What the Elitists have in Store for Your Freedom on the Internet

Driver's licenses for the Internet

By: Barbara Kiviat - Time Magazine - The Curious Capitalist Blog - January 30, 2010

I just went to a panel discussion about Internet security and let me tell you, it was scar-y. Between individual fraud, organized crime, corporate espionage and government spying, it's an incredibly dangerous world out there, which, according to one panelist, is growing exponentially worse.

These are incredibly complex problems that even the smartest of the smart admit they don't have a great handle on, although Craig Mundie, Microsoft's chief research and technology officer, offered up a surprisingly simple solution that might start us down a path to dealing with them: driver's licenses for the Internet.

The thing about the Internet is that it was never intended to be a worldwide system of mass communication. A handful of guys, all of whom knew each other, set up the Web. The anonymity that has come to be a core and cherished characteristic of the Internet didn't exist in the beginning: it was obvious who was who.

As the Internet picked up steam and gathered more users, that stopped being the case, but at no point did anyone change the ways things worked. The Web started out being a no-authentication space and it continues to be that way to this day. Anyone can get online and no one has to say who they are. That's what enables a massive amount of cyber crime: if you're attacked from a computer, you might be able to figure out where that particular machine is located, but there's really no way to go back one step further and track the identity of the computer that hacked into the one that hacked into you.

What Mundie is proposing is to impose authentication. He draws an analogy to automobile use. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a license (not to mention an inspection, insurance, etc). If you do something bad with that car, like break a law, there is the chance that you will lose your license and be prevented from driving in the future. In other words, there is a legal and social process for imposing discipline. Mundie imagines three tiers of Internet ID: one for people, one for machines and one for programs (which often act as proxies for the other two).

Now, there are, of course, a number of obstacles to making such a scheme be reality. Even here in the mountains of Switzerland I can hear the worldwide scream go up: "But we're entitled to anonymity on the Internet!" Really? Are you? Why do you think that?

Mundie pointed out that in the physical world we are implicitly comfortable with the notion that there are certain places we're not allowed to go without identifying ourselves. Are you allowed to walk down the street with no one knowing who you are? Absolutely. Are you allowed to walk into a bank vault and still not give your name? Hardly.

It's easy to envision the same sort of differentiated structure for the Internet, Mundie said. He didn't get into examples, so here's one of mine. If you want to go to Time.com and read all about what's going on in the world, that's fine. No one needs to know who you are. But if you want to set up a site to accept credit-card donations for earthquake victims in Haiti? Well, you're going to have to show your ID for that.

The truth of the matter is, the Internet is still in its Wild West phase. To a large extent, the law hasn't yet shown up. Yet as more and more people move to town, that lawlessness is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. As human societies grow over time they develop more rigid standards for themselves in order to handle their increased size. There is no reason to think the Internet shouldn't follow the same pattern.

Though that's not to say it'll happen anytime soon. Governments certainly have been talking to each other about this (almost by definition, any effective efforts will have to be international in nature), but even in Europe, where there is a cyber security convention in effect, only half of the Continent's nations have signed up.

One stumbling block that was mentioned at today's panel discussion: governments' own intelligence agencies are huge beneficiaries of the Internet's anonymity. We managed to spy on each other before the Web, but how much easier it is now that we can cruise around cyberspace without anyone even knowing we're there.

So don't expect any changes in the short term. But do know that the people in charge—as much as anyone can be in charge when it comes to the Internet—are thinking about it.

Obama's Second Bill of Rights

By: Ellis Washington - World Net Daily - January 16, 2010

Obama = FDR II

President Obama
has repeatedly bragged how he would finish what FDR started. His regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, even wrote a book outlining how government (not We the People) would finally be free from the constraints of the Constitution: "The Second Bill of Rights." Sunstein's thesis – that there are no God-given or natural rights, but basically rights that the government gives or takes away according to its own expediency and caprice.

Sunstein, Obama and their legions of fascists throughout the federal government venerate FDR's "New Deal," an outrageous socialist takeover of America's republic, and his Second Bill of Rights, of which universal health care was a fundamental element. An excerpt from President Roosevelt's Jan. 11, 1944, State of the Union message to the Congress is instructive here:

    It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people – whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth – is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed and insecure.

    This republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights – among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

    As our nation has grown in size and stature, however – as our industrial economy expanded – these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

    We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

Fascist presidents like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Obama had one singular goal: to destroy the U.S. Constitution and erect over its ashes a fascist, one-party state. Remember, FDR's socialism openly copied many aspects of Lenin's Soviet Union, Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany, which was called the "National Socialist German Workers Party."

FDR's Second Bill of Rights

FDR further stated in his Second Bill of Rights speech: "In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all – regardless of station, race, or creed." Among these are:

    * The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

    * The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

    * The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

    * The right of every family to a decent home;

    * The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

    * The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;

    * The right to a good education.

FDR concluded: "All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being; America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

However, JFK said The rights of man come not from the generosity of the State, but from mouth of God. Even so, Obama, in emulating FDR, only seeks to liberate government at the expense of the people's inalienable rights and personal wealth. In other words, We the People be damned!

How Lady Macbeth administers health care

Look at entitlement liberals like Elizabeth Edwards who steals our money for her health care. A FoxNews editorial read in part:

    But [John] Edwards' downfall is well-documented. Perhaps most interesting is the book's depiction of Elizabeth Edwards as a vicious, spiteful, out-of-control head case.

    The book ["Game Change"] described an incident in 2005 shortly after she was diagnosed with cancer. She was on a conference call with dozens of campaign aides when she was told the Edwards' family health-care coverage had not yet been set up.

    "She flew into a rage," according to the book, lashing out at those on the call and threatening to cut off everyone's health care until the problem was fixed.

America! Is this what you want … voluntary slavery? Vindictive, incompetent bureaucrats on death panels deciding who lives and who dies, who gets full health care and who doesn't? Why can't Lady Macbeth, I mean Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards, a multimillionaire, pay for her own health care?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher rightly stated, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Obama and the Democrats are essentially tyrannical fascists. If you doubt me, remember Russia for over 300 years was ruled by a total of 18 czars of the Romanov dynasty. However, as David Rothkopf of "Foreign Policy" noted, the Obama administration had appointed more czars than that in just three months. That number doesn't even include his health-care czar.

What Obama is forcing upon all Americans is not universal health care, but FDR's Second Bill of Rights, which, in my opinion, will become cradle-to-grave death care and the ruination of America's republic.

May God forbid.

Ellis Washington, authorized biographer for the conservative intellectual Dr. Michael Savage (see www.MichaelSavage.com), is former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory.

JW Obtains Documents on Obama FCC "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd's Official Mission, Duties and Responsibilities

Judicial Watch - November 18, 2009

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding President Obama's "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd's official mission and responsibilities.

According to the documents, provided in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Lloyd's mission is "to open up opportunities for all Americans, in particular women, minorities, small business owners, to participate in and benefit from a robust communications marketplace." Among Lloyd's duties and responsibilities: "To work with the Consumer Bureau (and other bureaus as appropriate) to collect relevant data and assess the interaction between communications service providers and consumers in minority communities..." and "to consult with other federal agencies to determine best practices for advancing the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs."

Judicial Watch also requested information pertaining to Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd's office staffing and budget for operation and administration. However, according to FCC Associate General Counsel Joel Kaufman, "We could locate no records responsive to…parts of your request. While Mr. Lloyd shares support staff with others in OGC (Office of General Counsel), no one was hired or assigned specifically to support him in his work. His position is funded out of the agency's fiscal year budget…but he has no separate budget for operation and administration."

In May 2009, Judicial Watch uncovered documents that demonstrate the FCC plans to use the professed goal of "diversity" to regulate free speech in the media. For example, in December 2007, the FCC proposed new "localism" measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more "responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are licensed to serve." Some legal analysts have said such "localism" policies represent a back-door into the controversial Fairness Doctrine, which the Obama administration claims to oppose.

Lloyd, meanwhile, has been criticized heavily for making a number of controversial statements on race. For example, during a conference in 2005, Lloyd said, "There's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." During a 2008 National Conference for Media Reform, Lloyd also said Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's rise to power was "really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution."

Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Mark Lloyd is part of the organization's comprehensive investigation of all Obama administration czars. Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request with the Office of Management and Budget as well as requests with each separate "czar" office. Article II section 2 of the Constitution, states that, "...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."

Unlike the heads of other executive departments (such as the Secretaries of Energy, Transportation, etc.), most of Obama's "czars" have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate or have had their positions authorized by Congress. Some of these appointees might not have even been subjected to a basic FBI background check. Importantly, some of "czars" work for the president in the White House -- these individuals could claim "executive privilege" if ever subpoenaed to testify before Congress. And they may not be subject to transparency laws.

"Obama seems to have a 'czar' for everything and too many wield power with zero congressional and public accountability. And considering the radical views of 'czars' like Mark Lloyd, the more information the American people can get on them the better. Do we really want a race-baiting promoter of Hugo Chavez presiding over questionable diversity programs at the FCC?" said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.