4 posts tagged “internet”
Here is an email from WorldNetDaily.com which appears to be a paid ad from Brad O’Leary. I usually ignore the paid ad stuff unless it is a cause I can really get behind.
As it goes I stumbled upon Mr. O’Leary on FOX News talking about this very same thing: The Dems have submitted Bills to Congress which puts a Bull’s Eye on Conservative bloggers as my self.
If the Bills pass and go to President Barack Hussein Obama’s desk for a signature to be law, then the President will have near dictatorial powers that reach beyond the so-called Fairness Doctrine. BHO would merely have to fabricate any kind of emergency and limit Conservative usage of the Internet.
Think that as a Leftist agenda to hamper Free Speech and ignore the First Amendment. Hopefully if such an occurrence happens I hope the mercurial SCOTUS will do its job and rule it UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Below is the ad/story from Brad O’Leary.
JRH 4/21/09
**********************************
Gird Your Blogs!
Under "Cybersecurity", Congress Will Be the Internet's Greatest Threat!
By Brad O'Leary
Email Sent: 4/21/2009 12:01 AM
Email Provider: WorldNetDaily
Gird your blogs, because if liberals in Congress get their way, President Obama will have sole discretionary authority to shut down the Internet or critical parts of the Internet should he feel his presidency is being tested. Worse, under the guise of cybersecurity, Obama will essentially be granted the power to destroy free speech on the web.
On April 1st of this year, Senators Rockefeller, Snowe, Bayh and Nelson introduced bills S. 773 and S.778, collectively called the Cybersecurity Act, which would give President Obama dictatorial power over the Internet during a time of national crisis or emergency.
All of the bills' sponsors voted for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited organizations and individuals from running advocacy ads against candidates 60 days in advance of a general election. Now it seems these same people have conjured up a gag order for the Internet.
According to the current drafts, under the Cyber Security Act of 2009 the President may "declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shut down of Internet traffic to and from any comprised federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network". He may also "order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security."
What constitutes "cybersecurity emergency" or "critical infrastructure information system or network" is left completely up to the President to define. We know that the Administration, according to Rahm Emanuel, never wants "a serious crisis to go to waste". We also know the Administration supports the regulation of free speech on the Internet.
President Obama's choice to lead the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is none other than Cass Sunstein, a radical Harvard law professor and supporter of the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. According to Sunstein, "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government."
Obama campaign fundraiser and FCC Chair nominee, Julius Genachowski, is a supporter of "Net neutrality", the first step in applying the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet.
"Net neutrality" proponents like Genachowski would have government decide what content Internet operators and network owners must provide. Incredibly, they claim this is to keep the Internet free and open to all, when in reality, their goal is to usher the heavy hands of federal regulators into the tent.
Stifling any venue where ideology competes with left-wing mainstream media has always been a goal of the left and Obama. Obama has just been more evasive in his means by supporting policies such as "net neutrality" and wobbling on the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine to talk radio. Liberal members of Congress are now set on sending America on an unconstitutional b-line away from Uncle Sam and directly to Big Brother.
The Cybersecurity Act is also includes a provision where "The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecuirty threat and vulnerability information to the Federal Government and private sector owned (emphasis mine) critical infrastructure information systems and networks." Shelving all privacy laws including the requirement for warrants, the Secretary of Commerce "shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access." Senator Rockefeller made it clear in his statement what "relevant data" this act could include when he stated "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on."
While we have worried about cyber attacks from Russia and China, who would have thought the greatest threat would come from members of our own Congress.
________________________
Brad O'Leary is chairman of PM Direct Marketing and a former NBC Westwood One talk-show host. He is the author of 11 books, including last year's bestseller, The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values.
Obligatory ad for O’Leary’s newest book: Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech
Copyright 1997-2009 WorldNetDaily.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Geert Wilders is a far Right MP in the Netherland’s States Generals (Dutch version of the English Parliament). Wilders seems to have a following among the Dutch which are tired of foreign incursion of other nationalities (particularly of the Islamic persuasion) in the Netherlands. Wilders leads the Freedom Party (PVV) which only holds 9 seats in the States Generals; however polls show that if elections were soon that number may double. It is an indication of the typically very Leftist Dutch people becoming fed up with the Mohammedan violence ever growing in their small nation.
With that little update on Wilders, here is the controversy he is stirring up in the Netherlands. Wilders has put together a short film entitled Fitna, which is a play on words from the Arabic language used to be critical of the Mohammedan holy book known as the Quran.
The film's title means 'trial' or 'tribulation' in Arabic. The word, which originally meant 'sledgehammer', refers to the struggle within the faith for the essence of Islam. (Expatica.com)
The States Generals is doing its political best to keep Fitna off of Dutch television because of the dhimmi attitude (probably a certainty) that the significant Mohammedan minority in The Netherlands will erupt into typical Religion of Peace mode and use criticism of their faith as an excuse to go on a violent rampage.
So the issue is – or maybe a better choice of words – the choice of The Netherlands Government is to either bow down in dhimmitude to the global and local demands of Mohammedans or respect the Western Heritage of Freedom of Speech even if it causes a Jihadist rampage.
Is the Netherlands and by proxy the European Union entering the dhimmi zone of appeasement minded squeamishness or will a back bone of heroism stand up to overcome the Mohammedan cultural invasion.
Charles “The Hammer” Martel we need you back in Europe!
JRH (Hat tip to Klein Verzet)
Check this out! November 1, 2007 is the day that a moratorium on taxation of the Internet ends. The meaning is this: if there is no extension or permanent moratorium on Internet taxation that State, Federal or both can tax Internet usage.
Guess which Political Party is blocking an extension on the moratorium of Internet taxation. O let us see, which Party is noted for raising taxes?
O yes, it is the Democratic Party.
Read what Representative Lamar Smith has to say about taxing the Internet.
After reading Smith’s assessment, what do you think about Internet taxation?
I usually write or post politics here; however I just read something that casual bloggers and Internet surfers should be interested in. Cell companies have an aim to ban free WiFi. That means if you are lucky enough to be in a location that has free hotspots via WiFi, Cell companies want to end your free access. Why? WiFi is cutting into their bottom line.
John C. Dvorak reporting for PCMAG.COM explains why the Cell companies will kill free WiFi.
As you read this article the thought that might come up is: Who owns the Internet? Is it private corporations or government? I am actually semi-ignorant on the history of the Internet; I am fairly certain the World Wide Web was a government and military instrument of communication. Then somehow Bill Gates invented the PC or at least its popular version.
That would make the Internet a public domain rather than something to be controlled by profit. It is the old question of the collective versus ownership. READ IT
