Modern Robber Barons Steal Liberty

[Flanders]

Another Democrat lie is about to be implemented:

U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.

XXXXX​

In a statement, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) called the move “consistent with other efforts the U.S. and our allies are making to promote a free and open Internet, and to preserve and advance the current multi-stakeholder model of global Internet governance.”

Newt Gingrich asked the right question:

. . . former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tweeted: “What is the global internet community that Obama wants to turn the internet over to? This risks foreign dictatorships defining the internet.”

the Internet
By Craig Timberg, Published: March 14

U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet - The Washington Post​

Barack Taqiyya’s “global internet community” is the United Nations. Go to this link for pages and pages of articles detailing the UN’s long running drive to control the Internet:

AOL Search

The Internet lie is worse than the “You can keep your Doctor.” lie because it cannot be repealed.

Bradley A. Blakeman’s most informative article uses the phrase Foreign Powers:

Now for the bad news: In an effort to show the world how inclusive, sharing, cooperative, and international America can be, the Obama administration set off on a plan to surrender control and key management of the Internet by the U.S. Department of Commerce and its agents.

XXXXX​

For years, the international community has been pressuring the United States to surrender its control and management of the Internet. They want an international body such as the United Nations or even the International Telecommunications Union, (an entity that coordinates international telephone communications), to manage all aspects of the Internet in behalf of all nations.

XXXXX​

Just this past spring, within months of Obama's taking office, his administration, through the Department of Commerce, agreed to relinquish some control over IANA and their governance. The Obama administration has agreed to give greater representation to foreign companies and countries on IANA.

This amounts to one small step for internationalism and one giant leap for surrendering America's control over an invention we have every right and responsibility to control and manage.

It is in America's economic and national security interests not to relinquish any control.

Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers
Sunday, 31 Jan 2010 06:41 PM
By Bradley A. Blakeman

Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers​

Make no mistake in terminology. Foreign powers, International community, International law, are doublespeak synonyms for United Nations.

Cracking the tax barrier

It’s no secret that the United Nations has been after taxing authority over the American people. Giving the UN control over the US military is the only thing UN-loving Democrats have been angling for longer then giving the UN taxing authority.

Every United Nations treaty contains a way for the UN to levy and collect a tax. Global warming taxation (Cap & Trade) is the best known of the lot. Taxing currency transactions goes back to the Tobin Tax in the early seventies. Surrendering control of the Internet to the United Nations has the potential to succeed where every other scheme to give the United Nations taxing authority failed:

The U.N. recently revived its long-held desire to take control of the Internet. It is unlikely to get its way. So, led by European nations — who else? — it has hit upon another means by which to exercise its influence: Taxes. CNET reports:

The United Nations is considering a new Internet tax targeting the largest Web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix, that could cripple their ability to reach users in developing nations.

June 11, 2012 12:38 PM
The U.N. Seeks to Tax the Internet By Charles C. W. Cooke

The U.N. Seeks to Tax the Internet | National Review Online​

Sad to say, the United Nations got its way.

Let me close with a clarification.

Opposing the United Nations is not the same thing as opposing the wealthy simply because they are wealthy. It is important to make that distinction since many in the wealthy ruling class like Senator Jay Rockefeller and his brother David Rockefeller are the ones betraying this country to the United Nations.

Today’s Americans should not make the mistake of attacking the wealthy for the wrong reasons as Communists did in the early years of Socialism, nor should anyone fear being labeled a Communist for challenging the wealthy class’ worldview. Most Americans admire success, but reject collectivism along with rejecting big government tax dollar millionaires. Attacking the wealthy who would surrender America’s independence is not the same thing as advocating Socialism/Communism as it was in 1900.

Interestingly, Communists called John D. Rockefeller, Senior (1839 - 1937) the worst of the robber barons. The accusation mattered not to most Americans because it was about making money. Indeed, old John D. was more admired than disliked. Today’s Rockefellers, et al. are true robber barons because they steal liberty.

 

[Flanders]

I did a quick check of the Sunday talkies. The Internet story never got a call let alone a roundtable discussion.

The sparse reporting on the government giving away the Internet tells me that I was right about the government spying on the media. The whole press thing was a scam designed to convince Americans the government and the media are mortal enemies eternally locked in deadly combat.

NOTE: The press always makes a big deal out of protecting the identity of sources. That, too, has become a con job because the press never reports anything that might damage big government, or upset the New World Order crowd. Getting “sources” to talk to reporters is in the government’s best interests, while freedom of speech on the Internet is condemned by the government and the media. The truth is: A reporter is the one person you should never talk to if you know anything that might damage the government’s authority.

A brilliant article by Kelly OConnell is the best you’ll find on a topic that should have the media outraged —— at least as much as they were outraged when they whined incessantly about the government threatening their Rights. The hypocrisy is that that flap was about hacked e-mails on the very INTERNET they now ignore.

OConnell covers a great deal, but I want to cite a few things that grabbed me:

As if Americans needed another example of Barack’s mind-numbing, feckless, apologetic, undermining, utterly damaging, sarcastic presidency, we are now informed that the president has unilaterally decided to hand over control of the Internet to a world body.

Shades of Jimmy Carter! Let’s not forget Carter simply handed off the Panama Canal after the blood, sweat, tears and lives of Americans who created it from scratch. So why are American liberals always so intent upon punishing the States? In a word—Marxism!

Happily, Mr. OConnell points to the tax motive. You won’t find that coming out of the mouths of talking heads:

Third, to create a global, socialist tax source, designed to fund revenue-streams for world governance undertakings.

Karl Marx, Jimmy Carter, Alger Hiss, and even the Manchurian Candidate are tied to the Internet giveaway. So I hope everyone takes the time to read and analyze every aspect of OConnell’s piece.

Leaderless in America: US Desperately Seeks Principled Direction in a Merciless World
By Kelly OConnell Sunday, March 16, 2014

Leaderless in America: US Desperately Seeks Principled Direction in a Merciless World

 

[Flanders]

Here’s a great way to understand what Taqiyya the Liar did:

Here is an example of how the future internet (or should we begin referring to it as “Obamanet?”) might appear, if it is allowed to appear at all.

A Rose by Any Other Name

Since the country began to experience the ██████ tilt of Congress and the Obama administration, there have been innumerable articles, editorials, academic dissertations and verbal altercations between members of the left and right over whether Obama and company should be defined as ██████, ██████, ██████, or my personal favorite, simply ██████.

In point of fact, the actual label is immaterial. Defining █████, █████, █████, █████, █████, or ███████ (as it is understood at this time in history) as different from each other is roughly equivalent to describing the definitions of fat, obese, portly, “big boned,” husky, and plump as being essentially different from one another.

There is little, if any, difference between █████, █████, █████, █████, █████, █████, █████, █████, █████, and the current crop of ███████ in either House of Congress, or the White House. The commonality among all these supposedly differentiable groups is that they all base their various political philosophies on an underlying assumption that they are, in fact, superior to ordinary citizens. They believe, and act upon, the idea that they alone are capable of ruling. Not gover……

March 17, 2014
The Future of the Internet
Jim Yardley

Blog: The Future of the Internet​