Last week while the media was obsessively shining their circus spotlights on a formerly-chubby, former Miss Universe who incidentally may have been an accessory to a murder 20 years ago, there were a few weightier matters going on behind the scenes that they were quite deliberately ignoring.
 

Chris Pandolfo at Conservative Review listed four, much more relevant issues they should have been focused on ~

By far the worst omission – I’m surprised Conservative Review neglected to mention it – was the O’Ministration’s failure to retain U.S. control of internet regulation. This one flew under the radar for many of us – although Ted Cruz was sounding the alarm months ago (Of course thanks to Donald’s demonization of him, who listens to “Lyin’ Ted” eh?)
 

Briefly, a non-profit organization called ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), created in 1998, has been under contract to the Department of Commerce to assign and manage the web addresses and domain names (.com, .org, .gov, etc.) for every site on the Internet. This essentially helped to guarantee free speech and commerce across the net. Well, that contract expired on October 1st. Voices like Cruz’s and others (Stefan Molyneux made an excellent appeal for continued U.S. control) tried to get it extended – to no avail.
 
It’s not entirely known who or what will control ICANN now – possibly tech companies, foreign governments and advocacy organizations… the U.N.. (Won’t that be great?)
John Bolton was unequivocal in his opposition to the transfer of authority ~
 
 

There are two main reasons this was an incredibly bad idea. First, as Bolton explained, it will end up infringing on free speech on the Internet ~

Texas Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn have warned that transfer of U.S. control of ICANN will give China, Russia and Iran, whose governments censor websites and online commentary critical of their policies, more control over the internet.

 
Flashback to Obama admonishing us in the wake of Benghazi and his phony anti-Muslim video narrative: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” and you can imagine where the censorship will start.
 
As if that’s not bad enough, maintaining oversight of ICANN is a national security issue. Jody Westby explained what’s at stake in this recent Forbes’ article ~

… think about if the U.S. was engaged in cyberwar — a situation surely to occur. Under this new arrangement, the U.S. may not know if all of the IP Addresses for domain names are legitimate or if they have been manipulated or compromised in some fashion. Moreover, the Government’s — and the private sector’s — ability to get new sites accessible on the Internet would be dependent upon the actions of a non-profit organization which is increasingly multinational. It is also possible that ICANN may fall under the influence of powerful corporations or nation states who do not have U.S. national security interests at the forefront.
 
In sum, in a cyberwar scenario, the U.S. government may not have control over a very strategic area of its military operations — cyber. Even if it secures military and government domains and IP Addresses, the targets in cyber warfare are likely to be civilian, and the U.S. Government requires private sector infrastructure to operate. Since the Internet underpins our computer systems, electrical grids, communication systems, and other critical infrastructure, our entire civilian society could be at risk: the Internet may not function properly or changes necessary to protect us may not be implemented or made in a timely fashion.
 
I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that ICANN is not to be trusted today. I am simply stating that the Internet is critical to our military operations and civilian society and certainty regarding its operations and changes to its addressing system is a vital national security interest that cannot be cavalierly given away.

 
In view of these very real threats, last week four states (Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada) sued to try to stop the ICANN transfer~

The suit made several arguments against the internet giveaway. Plaintiffs argued that, because it lacks congressional approval (Congress didn’t approve the action, it merely declined to block it) the giveaway amounts to an illegal ceding of U.S. government property. They also contended that the new steward of the internet domain system, an outfit known ICANN, will be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”

Source: PowerLine blog

 
Unfortunately for the cause of free speech, and national security and sovereignty, an Obama-appointed judge dismissed the suit. One more disaster to add to the dismal record of the worst president ever.

Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch) reminds us that the cause of truth and freedom will go on regardless ~

The thing is, if we lose the Internet as a platform for the truth amid the mainstream media lies and distortions, it will be a terrific blow, but the struggle for freedom will not be over. We will find other platforms, we will organize in different ways. The political and media elites are increasingly fearful of losing their grip, and are becoming increasingly authoritarian as a result. They may succeed in driving us underground. They will never succeed in silencing us.