Credits:  Tony Perkins/Washington Update

The Washington Times

Lou Dobbs

EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE ON THE PHONES TO THEIR SENATORS AND REPS.. THIS MUST BE STOPPED AND WITH THE 10//1 DATE WE DO NOT HAVE MUCH TIME.

We need to flood the phone lines, the Fax machines and the email boxes.

Lou Dobbs reports that “Four states Attorneys General are now suing the Obama administration to stop the transfer of internet oversight, saying the move threatens online freedom of expression, enterprise and speech. The suit comes just days before the administration wants the United States to relinquish control of the Internet’s domain name system. That deadline is midnight, October 1st.”

Dobbs points out that “Congress failed to delay the transfer so now Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma and the State of Texas have stepped up to stop the move and to stop ‘president’ Obama. Of course states have often found themselves, in this administration, forced to take matters into their own hands because this administration has acted well beyond its powers and has failed to enforce federal laws as well, including, of course, immigration laws.”

( Where is our Florida Governor?  Call him and request that he get on board.)

Rick Scott:

 Phone (850) 488-7146

rick.scott@eog.myflorida.com or complete email form at: http://www.flgov.com/contact-gov-scott/email-the-governor/

Larry Strickling, U.S. government's assistant secretary for communications and information has announced that the government is moving the American-controlled internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the global ICANN. As one tech expert said, "That sentence may not mean a whole lot to many people, but this move is of huge global significance in how the internet is managed and governed." By letting go of this contract, there's a very real fear that the U.S. is giving up its stake of control in how the web functions. Much of that responsibility lies with the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which is a global group that keeps the web, as Ed Vaizey writes, "from being controlled by one organization, or dominated by a few special interests."

But that doesn't mean there aren't problems. In a global neighborhood, there are always going to be countries who disagree with the U.S. on fundamental values like religious liberty or free speech. And in recent years, some of those nations have lobbied to put the internet under U.N. control. Before the president hands over the keys to the U.N. or anyone else, Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) are doing everything they can to stop him. Both chairmen expressed their concern in a pointed letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), calling the idea of an "internet hand-off" "misguided or, at the very least, premature."

Despite the administration's guarantees, the frustrated duo write, "under the current proposal, the power of foreign governments would be significantly increased." Senator Cruz agrees, and sounded the alarm in a speech to the Heritage Foundation this summer. "Right now, the Obama administration's proposal to give away the internet is an extraordinary threat to our freedom, and its' one that many Americans don't know anything about." Just think about what countries like China, Russia, or Iran would do with their hands on the world's most powerful communication tool. Not only would they censor speech (as they've done in their own nations), but others would use this newfound power to eradicate so-called "hate speech," a term -- he warned -- with a definition that "can be very, very malleable." "We are facing a very real possibility of speech being censored in the name of 'hate speech.' It is hate to express a view different from whatever the prevailing orthodoxy of the government is."

And that isn't just Senator Cruz's view. It's the admission of Larry Strickling himself. In a hearing Wednesday, Senator Cruz asked point blank what this move would mean for the future of American freedom. "Just to clarify your answer to the question, if the [internet] transition goes forward... the U.S. would be on the very same footing as would Russia or Iran or China?" Stricking replied, "That's correct." Then the Texas senator turned to ICANN CEO Goran Marby. "Is ICANN bound by the First Amendment?" he asked. "To my understanding," Marby said, "no."

More than 100 conservative leaders are trying to fight the administration's outrageous internet giveaway. The Conservative Action Project (of which FRC is a part) has been fierce in its opposition, explaining in a Memo to the Movement that "Perhaps none of Mr. Obama's actions during his two terms will do as irreparable damage to our national security as his transferring the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions to the foreign government-controlled [ICANN]." Desperate to derail the move, Senator Cruz has introduced a bill called the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, aimed at stopping the NTIA from letting the key contracts expire. "It will also," the group reminds people, "ensure that the United States maintains sole ownership of the .gov and .mil top-level domains, which are vital to national security." Obviously, the internet doesn't belong to America. But America plays a crucial role in ensuring that it's an avenue for human rights, free speech, and transparency. Help us keep it that way! Contact your senators and ask them to support the Protecting Intern...!

The development and maintenance of the open Internet has been one of the greatest boons to the enhancement of free speech and free commerce since time began. But if the Obama Administration has its way, both will be threatened in the very near future - unless Congress acts by the end of this month to block the Obama Internet Give-Away. Will it?

Russia, China and Iran don’t have a First Amendment, and their governments regularly clamp down on free speech. So why would we want to end American protection of the open Internet and transfer it to Moscow, Beijing and Tehran instead?

On Oct. 1, the Obama administration plans to end the U.S. Government contract with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. Doing so would kick off a transition that could irreparably harm the open Internet, leading to censorship abroad that could, quite realistically, lead to censorship right here in the United States. Under this transition of Internet oversight, China, Russia and Iran, which have all demonstrated their contempt for Internet freedom by blocking websites and restricting Internet access to their own citizens, would be newly empowered to block specific websites from users all over the world, including in the United States.

Let’s back up.

The Internet was originally launched as a project of the U.S. Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in the 1960s. Then, in the 1980s, access to ARPANET was expanded courtesy of U.S. taxpayer-funded grants via the National Science Foundation, and, eventually, the Internet as we know it was developed.

So U.S. taxpayers paid for the creation, and development, and maintenance of the Internet. It is, in a very real sense, American property.

Article IV of the U.S. Constitution reads in part: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States …”

So under what authority, exactly, does President Obama claim the authority to make a decision on the disposition of a U.S. property - to wit, the Internet - without explicit permission from Congress?

Perhaps as important a question to ask is, where in the world are congressional leaders on this, and why are they not screaming bloody murder about yet another executive overreach by this overreach-hungry president?

Enter Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has introduced S. 3034, the Protecting Internet Freedom Act. Rep. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin has introduced a companion bill, H.R. 5418, in the House. The bills would simply prohibit the Commerce Department from moving forward on its plan unless it first wins congressional approval.

Similar legislation blocking the transfer of domain registration authority has been included in the government’s annual funding bills for the last few years. The current prohibition expires on Sept. 30. If that prohibition - embodied nicely in the Cruz-Duffy legislation - is not enacted again before Oct. 1, the administration believes it can do whatever it wants.

Cruz believes otherwise, and will be chairing a hearing of his Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts on Wednesday morning to examine the subject further. The hearing, entitled “Protecting Internet Freedom: Implications of Ending U.S. Oversight of the Internet,” will begin at 10 AM.

Moreover, Cruz wants to add the provisions of his bill to the upcoming Continuing Resolution, the one piece of legislation Congress must pass and send to the president before September 30. That’s a smart play on his part.

THE ABOVE DID NOT HAPPEN !!!  THANK YOU PAUL RYAN FOR IGNORING THIS CRITICAL ISSUE!!!

And it would be a smart play on the part of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan to agree to add it. They’re already going to have a tough enough time winning votes for passage from among the more conservative elements of their respective GOP caucuses; adding the Cruz-Duffy provision blocking the proposed Obama Internet Give-Away would add a sweetener that could woo enough conservatives to allow the measures to pass without the leaders’ having to move left in search of Democrat votes.

And would Harry Reid or Barack Obama be so determined to give away U.S. control over the Internet that they’d be willing to shut down the government to get their way? Is that a fight either one of them would want to play out in public just five weeks before a crucial election?

Most importantly, though, Ryan and McConnell should move on the Cruz-Duffy legislation simply because it’s the right thing to do.

The Internet was conceived, built, developed, and grown to fruition long before Barack Obama became president. It was done at the hands of U.S. scientists and engineers, working with funds taken from U.S. taxpayers. The Internet is U.S. property. President Obama has no authority to give it away without explicit authority granted him by the U.S. Congress.

Sen. Cruz and Rep. Duffy understand that. Do leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan?

Capitol Hill House Switchboard 202-225-3121

Capitol Hill Senate Switchboard 202-224-3121

OR:

You can find the contact information for YOUR Representative/Senators using the links below.

http://www.house.gov/representatives/

 http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Paul Ryan: 202-225-3031

Mitch McConnell:  202-224-2541

www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=contact

Florida:

Rubio: (202) 224-3041 or (904) 398-8586

http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-senator-rubio?p=...

Nelson: (202) 224-5274 or (904) 346-4500

https://www.billnelson.senate.gov/contact-bill

 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

District 3 Rep. Ted Yoho, FAX (202) 225-2256 – Phone (202) 225-5744 or (904) 276-9626

 https://yoho.house.gov/contact/email-me

 District 4 Rep. Ander Crenshaw, FAX (202) 225-2504 – Phone (202) 225-2501 or (904) 598-0481

 District 5 Rep. Corrine Brown, FAX (202) 225-2256 – Phone (202) 225-0123 or (904) 954-1652

 District 6 Rep. Ron DeSantis, FAX (202) 226-6299 – Phone (202) 225-2706 or (904) 827-1101

: https://desantis.house.gov/contact/email-me

"If you like your internet/freedom, you can keep your internet/freedom"  Where have we heard that line before?