D.C. Watson examines the UN's attempts to take over the Internet:
While the United States houses, and provides much of the funding for the United Nations' annual budget, that just doesn't seem to be enough.
The U.N., with many of its own problems, such as astonishing corruption, is now being touted by the European Union as a candidate to control the Internet.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19846
From the column:Viviane Reding, European IT commissioner, says that if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet and the ubiquity that has made it such a success will disappear.Well then, why don't these countries go right ahead and build their own and see how they do?And, you'll never guess who else likes the idea of the U.S. giving up control of the net:
The EU plan was applauded by states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, leading the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt to express misgivings on his weblog: "It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours."So let's see if we understand this. The United States created, funded, developed, and marketed the Internet, yet we’re "hijacking" it? Is there no end to the asinine statements these creatures will make? If that's the case, then I guess I hijacked my own lawnmower yesterday. I cut the grass with it and wouldn't let anyone else push it. The safety of the American people comes first. And since some of these bottom feeders have websites they use to recruit Muslim terrorists and possibly do some illegal Internet banking money transfers from Islamic charities, the United States needs to have its hands on the controls. What would these countries do if they had the control?
Would they attempt to rid the web of anything that is offensive to Muslims? That in itself would likely empty out the entire Internet. Would they attempt to cover up all of their future wrongdoings? Or would they work to monitor and then limit everyone's freedom of speech, for example, "Islamophobic" speech? Does anyone remember U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan's speech confronting "Islamophobia"? http://www.amperspective.com/html/annan_speech_text.html Confronting "Islamophobia"? That's comparable to confronting an iceberg floating in the lake of fire. This might be a good time to contact all State Representatives and Senators to let them know that handing over control of the Internet to that waste of space in New York they call the United Nations would be the dumbest thing they could do, and we all know how handy they are when it comes to doing dumb things. If these other countries want control of an Internet, they should go ahead and develop their own. In a world where wild-eyed Muslims are busy raping babies and swinging machetes at innocent people in Sudan, sawing off heads in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, developing nuclear weapons in Iran, sending foreign fighters into Iraq from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to fight Coalition forces, wearing suits, ties, and kufis in Washington, hiding behind the Qur'an as they attempt to guilt-trip Americans into coddling Islam, strapping bombs to themselves in Gaza, fighting for the implementation of Islamic law in Canada, making threats to cartoonists in Denmark, shooting and slicing up filmmakers in Holland, attacking schoolchildren in Russia, bombing subways in London, bombing trains in Madrid, flying planes into buildings, bombing nightclubs in Bali, preaching hate in mosques, threatening to attack the Vatican in Italy, and attempting to blackmail the world with oil, the Internet should never, ever be handed over to a corrupt organization that panders to Islam as does the United Nations.
Mr. Watson,
This short piece from 08/19/05 touches on the same topice. Some of the links may prove useful.
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=2896
That's bloody right. Let them make their own Internet. Bleedin' ghastly good for nothings in the UN.
isn't it pathetic how the scrounges in the world keep trying to sponge off of the work of the americans?
jerks. how the hell do you hijack something you built?
Boo yah!
This is an attempt to police speech. Can you imagine the internet with UN restrictions? I see how it would be (in a small way) when I email my husband, he has a company computer and the substance of the emails is filtered. He could not receive anything about the Oklahoma bombing, and most emails concerning islam. Freedom of speech would be a distant memory.
Sacred Cowburgers always has a way to say it.
http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/fresh/showpics.cgi?third_world_wide_web
The internet remains a free medium of expression because the US controls it.
Can you imagine what the Chinese or Arabic version of the internet would be like?
Well how about if the Saudis allow the U.N. to manage their oil resources !!
Anti-PC asks,
This article from the Arab News will give you a pretty good indication.
"if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet..."
-- from the article above
China, Russia and Brazil would do no such thing. The Arab and Muslim states might "operate their own versions" if they could but they can't. Let them try. In fact, help them out by banning, however one can do it, Arabic, Urdu, and other relevant languages from the current Internet, so as to hasten the day when an alternative Arabic-language Internet can be established for Muslims (and along with Arabic Urdu, etc.), and be, at the same time, more easily monitored by non-Muslims.
Everyone should then be happy.
As outrageous as it sounds, I expect it to happen. They have been itching to get their grimy hands on the internet for years. I don't think too many Americans are aware that we are being sold out lock, stock and barrel to the U.N.. No, actually we're being SACRIFICED AT THE ALTAR OF THE MOST CORRUPT, INEPT, COSTLY, WASTEFUL,AMBITIOUS, AND ARROGANT ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD. George Bush has done more to cede our sovereignty to the U.N. that any president in U.S. history. Do any of you recall his father's speech when he was president in which this statement (paraphrased) was made: "One day all Americans will pledge their alliegance to the sacred flag of the United Nations."
One of GWB's campaign promises was that he would NEVER ALLOW U.S. TROOPS TO SERVE IN A U.N.ARMY. under the command of foreigners. He just signed an agreement for the U.S. military to assist the U.N. in establishing a police force and a military, to include U.S. troops. It was never intended for the U.N. to become militarized; that is not what it was created for. But I guess our future seat of government needs some guns to back it up.
Ronald Regan withdrew U.S. membership in UNESCO, George Bush signed us back up. If you don't know what UNESCO's mission is, please look it up. Reagan was a staunch opponent of the LOST treaty of the seas which grants the U.N. full control of off shore mining and a host of other activities, GWB is all for it. Condi was pushing it a few months ago on behalf of her stupid boss. It was up for another vote not long ago; I don't know if it passed or is still pending. It will compromise our national defense and many other issues related to our sovereignty, which is all but gone anyway.
Bush literally shoved CAFTA through Congress as it was about to be voted down. In March of this year, he met with Fox of Mexico and the prime minister of Canada at his ranch and they signed an agreement to abolish the borders between the three countries. The new "borderless" North America should be in full swing within five years and will be a replicate of the E.U. So it's very easy to understand why he refuses to protect our borders. He wants illegals to flood the U.S. Just wait until there are no restrictions and watch this country implode. There is no way we can absorb the entire population of Mexico.
George Bush is an internationalist. He pretends to be wary of the U.N., not to like it too much, but that is all an act. Congress is full of like-minded advocates of open borders and a one-world government, both Democrats and Republicans. Prepare yourselves for the U.N. lovers to stab the American people in the back by giving our internet to the socialist thieves in the U.N. Once they get it, we'll have to pay them to use it!
I think the American people would stage a violent, massive revolt if they knew what our elected leaders were doing, but most won't find out until it's too late. The mainstream news media does not report these activities because the public outcry might stop some of them. Get ready for the next step in the master plan---U.N. taxes. The poverty-stricken third world is patiently waiting to be saved again and somebody's got to pay for it. And we can't forget the behemoth payroll for the bureaucracy in the U.N.
I have been alerted to this for about three and a half years now. After thinking about it once in a while, I advocate a .dom net should this happen. It would be completely governed by U.S. law, with no interconnection with any other country that hasn't the respect for it's people guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. With connection to places where all the spam, viruses, and scams come from forbidden. To even retrieve e-mail from anywhere else would require a valid U.S. passport to even be given the instructions to do so. No national from these places that want do these nefarious things would be permitted access; incluing EVERY U.N. official!
As I understand Carl Bildt's comments, he is NOT accusing the US of hijacking the internet ... on the contrary, he's accusing totalitarian governments "driven by interests that should not be ours [EU's]" (i.e. China, Saudia Arabia, Cuba, etc.) of hijacking the EU position of giving control of the internet over to some international body. In other words, he appears to be recognizing and identifying the can of worms being opened.
And, you'll never guess who else likes the idea of the U.S. giving up control of the net:
The EU plan was applauded by states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, leading the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt to express misgivings on his weblog: "It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours."
dry_heaves et al:
Read it again. What Bildt is saying is that he's unhappy with EU officials responding to interests that are not consistent with Sweden's, and, presumably, the rest of the EU's member nations. In other words, the EU beaurocrats are the hijackers, not the US.
"It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours."
This could mean several things. The Internet has been in the works since the 60s. America has done all the work. The point of all of this is that the EU and the Middle East want to control the WWW. And we cannot allow that to happen, or free speech and freedom to access will be gone.
Hey Dragon, ever notice the supposed "infighting" going on with the republicans?
Its the same thing here. If Sewden were more conservative, this guy might be believable, but they certainly are not.
Here's the link to the original blog posting:
http://bildt.blogspot.com/2005/10/european-union-iran-saudi-arabia-cuba.html
I can see where the term "officials" might be interpretted to mean "EU officials," but given the context of the preceeding paragraphs, I really think he meant officials connected with the "number of states headed by Iran."
This is a bit academic, but either way, my point was that Bildt was defending the US position in this case, and this posting (at least) shouldn't be mistakenly maligned as anti-US.
For those who don't want to bother with the link, here's a snippet of the posting:
"Suddenly, it [the World Summit on Information Society] introduced a proposal that went a long way towards the position that a number of states headed by Iran had been advocating, opening for a political control mechanism.
There was consternation and embarrasement, I'm told by people who know. And the new European Commission position was evidently applauded by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, China, Venezuela, Brazil and other control-oriented states. The Americans were predictably enraged.
These are extremely serious issues, and we could well be heading for a rather major political conflict over the issue.
Does the European Commission know what is being done in its name? I doubt it. It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours."
dry_heaves:
thanks for confirming the story. As for EU member countries not being up on what the beaurocrats are doing in their name, isn't that exactly why the UK is debating leaving, because policies are spewing forth from mandarins in Brussels, (sort of like State Dept. employees in the US)?
Any UK bloggers able to elucidate?
Well mate, from down under, I can see why so many are calling Europe Eurabia. Grand old Europe used to be so bloody tough, but now many of their Europeans see nothing wrong with migrating Islam wankers wallowing into their lands, settling, and trying to take over.
if only the socialists would realize that the Muslims hate them and their free spirits more than anything, things could be much better, mate.
God bless Europe, Allah is trying to steal her.
Unbridled says:
"if only the socialists would realize that the Muslims hate them and their free spirits more than anything, things could be much better, mate."
News for you mate,taint the socialists that are Arabizing Europe, tis the Capitalists whose greedy mits want to get their hands on cheap labor, and whose palms get itchy thinking about all of those untapped markets in Bilad al Allah.
I'll take that back, the socialists are their handmaidens, but for different reasons..
The Left v Right dichtomy stuff is pure B.S. sop and a diversion for the unwashed masses.