between the White
House and Issa -- Obama’s chief congressional tormentor. A
spokesman for Towns cited a "scheduling conflict" as reason for the
In addition to the lobbyist meetings, the White
House officially reprimanded one of its top technology officials, Andrew
McLaughlin, in May for violating Obama’s ethics pledge in communicating
with his former employer and "inadvertently" bypassing e-mail archiving
A spokesman claimed the breaches were isolated
White House Released Bogus Scientific Report
|A NOAA scientist, Dr. Bill Lehr, yesterday
told a group of Congressional staff investigators on a conference
call that a controversial National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) report claiming that nearly three-quarters of the
oil from the Gulf oil spill has already been addressed was released by
White House officials, and not scientists at NOAA.
scientist told congressional investigators that the data backing up the
assertions made in the report are still unavailable and that peer review
of the report is still not complete. Officials at an August 4th
White House press briefing had said that the report had been thoroughly
"This is yet another in a long line of examples
where the White House’s pre-occupation with the public relations of the
oil spill has superseded the realities on the ground. It is deeply
troubling that White House officials apparently preempted the completion
and review of a scientific study on the oil spill by NOAA scientists in
order to tout conclusions that many experts believe may be deeply
flawed," said Rep. Issa, referring to an August 4th White House press
briefing focused on the report.
"This irresponsible action only adds to the
perception that the Obama White House is more concerned about
appearing competent than actually making sure the massive oil spill
in the Gulf gets cleaned-up as quickly as possible. I will
certainly be demanding the White House name those responsible for
releasing this report, why it was released before it was complete,
and whether its controversial conclusions have led to changes in
Gulf clean-up efforts."
|New Cybersecurity Bill Gives Obama Power To
Shut Down Companies
|Paul Joseph Watson
says that an amalgamated cybersecurity bill that lawmakers hope to
pass before the end of the year includes new powers which would allow
Obama to shut down not only entire areas of the Internet, but also
businesses and industries that fail to comply with government orders
following the declaration of a national emergency -- increasing fears
that the legislation will be abused as a political tool.
draft bill is a combination of two pieces of legislation originally
crafted by Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller. One of the
differences between the new bill and the original Lieberman version is
that the Internet "kill switch" power has been limited to 90 days
without congressional oversight, rather than the original period of four
months contained in the Lieberman bill. In other words, Obama can
issue an emergency declaration that lasts 30 days and he can renew it
for a further 60 days before congress can step in to oversee the powers.
The new powers would give Obama a free hand to not only shut down
entire areas of the Internet and block all Internet traffic from certain
countries, but under the amalgamated bill he would also have the power
to completely shut down industries that don’t follow government orders,
according to a Reuters summary of the new bill.
companies or portions of companies could be temporarily shut down, or be
required to take other steps to address threats," states the report,
citing concerns about an "imminent threat to the U.S. electrical grid or
other critical infrastructure such as the water supply or financial
The only protection afforded to companies under the new
laws is that they would have to be defined as "critical" in order to
come under government regulation, but since the government itself would
decide to what companies this label applies, it’s hardly a comforting
layer of security.
"Even in the absence of an imminent threat,
companies could face government scrutiny. Company employees
working in cybersecurity would need appropriate skills. It also
would require companies to report cyber threats to the government, and
to have plans for responding to a cyber attack," states the report.
As we have highlighted, the threat from cyber-terrorists to the U.S.
power grid or water supply is minimal. The perpetrators of an
attack on such infrastructure would have to have direct physical access
to the systems that operate these plants to cause any damage. The
recent Stuxnet malware attack, for example, was introduced and spread
through a physical USB device, not via the public Internet.
perceived threat from the public Internet to these systems is therefore
completely contrived and strips bare what many fear is the real agenda
behind cybersecurity -- to enable the government to regulate free speech
on the Internet.
|The Net Neutrality Coup
|John Fund says the campaign to regulate the
Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.
The Federal Communications Commission's new "net neutrality" rules,
passed on a partisan 3-2 vote yesterday, represent a huge win for a
slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations.
The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and
investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public
There's little evidence the public is demanding these
rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable
companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet
traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter
opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even
less support in the next Congress.
Yet Obama, long an ardent
backer of net neutrality, is ignoring both Congress and adverse court
rulings, especially by a federal appeals court in April that the agency
doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality. He is seeking to
impose his will on the Internet through the executive branch. FCC
Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former law school friend of Obama, has
worked closely with the White House on the issue. Official visitor
logs show he's had at least 11 personal meetings with Obama.
net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began
with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois
communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in
2002. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over
network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and
cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009.
"But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the
phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
year earlier, McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that
"any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily
be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system
itself." McChesney told me in an interview that some of his
comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he
is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."
For a man with such radical views, McChesney and his Free Press
group have had astonishing influence. Genachowski's press
secretary at the FCC, Jen Howard, used to handle media relations at Free
Press. The FCC's chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, co-authored
a Free Press report calling for regulation of political talk radio.
Free Press has been funded by a network of liberal foundations that
helped the lobby invent the purported problem that net neutrality is
supposed to solve. They then fashioned a political strategy
similar to the one employed by activists behind the political speech
restrictions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill.
The methods of that earlier campaign were discussed in 2004 by Sean
Treglia, a former program officer for the Pew Charitable Trusts, during
a talk at the University of Southern California. Far from being
the efforts of genuine grass-roots activists, Treglia noted, the
campaign-finance reform lobby was controlled and funded by foundations
"The idea was to create an impression that a mass
movement was afoot," he told his audience. He noted that "If
Congress thought this was a Pew effort, it'd be worthless." A
study by the Political Money Line, a nonpartisan website dealing with
issues of campaign funding, found that of the $140 million spent to
directly promote campaign-finance reform in the last decade, $123
million came from eight liberal foundations.
McCain-Feingold passed, several of the foundations involved in the
effort began shifting their attention to "media reform" -- a movement to
impose government controls on Internet companies somewhat related to the
long-defunct "Fairness Doctrine" that used to regulate TV and radio
here . . .
Related: Sen. Jim DeMint vows to reverse
FCC's "Internet takeover"
Copyright Beckwith 2010
All right reserved