Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers

[Guest]

Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers

By: Bradley A. Blakeman

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 moved quietly to cede control of the Web from the United States to foreign powers.

Some background: The Internet came into being because of the genius work of Americans Dr.Robert E. Kahn and Dr. Vinton G. Cerf. These men, while working for the Department of Defense in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the early 1970s, conceived, designed, and implemented the idea of "open-architecture networking."

This breakthrough in connectivity and networking was the birth of the Internet.

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.

They discovered that providing a person with a unique identifier (TCP/IP)that was able to be recognized and interact through a network of servers would allow users to communicate with others.

The servers woulduse a series of giant receivers to recognize the identifier and connect networks to networks, passing 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," aka, the Internet.

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.

The key to the control America has over the Internet is through the management of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the giant servers that service the Internet.

Domain names are managed through an entity named IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. The IANA, which operates on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is responsible for the global coordination of the DNS, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol resources.

In short, without an IP Address or other essential Internet protocols, a person or entity would not have access to the Internet.

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.

The argument advanced for those seeking international control of the Internet is that the Internet has become such a powerful, pervasive, and a dependent form of international communications, that it would be dangerous and inequitable for any one nation to control and manage it.

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. We are responsible for the control, operation, and functionality of one of the modern world's greatest inventions and most powerful communications network.

What better country to protect the Internet than the United States?

We invented it, and we paid for the research and implementation that made it

possible. We are the freest, most tolerant nation on earth, we believe in the

fundamental right of free speech, and we practice a free market of commerce and ideas.

America has always been against censorship and has shared its invention with the world without fee or unreasonable or arbitrary restriction. The user fee to operate on the Internet is not one paid to the U.S. government; a consumer pays it to private Internet companies, who provide access to the Internet through servers for their subscribers.

Look no further than China's recent move against Google to censor the

Internet, and you can envision what can happen when other nations less free

than the United States seek to control the Internet beyond even their own borders.

America needs to wake up. If we lose control over the management of the

Internet, we have given away one of our nation's greatest assets with nothing

in return to show for it.

The Obama administration's actions will set in motion a slow and complete takeover of the Internet by the United Nations or some other equally U.S.-hostile and unfriendly international body. And once it is gone, it will be gone forever.

The surrender of the Internet will spell disaster for our nation, financially, as well as for safety, security and our standing as a great power that values freedom and the free exchange of ideas and information.

As far as I am concerned, America is still the last best hope for a more

peaceful and prosperous world and our president should not be looking for

ways to weaken us. Rather, his job is to work to strengthen us and protect our nation's greatest asset our people's creativity and ingenuity.

http://newsmax.com/Headline/obama-intern...omo_code=967E-1

[karl]

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. We are responsible for the control, operation, and functionality of one of the modern world's greatest inventions and most powerful communications network.

What better country to protect the Internet than the United States?

We invented it, and we paid for the research and implementation that made it

possible. We are the freest, most tolerant nation on earth, we believe in the

fundamental right of free speech, and we practice a free market of commerce and ideas.

America has always been against censorship and has shared its invention with the world without fee or unreasonable or arbitrary restriction.

Look no further than China's recent move against Google to censor the

Internet, and you can envision what can happen when other nations less free

than the United States seek to control the Internet beyond even their own borders.

America needs to wake up.

Uh, weren't you aware, Richard, that liberals detest a strong USA? Now, if we were to turn ourselves into a country like France, with little going for it except for high prices and liberal slogans, they would be OK with that.

Obama has never been anything but a far-left liberal. He apologizes for the USA. He is doing his best to change it, to bankrupt it, emasculate it, and bring it to the level of all other socialist countries so that the dream of the globalists can be realized. A one-world socialist "paradise."

[Guest]

Uh, weren't you aware, Richard, that liberals detest a strong USA? Now, if we were to turn ourselves into a country like France, with little going for it except for high prices and liberal slogans, they would be OK with that.

Obama has never been anything but a far-left liberal. He apologizes for the USA. He is doing his best to change it, to bankrupt it, emasculate it, and bring it to the level of all other socialist countries so that the dream of the globalists can be realized. A one-world socialist "paradise."

Yes I am aware of that karl, I just want others to be aware also.

[Woody]

I just don't understand Obama. How did he get elected anyways?

[karl]

I just don't understand Obama. How did he get elected anyways?

Most people are woefully ignorant of our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our economy, our national security, and what makes business tick.

That's why they chose a man who routinely flaunts his disdain for our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our military, our patriots' concern for our borders and national security, and the business world that makes this country tick.

Slightly over half of all Americans — 52.6 percent — now receive significant income from government programs, according to an analysis by Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J. That’s up from 49.4 percent in 2000 and far above the 28.3 percent of Americans in 1950. If the trend continues, the percentage could rise within ten years to pass 55 percent.

1 in 5 Americans hold a government job or a job reliant on federal spending. A similar number receive Social Security or a government pension. About 19 million others get food stamps, 2 million get subsidized housing, and 5 million get education grants. For all these categories, Mr. Shilling counted dependents as well as the direct recipients of government income.

These people vote and that's a lot of votes ready to support whoever promises the most government.

[phkrause]

So that means that the Democrats should win each and every year if what you say is true? So how is it that Both Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, etc. were able to win? I guess they promised the same thing?

pk

[Guest]

I just don't understand Obama. How did he get elected anyways?

Pinheads. A bunch of em thought they were voting for hope and change.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

I just don't understand Obama. How did he get elected anyways?

Pinheads. A bunch of em thought they were voting for hope and change.

Well ... I think we are coming up a few dollars short of what we bargained for.

[Woody]

Clinton claimed a vote for him was a vote for Hope since he was from Hope. And look what we got.

[Guest]

I remember seeing bumper stickers that said Clinton for change.

[Woody]

Well .. for certain he did provide change to the halls and office of the White House.

[karl]

Clinton claimed a vote for him was a vote for Hope since he was from Hope. And look what we got.

Hope he finds another line of work.

[karl]

So that means that the Democrats should win each and every year if what you say is true? So how is it that Both Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, etc. were able to win? I guess they promised the same thing?

pk

Fortunately, there's considerable voter apathy. And, guys like Reagan have the Hollywood thing going for them. Incumbents can usually score well with the general populace if things are going reasonably well. And, if things are going poorly, incumbents generally lose even if they're promising the moon.

[phkrause]

Fortunately, there's considerable voter apathy. And, guys like Reagan have the Hollywood thing going for them. Incumbents can usually score well with the general populace if things are going reasonably well. And, if things are going poorly, incumbents generally lose even if they're promising the moon.

That's what I thought.

pk