Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) plans to introduce strong belt buckle legislation to prevent a “takeover” of the Internet as we know it by the weak and corrupt United Nations or even another less friendly government regime. Speaking at Google’s office in Washington, the possible presidential contender said he will introduce legislation to codify U.S. support of an open Internet as other countries attempt to control its growth.
“Since the Web is worldwideand since it has proven such an effective catalyst for pro-democratic revolutionit has become a battleground that many fight to control,” he said. Rubio pointed to 42 countries that limit the Internet within their borders and “now wish to take this further by exerting control over the way the Internet is governed and regulated internationally.”
“Many governments are lobbying for regulatory control by the United Nations or a governmental regime,” he said, and “opposing this takeover and preserving Internet freedom must be a top national priority.”
In a wide-ranging speech that touched on a broad array of economic topics, Rubio called for “new policies that encourage bold innovation.” He vowed to introduce legislation to reallocate federal government spectrum to the airwave-hungry wireless companies, who are looking to appeal to subscribers increasingly relying on their smartphone and other mobile devices. More broadly, Rubio called for an end to government involvement that impedes innovation and growth.
The U.S. can spend another century leading innovation, “but achieving this will require us to replace the antiquated policies and institutions of the last century with ones built for this new era,” he said. Rubio called for an overhaul to the tax system that would allow U.S. companies to avoid paying domestic taxes on revenue made and taxed abroad, and to take immediate deductions for investments. The Florida Senator is working on legislation with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would make those changes.
By Michael Filozof: The Origins of Leftist Racial OrthodoxyIF "diversity" is good, why do liberals congregate in lily-white enclaves like Vermont (the whitest state in the Union, according to the Census) and Marin County, California? White liberals hector others incessantly about the need for "diversity," but most have no interest in living in neighborhoods with large numbers of blacks. The ideal society in the liberal mind always seems to be a Scandinavian socialist one (which is to say that liberals strive to make the U.S. more like some of the most uniformly white nations in the world).
The liberal enforcers of racial correctness are quick to decry the evils of racism, yet they are quite willing to practice it themselves in the form of affirmative actionand they are strangely silent when blacks engage in "hate crimes" against whites. Conservatives have been increasingly willing to point out these and other hypocrisies of our racial orthodoxy, but they invariably fail to understand its true origins.
What drives our contemporary racial orthodoxy? Many conservatives mistakenly believe that liberals obsessed by race are afflicted with "white guilt." Not so. The truth about racial matters in the U.S. is this: racial issues are not actually about race. In the hands of the progressive left, race is a tool used by powerful whites against other whites; specifically, race is a weapon used by liberals to bludgeon conservatives and delegitimize conservative, patriotic values.
But it has not always been so.
Prior to World War II, progressives and leftistslike Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sangerviewed blacks as inferior human scum who should be eliminated through eugenic hygiene. But after World War II, "progressive" thinking about race underwent an astonishing metamorphosis. The American left forged a strategic alliance with blacks, using race to attack the core values of an American society they had now come to despise as the ultimate evil.
The dominant theme of the literature of the postwar erawhich 76 million Baby Boomers absorbed as the first generation to attend college en massewas the moral equivalence between the United States and the totalitarian regimes it had just fought.
In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, the founder of the modern American feminist movement, wrote that the American suburb was a "comfortable concentration camp" for women. (Friedan, a Jew, wrote this in 1963, less than 20 years after the liberation of Auschwitz.)
In The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger's protagonist Holden Caulfield (narrating the story from an asylum after having been driven insane by the "phoniness" of American life) says of his brother D.B., a World War II veteran, "I really think he hated the Army worse than the war ... [h]e said the Army was practically as full of bastards as the Nazis were."
In Kurt Vonnegut's semi-autobiographical novel Slaughterhouse-Five, the real enemy is not Adolf Hitler or the Nazis, but the American military, the American officer corps, and American society. Vonnegut's character Billy Pilgrim is a WWII vet who survives the bombing of Dresden as a POW; after the war, he becomes a respected citizen and a financial success. Pilgrim absorbs conservative American values right down to the "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper sticker on his carand goes insane, just as his fictionalized son patriotically heads off to Vietnam.
In the early 1960s at Edinburgh, Mailer along with Mary McCarthy began the process of legitimizing Burroughs. Mailer opened the back door and let Burroughs in. Literally. One of Burroughs’ most ardent supporters for admission to the Academy of Arts and Letters was Mailer. This recognition was very important to Burroughs, and he wore his Academy pin proudly. From what I can gather, Burroughs was grateful for Mailer’s support. Jed Birmingham
But the author who provided the direct link between left-wing America-hatred and race was Norman Mailer, also a disillusioned WWII veteran. In his 1957 essay "The White Negro," Mailer equated the atomic bomb with the concentration camp and urged whites to identify with black social outcasts as a means to escape the "totalitarian tissues of American society." The "hipster" should encourage the "psychopath" within himself and "absorb the existentialist synapses of the Negro." The white "hipster" would follow psychopathology-as-liberation "along the road of the homosexual, the orgiast, the drug-addict, the rapist, the robber and the murderer..."
"[W]hat makes [the "hip" ethic] radically different from Socratic moderation with its stern conservative respect for the experience of the past[,]" Mailer wrote, "is immoderation[.] ... [T]he nihilism of Hip proposes ... that every social restraint and category be removed[.]" (Emphasis mine.)
The White Negro is perhaps the most important work of literature in postwar America. It provided a blueprint for the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and in hindsight, it explains nearly all left-wing, anti-conservative behavior since. If blacks were social outcasts in American life, then the white enemies of traditional American values would align with them. An immoderate drunk like the late Sen. Edward Kennedywho was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, then killed a young girl he was presumably cheating on his wife with, and got away with itcould not possibly point the finger at blacks and tell them to be honest, chaste, and sober. He could, however, falsely accuse Judge Robert Bork of wanting blacks to "sit at segregated lunch counters" to deflect attention from his own behavior. And it worked. (Today, following the same "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy, leftists align themselves with Islamic terrorists and radicals, under whose rule they would never actually want to live.)
When white Americans finally began to see the justice of Martin Luther King's cause and the injustice of Jim Crow, leftists pushed harder and harder to include items under the rubric of "civil rights" that King, a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus, would never have approved of. "Civil rights" became a foot-in-the-door that leftists used to attack and destroy all "social restraints and categories" in American society.
Left-wing racial rhetoric about "fairness" and "equality" and "non-discrimination" has been used to conceal a subterranean leftist agenda of anti-Americanism and anti-conservatism for over fifty years. Conservatives persist in stupidly taking this rhetoric at face value; hence, they always find themselves on the racial defensive.
Want to kill your unborn baby? That's a "civil right." Marry another man? "Civil right." Dress in drag and use a woman's bathroom? Another "civil right." (It is hardly a surprise that while King remains a revered figure on the left, his Christianity has been airbrushed from his legacy. He is almost always referred to as "Dr." King todayrather than "Rev." King, a Man of God.)
The anti-conservative alliance between the left and blacks as described by Mailer neatly explains why Tea Party whites who admire the likes of Herman Cain and Allen West are nonetheless tagged as "racists" by the left. It explains why Democratic Party leftists welcomed former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd into their fold while slandering former Sen. Trent Lott as a "racist." It explains why the Republican Party, founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party, routinely loses 95% or more of the black vote; it explains why the conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas is the most hated man in black Americahated more than the reprehensible O.J. Simpson.
It explains the virulent left-wing racial demagoguery surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting. Everyone knows that blacks are not being profiled and victimized by white "vigilantes," as the politically charged indictment against George Zimmerman alleged. But the shooting provided a perfect platform for white liberals like Michael Bloomberg and Charles Schumer to attack the traditional, conservative American institutions of gun ownership, the National Rifle Association, and the right of self-defense by smearing these things as "racist."
We accept the proposition that human relationships are simultaneously strong but fragile, that human notions of familiarity are natural but confining, that competitive divisions existing due to culture, class, and individuality are not insurmountable when the push and pull properties of each axis is properly cherished and protected according to natural forms. We insist that deep friendship and brotherly love exist among and across all the races and peoples, made possible most notably in the context of free men and free women behaving towards each other in a spirit of compassion and respect whenever the measurement and surety of common goals and individual interests is put to the test.
Diversity is a beautiful concept, one found in nature itself, but diversity cannot, or should not be coerced, or engulfed in political struggles for which its players are ill-equipped and ill-advised to condone, even though the eco-political whip and needle is often indeed the primary social thrust governments prepare to inject diversityof every kind and unkindinto the populations at large. Even then, every vector of cultural inertia should be allowed to insinuate its own organic passage into the social soup without the centralized authority of governmental quotas handicapping the game, a tactic which both complicates and falsifies the vaguely apotheosized experiment of diversity for its own sake.
THE VOTING HABITS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC are hardly static, but stunningly dynamic. They must be won like territory in a hot war, but through persuasionthrough explanation, argument, rhetoric, reason, the parsing of life itself sometimes. One must fight for ground; one must be bold; one must penetrate into hostile territory, awe the opposition, and seize what he holds dear. The one thing one should not and can not do effectively is to fight from a holding position. That is, and has been the anemic strategy of the GOP leadership for decades.
As Sun Tzu put it, "If the enemy leaves a door open, you must rush in."
The constitutional side is far too busy trying to find ways to surrender. But it can not be that way; the once significant GOP of Ohio stalwart Robert Taft is philosophically distinct from the Obama/Alinsky nouveau socialists. We must give the America public a clear distinction between failed policies and wishful policies! Constitutional patriots and global Marxists and their sordid friends. And most of all, don't be ashamed of who you are, because ultimately, that steadfastness, that personal command of the tough but honest truth, is what will meaningfully rally people to your side. Are not apples and oranges both fruits? Fruits hanging from a family of trees, fruits falling like perfect guests of planet earth when ready for the harvest?
NEED A FIGHTING CONTRAST between Romney and Obama? The next time someone says that battle ready Mitt Romney is the same as Barack H. Obama...
* Ask them to produce a list of mad terrorists foreign and domestic that squeaky clean Mitt Romney has befriended (and no, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld don't count, for rather obvious reasons).
If they can produce answers to all of those—we’ll procede to round 2. Having gotten that out of our system, we continue to shout, “We’re Impressed! Gingrich/West 2012!”
* Ask them to name an occasion where Mr. Romney has bowed to anyone in a foreign land as a Representative of the United States of America.
* Ask them to produce evidence that Mr. Barack H. Obama's business experience even after four years in the White House is comparable to Romney's.
* Ask them to produce proof that President Obama's charitable contributions are as significant as Governor Romney's.
* Ask them to name a radical anti-American Church or other religious establishment that Romney has attended for over 2 decades.
* Ask them to produce proof that Mitt Romney has illegally used cocaine and marijuana.
* Ask them to name an occasion that Mitt Romney criticized the proper actions of a police officer from high office.
* Ask them to name any associates of Mitt Romney that have been active practicing subversive members of the Communist Party.
* Ask them to produce the identities of any illegal alien Romney family member that he is protecting from deportation.
If they can produce answers to all of thosewe'll procede to round 2.
Meanwhile, all earnest political junkies worth their stars and bars should grab up a Tasty Granny or a Juicy Navel and head over to American Thinker for some of the best American political writing and short commentary on the Internet.
Having gotten that out of our system, we continue to shout, "We're Impressed! Gingrich/West 2012!"
The concept of Left verus Right has existed since the French Revolution. The "Left" self-identified with the goats of the Bible, and anti-Catholic MPs claimed the seats on the left side of the chamber. From the beginning, the Left excoriated the "Right" as sheep entralled to the Shepherd of Rome.
O UR DULY ESTEEMED ESSAYIST Clarice Feldman writing a piece n today's cluster of new American Thinker articles, describes the Left as people delighted...
"...in the absolute certainty of the righteousness and soundness of their views, and their right to have them automatically accepted as the approved model for all right thinking people."
Progressives hold about a dozen core beliefs plus variations. Half of their beliefs contradict the other half. With a little study, skewering them can be reduced to just a few chess moves. The corrective screeching that results is music.
The concept of Left verus Right has existed since the French Revolution. The "Left" self-identified with the goats of the Bible, and anti-Catholic MPs claimed the seats on the left side of the chamber. From the beginning, the Left excoriated the "Right" as sheep entralled to the Shepherd of Rome. This hatred of religion took on many forms over the centuries and is the hallmark of leftist ideology. In the 20th Century alone, Leftists sought, and very nearly succeeded, in destroying religious faith. In Lenin's Russia, Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia. The Left hates religion, but not all religions are equal. Judaism and its offshoot, Christianity, seem to be the main targets of the Left.
At their core, leftists despise God as well as anyone "dumb" enough to follow God's commandments against lying, stealing, murderor promiscuously coveting someone or something. Leftists are not opposed to any of these especially if done to advance the cause.
There is more validity to Saul Alinsky's dedication to Luciferthe first revolutionarythan probably anyone can imagine. Leftists proudly follow their father who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. This is primarily the reason the Left attempts to control the lives and beliefs of every person on earth. They offer "freedom" to break God's commandments, but in exchange, they offer only slavery. Remember, impresario magnifique, Bob Dylan sings with no strings attached, "You gotta serve somebody."
Ronald Reagan was partially correct when he declared the Soviet Union to be the focus of evil in the modern world. His resolute belief in "We win, they lose" brought about the demise of the Left's Promised Land. But the Left is not vanquished yet. They have almost succeeded in having all expression of religious faith banned from the West. But they will fight to the last drop of your blood to make certain that Islam's belief in Allah flourishes. Hypocritical until one remembers the Left adheres to the dictum, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
The Left is the enemy of God, believers, and liberty. They despise the United States and everything we stand for. For the Left, we are the focus of evil in the modern world, and we must be destroyed.
Raging against the dying of the light? More like raging against the light dawning in this nation and in other western nations. We, the People of the United States, will be free or we will die fighting against tyranny. The Left has held sway over our institutions for many decades. Yet, they are losing the war on freedom and faith. They have reason to rage. Let it be their last act of desperation and impotence. After all, this life is all they have.
ISLAM MAKES IT UNCUMBENT on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.
Just seems to me, I've got other alliances and obligations that to choose to war against my neighbors in favor of those who wish me dead, dead, and more dead, as evidenced just one of many tens of thousands of time, by this recent leader of the masses who proclaim to follow the message of Mohammed, who was the"perfect model of human behavior" they say...
I HAVE BEEN FIGHTING this semantic battle for years now. Our problem is NOT only with "radical Muslims"...it is with all of Islam! The heart of the "religion" is that the entire world must be politically conquered for "Allah" (a.k.a. Satan, or Lucifer) and all people must either bow down to "Allah" or be killed. No other choices are allowed, folks... sorry! I should also point out that the "peaceful Muslims" are the ones who fund the radicals, harbor the radicals, and celebrate the victories of the radicals over the "infidels" (infidels = you and me). The "peaceful Muslims" may not pull the triggers or slit the throats themselves, but they ARE complicit, and will side with their more active brothers and sisters once the crowd dynamic is favorable, by and large.
By the way, note the natural alliance between the Progressive Marxists and the Muslims: one of the Progressive "gods" is, Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his book to Lucifer...
Is it any wonder that BOTH the Muslims and the Progressives want to destroy traditional American society and "fundamentally change" it?
I also agree with the important point raised by Athletik in his comments: we REALLY need to define what constitutes a religion that may be practiced in the United States. Does that sound unreasonable? Well, would we allow the practice of a religion of Cannibalism here? How about a religion of Random Rapists? How about the worship of Moloch, where babies are murdered as sacrifices to a god? Until we come to recognize as a society, that allowing Islam to exist here is just like allowing a rabid dog to roam in your own home, we are signing our own death warrant. It cannot end well. Ask Europe...
ORWELL LIVES! EVEN AS EGYPT'S GOVERNMENT attempts to crackdown on street protests by shutting down internet and mobile phone services, the US is preparing to reintroduce a bill that could be used to shut down the Internet, a kill switch. The legislation, which would grant presidential powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet, would soon be reintroduced to a Senate committee, Wired.com reported. It was initially introduced last year but expired with a new Congress. The proposed legislation, introduced into the US Senate by independent senator Joe Lieberman, who is chairman of the US Homeland Security committee, seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.
Last year, Lieberman argued the bill was necessary to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people". He said that, for all its allure, the internet could also be a "dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets". US economic security, national security and public safety were now all at risk from new kinds of enemies, including "cyber warriors, cyber spies, cyber terrorists and cyber criminals". Although the bill was targetted at protecting the US, many have said it would also affect other nations.
According to Renesys, a US Internet monitoring company, Egypt's four main internet service providers cut off international access to their customers in a near simultaneous move at 2234 GMT on Thursday. Around 23 million Egyptians have either regular or occasional access to the internet, according to official figures, more than a quarter of the population.
One of Australia's top communications experts, University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt, had previously railed against the idea, saying shutting down the internet would "inflict an enormous damage on the entire world". He said it would be like giving a single country "the right to poison the atmosphere, or poison the ocean".
The scale of Egypt's crackdown on the internet and mobile phones amid deadly protests against the rule of President Hosni Mubarak is unprecedented in the history of the web, experts have said. US President Barack Obama, social networking sites and rights groups around the world all condemned the moves by Egyptian authorities to stop activists using mobile phones and cyber technology to organise rallies. "It's a first in the history of the internet," Rik Ferguson, an expert for Trend Micro, the world's third biggest computer security firm, said.
Julien Coulon, co-founder of Cedexis, a French internet performance monitoring and traffic management system, added: "In 24 hours we have lost 97 per cent of Egyptian internet traffic". Despite this, many Egyptians are finding ways to get access, some using international telephone numbers to gain access to dial-up internet. According to Renesys, a US Internet monitoring company, Egypt's four main internet service providers cut off international access to their customers in a near simultaneous move at 2234 GMT on Thursday. Around 23 million Egyptians have either regular or occasional access to the internet, according to official figures, more than a quarter of the population.
"In an action unprecedented in internet history, the Egyptian government appears to have ordered service providers to shut down all international connections to the internet," James Cowie of Renesys said in a blog post.