U.S. to Lose Internet Control Over Untold $Billions

Obama literally caved last week to Washington critics and extended the ICANN for another contract period which is typically two years. Obama, however, pulled another fast one by extending it for only one year to end in September during his last few months in office.  Why? It's so before the next President blocks it, Obama in his last term of office  can pass it through to still give up all U.S. protection and bring on speech and content bans--another deliberate Obama bomb shell ready to explode--are any liberal Democrats watching as their own internet freedoms are taken away and given up to the international controls by rogue regimes and dictators in a one-world organization?

The Wall Street Journal article below reports the ongoing progress about the Obama plan for ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) 2016 turnover to the U.N. - Agenda 21 Global Internet Agency, GIA. The full extent and scope of the economic losses as well as business and personal security issues are insurmountable to completely assess presently. It does not bode well, though, for our unbridled Internet freedom on the world wide web platform. So then, how does the International Monetary Fund correlate to this ICANN controversy?

WASHINGTON—April 14,2014. The U.S. would lose its veto power with the International U.N. Global Internet Agency, GIA, on the executive board under a plan being considered by some emerging economies. The countries are fed up with the United States' failure to ratify a four-year-old deal to restructure the ICANN.

Some members of the GIA, Global Internet Agency, steering committee indicated at a series of weekend meetings their desire to act now, underscoring the growing discontent abroad about the U.S. Congress's delay in approving an international accord to overhaul governance at the agency.

"The GIA cannot remain paralyzed and postpone its commitments to reform," Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega said in a statement to the GIA's steering committee urging the GIA to sidestep the U.S. Congress. "Alternatives to move forward with the reforms must be found whilst the major shareholder does not solve its political problems."

I have been warning everyone about the United States losing its controls over the ICANN's operations that we financed to develop and continue to guarantee freedom of expression without levying fees and charges for access. Obama and his administration insist that under the new U.N. Internet controls abuse would never happen--as if this scenario had never before happened. Unfortunately, that loss of control is currently actually under way, but not with the ICANN as of yet.

In that Wall Street story above it is to dramatically make my point loudly heard, I changed the article's real name of the International Monetary Fund, IMF, to a fictitious ICANN U.N. agency name of the Global Internet Agency, GIA. It was to show how interchangeable the ICANN is as the IMF. Both are governed by an international body of smaller nations who will selfishly and unscrupulously do anything to get ahead with their own agenda.

Still in play is our loss of U.S. control that's now happening as reported in the Wall Street Journal article on April 15, 2014 as the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, members challenged the wisdom of our country's leadership and are asking that we lose our veto power to override the IMF committee decisions. Why should we?--we just underwrite nearly all of loans to bail out developing or poorly managed countries and corrupt governments with no hope of ever being repaid the over $50 Billion loaned so far too.

• Factoid: The IMF was founded at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 to secure international monetary cooperation, to stabilize currency exchange rates, and to expand international liquidity (access to hard currencies). In plain talk, the semi-secretive meeting was about a group of greedy bank scions who wanted to jump into the fray of the global market after WW2 to make very profitable loans while fixing their own interest rates and controlling their international exchange rates too.

Today, countries are building up foreign-exchange stockpiles to guard against financial crises —instead of relying on the IMF. It puts upward pressure on the exchange rates of other countries, including the U.S. dollar that increases inflation since everything will cost more. The Obama administration getting pressure from bankers and investment banker lobbyists does not want to be seen as a pushover to relinquish our IMF veto power while also waiting to loan the IMF more monies not until after the 2016 election. Politically, it would be disastrous to risk telling any of the U.S. voters about those intentions when their money is scarce domestically while asking for more taxes to pay to other countries. It is more Keynesian economics of wanting to print more money and the Treasury borrowing more from foreigners as U.S. treasury bond holders.

Read More

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Washington's Battle Over the IMF

Economists warn the IMF's legitimacy is at stake, and they say U.S. standing abroad is being eroded.

You Are All Certifiably Insane About the Internet!

Are you all nuts??

How loud should a cry be to wail loudly enough to be heard? - Your lives are going to be CHANGED FOREVER if Obama gets his way! - NO LIE! 

• Do you all realize that if you think the NSA, National Security Agency, scandal was intrusive in monitoring your emails, phone calls and text messages by the United States government then you haven't considered a global U.N. bureaucracy that will have power to reject any nation's citizen's ability to say, "No!", to Internet monitoring and content bans. - Scary? Oh, it's going to happen fast too!

• Do you all realize that if you think the Somali pirates taking ships and crews as hostages to exact "fees" and "just tolls" through their waters was extortion implicit in allowing safe passage and controlling strategic territories past their own weapons then you haven't considered a United Nations that has long craved for the power to tax all Internet traffic over the world-wide-web of seas of information while users are navigating around the U.N. software censorship mines?  

As far back as 2001, a U.N. report, "Financing the Global Sharing Economy," proposed that the U.N. be given authority to levy a tax on "speculative currency transactions" with a projected revenue stream north of $150 billion. Should the U.N. get control of the Internet, $150 billion will be "chump change" growing into $Trillions to go into the United Nations treasury, International Banks and pockets of crooked U.N. Directors and Member nations.  

It would enable a chokehold on the global economy and a vast stream of revenue that would make the U.N. even more unaccountable than it already is now. All this would start out modestly with a fee, never called "a tax," maybe a small transaction fee for certain types of traffic. But if history is any guide, the run-up to big dollars will be stunningly rapid. One need only reference the increases in U.S. federal revenues and expenditures after passage in 1913 of the 16th Amendment establishing the federal income tax. The top 1913 rate of 7% more than doubled by 1916 to 15%, then rocketed to 67% in 1917 and 77% in 1918. It always starts small--AND never ends!

Power follows the money, and bureaucratic appetites are voracious. Who will there be to stop the process, after all? Where is the elected legislative body that will answer to the world's population that finally pays these "fees"? Among the many disingenuous justifications being touted for this colossal strategic mistake is that 'No Government Control' will be imposed on the Internet--BULLSHIT! --What does the 'One World Global Body,' the U.N. Government agency, call itself then?

Can anyone doubt that within just the next few decades the Internet will be the essential infrastructure for participation in even the smallest segment of the global economy? The revenue potential associated with controlling the "rivers" of the 21st-century-and-beyond will be enormous and will finance an ever-expanding international bureaucracy, likely under the aegis of the United Nations.

Get Off Your Asses & Email Your Representatives!

 ~ It is a Non-Partisan Issue ~

~ Americans Owe their Freedom to our Laws -  So does the Internet ~

To Email your U.S. Congressional Representatives. 

Click on: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/map Enter your home "Zip Code" and it will list by their Names and Internet sites. Click on to their individual "Official Website" and type into their email message box: "Do Not transfer ICANN to UN" and send--it's that easy and it will take a second to do it too! 

You Are Crazy if You Don't Email Congress!

Please Send this out to your Friends Now!

Obama Still at It to Dump Internet & U.S. ICANN

The Obama administration has again announced the end to U.S. stewardship of the open Internet; Russia and China will take advantage of the American ICANN surrender too. Authoritarian regimes want to grab control recognizing the 'different modes and methods in Internet management'.--code for a major subversion of the Internet and restriction to freedom of speech. Meanwhile, Obama is stealthly trying to pass his 'Executive Order' on the down-low and bypass congressional oversight once again; it will be far from the 'modest change in policy' that Obama claimed in March, 2014.  Is Obama aware of the major damages?  Of course not, he is again clueless!--How many more times must the public take that silly clueless excuse and just admit he knows what he is doing?        

Sands in an Hourglass."Like sands in the hourglass, so are 'The Days of Our Lives'."--to borrow the line from a popular daytime soap opera introduction. Since 1965, it is one of the longest-running scripted television programs in the world. It is even older than the Internet--my how time flies!

FACTOID: On October 24, 1995 the Federal Networking Council, FNC, unanimously passed a resolution defining the term 'Internet'. This definition was developed in consultation with members of the internet and intellectual property rights communities. RESOLUTION: The Federal Networking Council (FNC) agrees that the following language reflects our definition of the term 'Internet'. It refers to the global information system that -- (i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and (iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein.

"The Internet has changed much in the three decades since it came into existence. It was conceived in the era of time-sharing, but has survived into the era of personal computers, client-server and peer-to-peer computing, and the network computer. It was designed before LANs existed, but has accommodated that new network technology, as well as the more recent ATM and frame switched services. It was envisioned as supporting a range of functions from file sharing and remote login to resource sharing and collaboration which had spawned electronic mail and more recently the World Wide Web, Internet telephone and Internet television.

"The most pressing question for the future of the Internet is not how the technology will change, but how the process of change and evolution itself will be managed. The architecture of the Internet has always been driven by a core group of designers, but the form of that group has changed as the number of interested parties has grown. With the success of the Internet has come a proliferation of stakeholders - stakeholders now with an economic as well as an intellectual investment in the network. [Those major multi-national stakeholders have taken their suppressive political underpinnings to threaten the global Internet freedom of speech that have been advanced since the beginning by the United States ICANN organization.] 

"We now see, in the debates over control of the domain name space and the form of the next generation IP addresses, a struggle to find the next social structure that will guide the Internet in the future. The form of that structure will be harder to find, given the large number of concerned stakeholders. At the same time, the industry struggles to find the economic rationale for the large investment needed for the future growth, for example to upgrade residential access to a more suitable technology. If the Internet stumbles, it will not be because we lack for technology, vision, or motivation. It will be because we cannot set a direction and march collectively into the future."

Like those 'sands in the hourglass' our Internet freedoms are quickly slipping right between our fingers to be lost forever. With our U.S. Federal Communications Commission, the United Nations, the European Union, the various sovereign nations, partisan coalitions and special interest groups they all have strict regulatory agendas to curb current Internet freedoms. Can they all get along?--Read about the U.N. Security Council...

Look at the ridiculous farse exhibited by the United Nations Security Council, its members are so stacked up against any United States participation. Under the Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions. The Permanent Five members, P5, are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  Each of the permanent members has power to veto, enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. 

All substantive United States' resolutions are null and void by design.--And so after reviewing over 70 years of poor performance of the U.N., do we now give up U.S. control of our Internet and all set a direction to march collectively into the global future?? 

CONTACT YOUR SENATORS & CONGRESSMEN!

I Agree 100% with our Democrat President!

The News Story: Our Democrat President, attending a Global Initiative Event about the Internet, observed, "A lot of people who have been trying to take this authority away from the U.S. want to do it for the sole purpose of cracking down on Internet freedom and limiting it and having governments protect their backsides instead of empower their people."

During the speakers' panel discussion the President asked Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, if he was worried about the U.S. giving up the ICANN domain administration will lead to to losing internet freedom. Mr. Wales wholeheartedly concurred adding, "People outside the U.S. often say, "Oh, it is terrible. Why should the U.S. have this special power?" His reply, "There is a first amendment in the U.S., and there is a culture of free expression."

Mr. Wales recalled on ICANN panels to be more understanding of differences in cultures. "I have respect for local cultures, but banning parts of Wikipedia is not a local cultural variation that we should embrace and accept. That's a human-rights violation." 

The Rest of the Story: I purposely did not mention which Democrat President that was quoted above, but it still should be no surprise on who supports the ICANN under a One World Order U.N. Control Organization. "You might think it is Bill Clinton who would embrace the Obama administration's surrender of U.S. control over the Internet. After all, it was the Clinton administration in the 1990s that invented "multistakeholder" governance of the Internet."

"Instead, Mr. Clinton, appearing on a panel discussion at a recent Clinton Global Initiative event, defended U.S. oversight of the domain-name system and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann. As author of the multistakeholder concept, he knows it is only U.S. control that keeps other governments at bay, allowing stakeholders like engineers and private companies to operate an open Internet."

"The Internet has given people around the world a taste of the First Amendment, but one can expect a quick shift to censorship once countries like Russia and China join as "stakeholders." They have long sought to control the Internet even beyond their borders and would make the most of a new role overseeing the root zone file containing names and addresses of the top-level domains such as .com and .org. The new governing body could censor the Internet everywhere, including in the U.S., by deactivating websites it opposes."

"I just know that a lot of these so-called multistakeholders are really governments that want to gag people and restrict access to the Internet," Mr. Clinton concluded. "We have an obligation not to let that happen."  Obama, oh mighty Socialist Comrade Leader, did you even hear what U.S. President Clinton said?  

"Congressional hearings on the Obama plan begin this week. The alternative Proposed legislation would retain U.S. control over the ICANN pending a review by the GAO, Government Accountability Office. The big unresolved question still remains on whether the White House has legal authority to transfer U.S. control without congressional approval."

"The Obama plan to abdicate oversight would permanently undermine the permissionless Internet, built under U.S. leadership to enable websites to operate free of government regulation. There should be bipartisan support in Washington for the U.S. to retain its role and protect stakeholders and Web users from repressive regimes. Otherwise, it's the beginning of the end for the open Internet."

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO TELL THEM NO TO ICANN TRANSFER!