The Christian Solution

C   S  
Home Page   About TCS   Contact Us   Document Library  
June 2017 AD

Global Censorship

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.

First Blood
The Christian Solution
site taken down

For two weeks this site was taken done by ICANN.


Because 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 Internet owners.

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.

The contact information from this site when it was set up 10 years ago was no longer valid, and so, this site could not be contacted for the shake-down presentation of papers, and so, this site did not know to update the information.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, 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 of ICANN!!!

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.

Founding Fathers
twisting in their graves

One 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 shall not...".

The States who founded the federal government would not trust, therefore did not allow, the federal government to become the guardian of truth and information.

The States did not tie their own hands to regulate speech and the press. They were exempt from the First Amendment.

Local 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 affected.

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 and bombs.

The answer from England's Theresa May to fix Islamic terrorism?  Censor the Internet.

But far from rejecting Brexit, more credible analysts said voters were more likely upset with May, a Big Government-loving establishment globalist who has worked fiendishly to promote globalism and statism. As The New American reported just this week, May unwisely hitched a broad range of totalitarian schemes — including a plot to impose a global censorship regime on the Internet — to her party's platform.

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 of thought.

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.


U.K. Leaders: Fight Terror With Global Internet Censorship

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.” Already, homeschooling 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 China.”

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 manifesto.

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 Equality.”

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 — to make 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 speech jihad.

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

You can read further at The Problem
You can read further at Guide to "Checks and Balances"
You can read further at The Solution
Write us at

Article located at:

Last Hope for America
Christian Libertarian: Harmonious Union
Church and State

The Christian Solution ©             First Release: March 15, 2008