October 1, 2016
A day which will live in infamy.
On this day of infamy, the Obama administration handed over control of
the Internet to an uncontrolled assemblage of whatever evil influence
was able to take it over.
Essentially, the United Nations.
And loss of that control has already affected this web site.
The Christian Solution
site taken down
For two weeks this site was taken done by ICANN.
with their new found power, ICANN had implemented a new rule requiring
all domain name registries must "present their papers to the
authorities" in order to verify the identity of all their
Sort of like registering all gun owners. You are not arrested for
killing someone with your gun. Instead, you are arrested for not
registering your gun.
You still have your constitutional right to keep and bear arms -- so long as you have registered yourself with the State.
Likewise, my site of 10 years was not "arrested" for any criminal
behavior, it was arrested for not re-registering as ICANN had arbitrarily demanded.
contact information from this site when it was set up 10 years ago
was no longer valid, and so, this site could not be contacted for the
shake-down presentation of papers, and so, this site did not
know to update the information.
In all honestly, Dotster.com could not get in touch with this site
owner and ICANN decided to get this site's attention by taking down the
site. The equivalent to an impoundment of a vehicle parked on a city
street which looked abandoned.
OK, an "abandoned vehicle" left on a "public street" which was being
paid for each and every month and which had its own email system for
contacting the owner.
But we will give the authorities the benefit of the doubt, because that is
what you do with bureaucrats. Those nasty "terms and conditions",
nobody ever reads, says it is the responsibility of the owner to keep
contact information up-to-date.
What was chilling though to free speech is everything which happened after that point.
In updating my contact information, I discovered in this hate-filled
political climate, that my personal information was being broadcast to
the entire world. Seems I had to "opt in" to privacy, by paying them
protection money to not sell my private information to the world. That
little fee was on top of what I was already paying them.
The real terror was in realizing that ICANN was in no particular hurry to turn my site back on.
I was "guilty of criminal behavior until proved innocent".
My rights as an American citizen of freedom of speech and freedom of
the press was of less value to them than proving I had my "papers".
My 10-year-old web site was taken down for no complained reason and was
held off-line, until I emailed them a copy of my driver's license and
until their "ownership" team decided to review it.
In a word, I was suspected of criminal activity and my site "placed
into prison", "without bail", until the prosecutor, judge, jury and
executioner of ICANN decided my web site was not a criminal.
If that is not itself criminal behavior in violation of free expression, then I don't know the meaning of the crime.
Finally, after God knows how many readers left forever thinking this
site dead as a doorknob, ICANN finally agreed I was the rightful owner and the
site was turned back on.
I railed and railed that my site should have been turned back on the
second I contacted them, starting the process of placating them, and
then turning it back off only if I had failed to placate them in a
timely manner, but none of my pleading was of any avail.
Just shows the tyrannical nature of ICANN and what this new arrangement portends.
As every means of expression moves to the Internet, there
is one and only one monopoly of all speech and all press -- that
There is a reason the name opf this monster is I-CANN, because THEY CAN
shut down the entire Internet with a simple flip of a switch.
No single publishing house of the past had this monoploy control.
No singe television broadcaster was able to shut down its competitors.
No single radio station told all others when and if they could broadcast.
NEVER in the history of the world is so much world power concentrated in so few hands.
twisting in their graves
of the themes long held on this web site is the abuse of the First
Amendment's protections of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
First off, the Founding Fathers tied ONLY the hands of the Federal
government, by starting the First Amendment with the words, "Congress
The States who founded the federal government would not trust, therefore
did not allow, the federal government to become the guardian of truth
The States did not tie their own hands to regulate speech and the press. They were exempt from the First Amendment.
control of speech and press was still allowed --until the real agenda
of the 14th Amendment was secretly hoisted upon America.
Control over the States was the agenda. Obviously, Confederate
States were the intended object at the time, but all States are
Hence, all protections of the Bill of Rights were extended
against the States, and this time, it would be the Federal government
who enforced the Bill of Rights on the States and not the States who
would enforce the Bill of Rights on the Federal government.
First of the Bill of Rights? Freedom of religious beliefs and freedom of religious speech.
Neither the writers of the 14th Amendment, after the Civil War ended in
1865, nor The Founding Fathers of 1789 would have imagined the
invention of radio and television after 1900, let alone that it would
enable -- one man -- in one State -- in the one city of New York City,
such as Walter Chronkite, to enter every home in America -- every
night, to tell Americans what "he wanted Americans to hear" and to
withhold from Americans any information "he decided to withhold from Americans".
At its founding, the Internet was praised as the great equalizer, allowing the common
man, such as this humble writer, to access just as many people as the
most powerful media conglomerate in the world.
Well, the window of this short lived Internet freedom is about to be slammed shut.
Obama gave control of the Internet to the United Nations.
No longer would there be an individual
freedom of speech and press.
No longer would there be a local
control of speech and press at the State level and below.
No longer even would there be a FCC federal
control of speech and press.
Now censorship of speech and press will be global
All for your own security, don't you know.
Islamic radicals "talk to each other on the Internet" and then go blow things up.
So the crime is the Internet, don't you know.
In Great Britain, they said "the gun" was the criminal used by terrorists of Northern Irish persuasion, so they outlawed guns.
But without guns, England has had three terror attacks in three months
by a new and improved terrorist organization, Muslims, using cars, trucks, knives
The answer from England's Theresa May to fix Islamic terrorism? Censor the Internet.
Not just censor speech and press in England, but censor speech and the press globally.
With the United Nations controlling the Internet, this is a real possibility.
With all speech and press merging into the singularity of the Internet,
with ICANN now able to take down any and all web sites at command, the
process is in place for world control of all speech and all expression
There is a Christian Solution
Take back the political party primaries with Christian unity; take back
the States through this unity; have the States take back the U.S.
Senate; repeal the 17th Amendment; then have the States form a
State-based Media Congress, independent of the federal government as
the real 4th branch of government everyone talks about, in order to
regulate those who would monopolize all speech; to regulate out of
business those Jewish interests who conspire to monopolized all speech.
Pointing to the latest terror attack to hit the United Kingdom,
U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May (shown) again called for "international
agreements" to regulate and censor the Internet under the guise of
battling “extremism.” Under the proposed plot, international agreements
would be used to regulate speech in cyberspace with a goal of stopping
“ideologies” that authorities do not agree with from having a “safe
space” online. The scheme also seeks to conscript private companies and
foreign powers into the government assault against freedom of speech and
freedom of religion. But critics have expressed alarm over the
Orwellian implications of allowing the government to decide what can and
cannot be said.
As is typical when politicians are working to restrict freedom and
expand government power, the plot to clamp down on free speech online
was marketed as a tool to keep people safe. At first, it would
reportedly be used primarily to target certain violent Islamic teachings
and “extremism.” But just as has occurred with assaults on other
freedoms around the world, the schemes will undoubtedly expand. And
already, top British political leaders have revealed that they want the dictator-dominated United Nations to wage a global war against even “non-violent extremism.”
That would include a crackdown on unapproved conspiracy theories, End
Times prophecies, biblical views on sexuality and marriage, and much
more, top U.K. officials have said.
Speaking after the London Bridge attack that left seven dead and some 50 wounded over the weekend,
an attack that followed the recent suicide bombing in Manchester, May
blamed free speech, ideology, online freedom, and a lack of government
regulation for the atrocities. “We cannot allow this ideology the safe
space it needs to breed,” May said Sunday, without elaborating on the
ideology but demanding more war abroad and an end to “safe spaces” for
extremism online. “Yet that is precisely what the Internet and the big
companies that provide Internet-based services provide.”
Like May's predecessor from the same Conservative Party, former Prime
Minister David Cameron, May outlined a vision suggesting she wants the
war against unapproved ideologies and speech to be global in scope. “We
need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international
agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist
and terrorism planning,” she said in a speech following the Islamist
terrorist attack, one of several to hit Europe in recent months. “We
need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism
online.” Ironically, many brutal dictatorships, including the mass-murdering regime ruling Communist China, have made similar statements in recent years amid the push for global Internet regulation.
Beyond the Internet, May also called for “robust” efforts aimed at
“stamping out” so-called “extremism,” not just online and in foreign
nations, but across the British government and even across “society.”
families and Christian churches have been caught up in the U.K.
government's “extremism” crusade, with churches and Sunday schools
forced to register with authorities to prevent “radicalization.”
School teachers have been conscripted, too, with authorities demanding
that children with a negative view of homosexuality, for example, be
reported to police and social services for “extremism.”
May also hinted at what sounded like a plan for government-mandated
integration of fast-growing Muslim communities in Britain with the
natives. “The whole of our country needs to come together to take on
this extremism, and we need to live our lives not in a series of
separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom,” the
prime minister said, noting that her agenda would require “some
difficult and often embarrassing conversations.” In other parts of
Europe, private property is already being commandeered to house Muslim migrants.
Of course, even before the latest terror attacks, May and other top
British politicians were pushing the exact same agenda. Most recently,
the ruling Conservative (Tory) Party released a manifesto calling
for an Orwellian censorship regime to control speech and ideology
online. “Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when
it comes to technology and the internet,” the bizarre manifesto
explains. “We disagree.” Under the plan, the United Kingdom would become
“the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and
the internet,” presumably usurping that dubious honor from the
mass-murdering regime in Beijing and its so-called “Great Firewall of
Despite the focus on Islamism and jihad for the purpose of marketing
the totalitarian plan, the Tory manifesto makes clear that the war on
speech and online freedom will be much broader than simply targeting
Islam. “We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users —
even unintentionally — to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of
harm,” the Conservative Party explained, without admitting that in
Britain and across much of the European Union, speaking out against
homosexuality or Islam, for example, is a criminal offense under
totalitarian “hate speech” laws.
As this magazine has documented extensively, the status of
free-speech rights in the U.K. and all over Europe is already abysmal.
In Britain, quoting
former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's negative views on
Islam has resulted in arrest — even of a political leader. Quoting the Bible on homosexuality, too, has landed people in jail. And in Sweden, “justice” authorities decided that the Bible itself — the foundation of Western civilization — runs afoul of draconian “hate speech” laws for its condemnation of homosexual activity as a sin. The list of prohibited speech is constantly expanding.
Instead of displaying hate speech or “other sources of harm” — an
undefined term that is ripe for abuse — tech companies such as search
engines and social media would be forced under the Tory scheme to help
promote government propaganda in the form of “counter-extremist
narratives,” the manifesto explains. To fund it all, the government
would impose a new tax on Internet companies, the burden of which would
of course be shared by Internet users. The money raised would then be
used to fund government propaganda that would “support awareness and
preventative activity to counter internet harms,” according to the
It would hardly be the first time propaganda has been used to change minds. U.K. authorities have
already been caught using “behavioral science,” government-run
social-media trolls, and online propaganda to manipulate public opinion
and destroy the reputation of critics at home and abroad. The scheming,
run by the “Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group” (JTRIG), used
propaganda and its legions of online trolls to promote “obedience” and
“conformity,” official documents revealed. And even that was not enough,
with the out-of-control bureaucrats seeking still more “behavioral
science support” to further enhance their “capabilities” for
manipulating public opinion.
Even the news media — much of which is already controlled and funded
by government — will be affected under the Tory plot to crush online
free speech. According to the manifesto, the Conservative Party intends
to use government to “take steps to protect the reliability and
objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy.” In what
sounded like a bid to gin up support from the press for the totalitarian
vision, the Tory plan would seek ways to coerce online companies and
social media platforms to ensure that establishment media outlets are
able to earn enough money via ad revenues. So far, though, independent
media outlets have reacted to the plot with horror, with one prominent
outlet saying May was plotting to “shut down the Internet as we know it.”
The widely reported Tory manifesto demanding government control of
the Internet follows the recent entry into effect of the Investigatory
Powers Act drastically expanding authorities' snooping powers under the
guise of fighting terror. Under the highly controversial U.K. scheme,
the government is allowed to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to
hand over their customers' browsing history to authorities. The scheme
also allows authorities to break into people's online communication
services such as WhatsApp so the government can spy on the content of
private messages. And back doors into programs and hardware are being
demanded to facilitate the mass surveillance.
Of course, the agenda for a global jihad on free speech and even “non-violent extremism” is nothing new. As The New American reported in 2014, then-U.K. Prime
Minister David Cameron told the UN and its largely autocratic member
regimes that a global war on Internet freedom was needed to combat
extremism and ideologies, even if they were not violent. As examples of
the sort of thought crimes that should not be tolerated, Cameron pointed
to unapproved conspiracy theories about terrorist attacks as well as
religious prophecies about the end of the world.
“We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to
deal with all forms of extremism — not just violent extremism,” he
explained, acknowledging that the machinations would not be entirely
“compatible” with free speech and intellectual inquiry. “For
governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this.... We shouldn’t
stand by and just allow any form of non-violent extremism. And we need
the strongest possible international focus on tackling this ideology —
which is why here at the United Nations, the United Kingdom is calling
for a new Special Representative on extremism.”
With a broad coalition of strongmen and mass-murdering dictatorships spending years demanding UN regulation of the Internet, the UN and the Obama administration were more than happy to jump on the bandwagon. In fact, in October of 2015, the
UN and Obama unveiled a global plot to wage war on unapproved
“ideologies.” Among the ideologies in the UN's crosshairs, the
dictator-dominated global outfit said, were “anti-Muslim bigotry,” as well as opposition to immigration. The UN plot calls for a combination of censorship and government-funded propaganda.
Domestically, Obama unleashed “intervention teams” to tackle ideologies he did not think should be tolerated. The Obama FBI even conscripted school teachers into the war on extremism, urging them to report children as “extremists” if they disagreed with homosexuality or Islam. And before that, multiple Obama bureaucracies disgorged bizarre propaganda reports painting
conservatives, libertarians, patriots, veterans, pro-life activists,
nationalists, and others as “extremists” and even potential terrorists.
U.S. troops were even subjected to an indoctrination course labeling Catholics, evangelical Christians, and Orthodox Jews as “religious extremists” and equating them with terror groups such as Hamas and al Qaeda.
In the EU, the lawless superstate's fledgling “law enforcement” agency Europol already unveiled its plot to censor the Internet under the guise of stopping “extremism.” Globalist-controlled
U.S. tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft, and
others eagerly joined in the censorship mania, promising to work
with the EU to remove content that the unelected, unaccountable
superstate deems unacceptable. “The recent terror attacks have reminded
us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech,” claimed
Vera Jourová, the EU “Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender
At the global level, the UN International Telecommunications Union (ITU) — currently led by a Chinese Communist who claimed censorship is in the eye of the beholder
— is being groomed to become a global Internet regulator. And now, with
Obama's giveaway of key Internet architecture, it will be much easier
for the global censorship movement — backed by dictators, communists,
socialists, progressives, Islamists, globalists, and the establishment —
progress on creating an international regime to control the World Wide
Web and the content that appears on it. Global taxes have been proposed, too.
British voters are now being told that a vote for the Conservative
Party in the upcoming election is a vote for breaking free from the
oppressive and unpopular European Union — something voters already voted
for when they approved the referendum last year for a British exit from
the EU, known as “Brexit.” However, now, the party is also hitching
withdrawal from the EU to its manifesto and the plot to crush online
freedom. In other words, if voters vote for Tories to get out of the EU,
as expected, authorities will exploit that as a public mandate in
support of Internet censorship and will move ahead with their anti-free
That totalitarian-minded politicians would blame free speech and
online freedom for terrorism is hardly surprising — before that, they
blamed gun rights and succeeded in disarming the British population.
More credible analysts, though, have blamed the ongoing tsunami of
terrorist attacks on everything from Islamic teachings from the Koran to
the influx of millions of Muslim migrants and the “blowback” resulting
from U.S. and U.K. government bombings and regime-change operations
across the Middle East and North Africa. Much of the terrorist threat has actually been deliberately fostered by governments around the world.
One thing, at least, is certain. As America's founders are said to
have warned, giving up liberty under the guise of security will result
in having neither liberty nor security. And so, giving up more rights —
in this case, free speech, online freedom, and free expression — will
not stop terrorism. Instead, it will further empower government and will
undoubtedly be followed by further government attacks on fundamental
human rights. The British people must stand firm for their liberty by
refusing to be bullied or terrorized by either Islamist terrorists or
totalitarian politicians. Americans, too, must hold the line.
Photo of Prime Minister May speaking in front of 10 Downing Street, June 4, 2017: AP Images
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.