By now, most of you will have already heard about the Obama administration’s decision to cede its control of the Internet to other sources. Announced last Friday, the Commerce Department says they will relinquish control of ICANN in September 2015. They want ICANN to convene “global stakeholders” to come up with a transition plan. To do what? Give control of the Internet to other countries that do not care nearly as much for freedom and liberty as do we Americans?
There is something important to note here. When reading about this move, one of the first things that jumped out at me is how strongly the United Nations was praising the decision. The powers that be at the UN are ecstatic that America is finally letting go of the last vestiges of control we hold over the information highway we call the Internet.
Fox News – But that sudden and highly controversial decision was years in the making, and it arguably dates back close to two decades. Further, despite the Internet being hatched in the U.S., the move to transfer control to the “global” community has accelerated in recent years — under heavy pressure from foreign governments.
It came as little surprise, then, that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday praised the U.S. Commerce Department’s decision.
“The Secretary-General takes note of this important development,” a statement from Ban’s office said, calling for all stakeholders to pursue a “single, open, free, secure and trustworthy Internet.”
The Secretary-General of the UN wants a “single, open, free, secure and trustworthy Internet”? I thought that’s what we have already. Why the abundance of joy expressed at the announcement that America will finally be releasing control of the Internet to the global community? If I did not already have serious reservations about this decision, the response of the UN would raise the warning flag itself. The last thing we need is to see the United Nations get their grubby little hands on the controls of the Internet.
I have ranted about the UN before, especially about their moves to try to limit our 2nd Amendment rights. They have also sent “experts” to watch our elections and have stated we have certain “human rights” violations because some people in America do not have what they consider to be adequate housing. I know America is not perfect, but to have the UN looking over our shoulder at everything we do is a slap in the face of everything America stands for as a country.
This global community mantra is for the birds. If the UN has anything to do with controlling the Internet, you can expect nothing good to come from it. Will they decide bloggers have too much freedom and cause too much trouble? Will they decide to shut us down, if we continue raising our voices in protest to the idiocy we see in this world? If you think that is not a possibility, think again.
How many times have we heard of foreign governments shutting down access to the Internet in times of turmoil. Iran, Egypt, etc. comes to mind. What if those countries have just as much influence over the Internet as America? If they voice their protests to the United Nations and ask for certain segments of the Internet to be shut down? All in the name of public safety? The restriction of our freedom of speech would almost certainly result.
If there is one thing I will always stand against, it is the cession of any of our rights and freedoms to anyone besides America. Many foreign governments would like to gain that kind of control over the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It would serve their purposes well to do so. Still think that is not a possibility? Then you have a great deal more faith in the global community than do I.