A federal US District Court judge in the Southern District of Texas — nominated by Barack Hussein Obama on January 7th of 2015 — has denied an emergency request by Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada to stay the relinquishment of ICANN control from the US to a globalist body.
Judge rejects plea from states to stop U.S. from giving up control of Internet
by Allen Cone and Doug G. Ware
GALVESTON, Texas, Sept. 30 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday rejected a last-ditch effort by four states to stop the U.S. government from handing over control of the Internet to an international body when the calendar turns to Saturday.
Judge George Hanks, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied an emergency request by the states — Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada — for a temporary restraining order to interrupt the handover, which was scheduled for midnight Friday.
Attorneys general from the states filed the lawsuit Wednesday.
And there you have it. Your First Amendment protections on the internet surrendered not with a bang, but with a whimper.
The lawsuit argued that the states “will lose the predictability, certainty, and protections that currently flow from federal stewardship of the Internet and instead be subjected to ICANN’s unchecked control.”
The suit says Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet is an illegal transfer of U.S. government property and that it requires congressional approval.
Your grand and glorious Congress had its chance to intervene but decided — meh — not to.
No one forced us to do this. The United States was not under pressure to do so. The US was not sued in some globalist court in order to acquire this result.
It was the decision of one man.
Judge Hanks, however, ruled Friday that the plaintiffs failed to prove that irreparable harm would result from the handover and denied the injunction — clearing the way for the transfer to occur at midnight Friday.
Washington (AFP) – The US government is set to cut the final thread of its oversight of the internet, yielding a largely symbolic but nevertheless significant role over the online address system.
Barring any last-minute glitches, the transition will occur at midnight Friday (0400 GMT Saturday), when the US contract expires for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which manages the internet’s so-called “root zone.”
When the agreement with the US Commerce Department runs out, ICANN will become a self-regulating non-profit international entity managing the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, the system for online “domains” such as .com.
US and ICANN officials say the change is part of a longstanding plan to “privatize” those functions, but some critics complain about a “giveaway” that could threaten the internet’s integrity.
That’s putting it mildly.
Let’s listen to Senator Ted Cruz:
Then, let’s watch Senator Ted Cruz with ICANN CEO and President Goran Marby regarding ICANN in the Judiciary Subcommittee:
Is it just me, or does Mr Marby veritably reek of dripping condescension, equivocation, superiority and aloofness? Yes. It’s just me.
To whom are we ceding, essentially, control of the internet? From Breitbart.com:
Meet the New Authoritarian Masters of the Internet
by John Hayward
President Barack Obama’s drive to hand off control of Internet domains to a foreign multi-national operation will give some very unpleasant regimes equal say over the future of online speech and commerce.
Let the massive significance of that paragraph roil around in the fetid recesses of your brainulus for a bit.
Equal. Say.
I wonder: what other nation possesses a First Amendment? Oh. That’s right: no other.
In fact, they are likely to have much more influence than America, because they will collectively push hard for a more tightly controlled Internet, and they are known for aggressively using political and economic pressure to get what they want.
Consider: Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey — all countries that have either already censored, taken down or negatively impacted the internet on numerous occasions. To them, uncensored speech is a danger and not a core freedom.
The rest of the world, taken in total, is very interested in suppressing various forms of expression, for reasons ranging from security to political stability and religion. Those governments will never be comfortable, so long as parts of the Internet remain outside of their control. They have censorship demands they consider very reasonable, and absolutely vital. The website you are reading right now violates every single one of them, on a regular basis.
As does my blog. There are already persons in the United States who believe I should not be able to write what I write here. That I should need a “license to blog” and that I and others should be forced to operate under the former FCC “fairness doctrine” which had no fairness attached whatsoever. If you wish to take down my blog you’ll certainly not care for my upcoming radio show on SHR Media.
As my headline indicates, the US under Barack Hussein Obama has determined to surrender control of ICANN and turn it over to a conglomeration of interests that have a history of little or no interest in free speech.
That begs the question: why? Why, indeed. This is another in a continuing series of capitulist, surrender-monkey moves where the United States, under Obama, manages to give away power and control under the guise of “negotiation” for little if anything in return; witness Guantanamo, witness Bergdahl, witness Iran.
For the answer we must, in my opinion, hearken back to Obama’s formative years under, literally, Communists (“Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.” -Mao), Muslims and Socialists. Mr Obama was taught that America’s “colonialist ways” have damaged the entire planet and, for that, we must atone.
This country, the United States of America, shames Mr Barack Hussein Obama. There is little, in his mind, of which to be proud. Hence, his endless hammering on the various wedges that divide our country. Mr Obama has become and is the Divider-In-Chief.
From Obama’s spiritual advisor Pastor Jeremiah Wright, to his mentor (and co-author) Bill Ayers, to his idols Saul Alinsky, Richard Clower, Frances Fox Piven, Che Guevara and more.
Atonement, you see, now comes in the form of Mr Obama purposefully attempting to minimize the role America plays around the globe — leading from behind, if you will. He believes you are lazy. On this one I must agree, but with the appellation applied to those generational parasites sucking Free Cheese from my American Taxpayer vein. Odd, coming from a person who has built nothing in his life, managed not one payroll or even started a lemonade stand.
Obama is weakening our defenses. He is weakening the defenses of our allies. Mr Obama is dismissed as a buffoon by our enemies, Russia, China, North Korea, much of the Middle East, because they realize he is a true Paper Tiger and means little of what he says, particularly at this juncture. He emboldens our enemies and undermines our allies.
It is no shock, therefore, that he continues in the fine capitulist tradition he began in 2008.
To the most free internet you’ll see in this lifetime, wave “buh-bye.”
“There are no existential threats” to the US today, Mr Obama says.
Police Commission tells officers to run away, or else
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 09/21/2016 @ 04:44 PM
Run away. If a police officer is confronted by a suspect with a weapon, those entrusted to set policies for the Police Department believe officers should run away. That’s the recent finding from the Los Angeles Police Commission which has turned Monday morning quarterbacking into a weekly agenda item at the three-ring circus they preside over every Tuesday morning.
In the Commission’s most recent decision on an officer-involved shooting, in which a suspect charged at two officers swinging an 8 to 9-inch knife, they faulted the officer for not “redeploying” to “create distance.” In plain English: the officer didn’t run away.
Stop right there. This is not unlike the “duty to retreat theory” some states utilize to adjudge whether or not to charge you, a person inside your own home, with a crime should you use deadly force against an intruder.
That is to say, one of the critical questions asked will be: “did you retreat to the furthest place away from the intruder and there were no other options or areas of escape, before using any amount of force as a last resort?”
If the answer is “no,” in some states with no “stand your ground” laws you may be prosecuted for using force against an intruder. In your own home.
Here is a vitally important paragraph in the article:
Chief Beck, who has absolutely no problem finding fault with officers, agreed with these officers’ actions. The Commission, with a grand total of zero years of experience in law enforcement, overruled the Chief’s decision. The Commissioners created an alternative set of facts that acknowledged that the officer was right to believe his life was in jeopardy but found fault with the officer shooting the knife-wielding suspect because the officer should have run away. Pathetic.
“But found fault with the officer shooting the knife-wielding suspect because the officer should have run away.”
The last paragraph is the most critical:
The message the Los Angeles Police Commission is sending to officers confronted with a violent and dangerous suspect is clear: You can save your life or save your job, but you cannot do both. You choose.
This decision will be one of a rapidly-growing number of decisions emanating from civilian police boards around the nation when dealing with the application of police use of force issues.
Citizens of the United States, prepare yourselves for the ramifications.
Keith Lamont Scott had a gun, was familiar with it, had prior gun charges. Why do we attribute three full names to mass murderers or killers? John Wayne Gacy? Mark David Chapman?
I wrote originally in this post, “false memes, lies and riots in Charlotte,” about the entire BLM “movement” being founded but upon a bitter lie — that is to say, “hands up, don’t shoot” with regard to Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. That never happened.
The lie currently being foisted upon the public by the American Media Maggots and the self-interested Leftists involved, in Charlotte, is that Keith Lamont Scott was a completely unarmed man who possessed naught but a book.
That too is incorrect.
In the released videos, why is Lamont’s wife, Rakeyia, yelling to him, “Keith, don’t do it” numerous times, and why are the police officers yelling at him, many times, “drop the gun”?
What was Keith not supposed to do? I suspect his wife was telling him not to reach for the firearm she knew was in the automobile; not to grab it.
It appears the wife of Keith Lamont Scott recently filed a restraining order against him and specifically said he was a threat to law enforcement because he carried a 9MM pistol.
From Time Warner Cable New Charlotte reporter Jenna Barnes:
Scott possessed a handgun at the time his wife, Rakeyia Scott, filed the above restraining order on October 3rd of 2015. Immured in print.
The photograph above, provided by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, shows quite a number of vitally important things to those who know something about firearms — which would not include today’s PlaySkool T-ball journalistas, Demorats, Leftists and Progressives.
They are absolutely critical elements, to include 1) The single action Colt semi-auto is in what instructors call Condition One. That is to say, ready to fire. 2) The handgun’s hammer is back but more importantly, 3) The thumb safety is off, making the handgun more dangerous and prepared to fire, even exceeding Condition One. To me, the pistol appears to be an older Colt Mustang in .380 ACP.
This handgun can kill a law enforcement officer just as dead as one chambered in 9mm. The .380 round is nothing more than 9mm kurz.
Lester Holt was incorrect when he braced — sorry, “fact-checked” — Donald Trump on “stop and frisk,” insisting that the concept is unconstitutional. In fact, Lester Holt is wrong and Trump is correct. “Stop and frisk” is not unconstitutional, as correctly delineated by Rudy Giuliani. He is correct: “Terry v. Ohio.” A court case even all Baby Cops know.
Finally, arguments can be made on both sides that either candidate “won” the first debate. But what is incontrovertible is this: given the “target-rich environment” that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s history provides, in my opinion Donald Trump took little advantage of it.
On Sunday I theorized that the election was Hillary Clinton’s to lose.
After the Monday debate, I theorize this: it is Trump’s election to lose if he continues to not listen to his advisers.
BZ
P.S.
Anyone besides me think that Hillary Clinton appeared to be drugged in some fashion?
A federal US District Court judge in the Southern District of Texas — nominated by Barack Hussein Obama on January 7th of 2015 — has denied an emergency request by Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada to stay the relinquishment of ICANN control from the US to a globalist body.
And the crunch day is today.
No, this is not a joke.
Keith Lamont Scott had a gun, was familiar with it, had prior gun charges. Why do we attribute three full names to mass murderers or killers? John Wayne Gacy? Mark David Chapman?
Scott possessed a handgun at the time his wife, Rakeyia Scott, filed the above restraining order on October 3rd of 2015. Immured in print.
The photograph above, provided by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, shows quite a number of vitally important things to those who know something about firearms — which would not include today’s PlaySkool T-ball journalistas, Demorats, Leftists and Progressives.
A few points.