Poll Reveals Americans Opposed to Government Takeover of Internet

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 29, 2010

According to a recent Rasmussen’s poll, most Americans understand the FCC’s internet regulations will be used by the government to push a political agenda.

54% of respondents oppose the FCC effort to regulate the internet while 21% support it. 25% are not sure. By a 52% to 27% margin, Rasmussen reported on December 28, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting internet users. Most Democrats see an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.

In April, a Rasmussen poll revealed that just 27% of Americans believed the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the internet like it does television and radio.

Internet regulation was the hallmark of Obama in 2008 as he ran for president. After installing Genachowski as FCC chairman, the Obama administration started to move on its promise to regulate the internet. The FCC began to act like a fiefdom and told a federal appeals court it had the power to impose regulation on broadband rates, even though Congress had not given the agency the power to do so.

In fact, 300 members of Congress, including a large number of Democrats, told the FCC in no uncertain terms to stop its attempt to grab power over the internet. The FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of internet regulation.

In August, the FCC worked with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules.

The FCC decided before Christmas to make its move. Obama said the new government regulation will “help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet.” In fact, it would do just the opposite.

Genachowski and the FCC naturally try to make this unwarranted move look like a white knight government protecting consumers against greedy telecommunications companies and ISPs. Beyond the rhetoric about “net neutrality,” however, lies the real purpose of the FCC regulations – government control and censorship.

“What governments around the world are suddenly beginning to realize is that a free internet is ultimately incompatible with government secrets, and secrets are essential to any government that wants to remain in power,” writes Mike Adams of Natural News. “As part of a long-term plan to control content on the internet, the FCC is now attempting to assert authority over the internet in the same way it has long exercised content censorship authority over broadcast television and radio.”

Adams argues that the FCC is attempting to assert its authority over the internet. “By asserting its authority with net neutrality, the FCC will establish a beachhead of implied authority from which it can begin to control and censor the internet,” he writes.

Obama’s FCC commissariat is not losing sleep over the First Amendment. It was the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd who said that “blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies,” namely converting the internet into the same government regulated medium as television and radio.

Prior to the FCC vote, the United Nations announced its plan to regulate the internet.

“The United Nations is also aiming to run the Internet for you,” warns Joseph A. Klein. “With the backing of governments around the world who don’t mind free-riding on American investment and know-how in the Internet while seeking as many ways as possible to usurp control over its governance, the UN establishment has been trying for years to move control of the Internet’s day-to-day management to some sort of global governance forum.”

Efforts by the FCC and the United Nations at the behest of the globalists are contrary to the model that has emerged since the technology was invented in 1973 and became public in the early 1990s.

“The beauty of the Internet is that it’s not controlled by any one group. Its governance is bottoms-up – with academics, non-profits, companies and governments all working to improve this technological wonder of the modern world. This model has not only made the Internet very open – a testbed for innovation by anyone, anywhere – it’s also prevented vested interests from taking control,” wrote Vint Cerf, who is often called the father of the internet, in response to the UN proposal to regulate the internet.

A free and open internet is anathema to government as it moves to control nations, populations, and telecommunications. In order to succeed and build world government and its accompanying control grid, the internet must be tamed and folded into the established propaganda apparatus.

The machinations of the FCC and the United Nations reveal once again how worried the establishment is about a free and open internet. The internet cannot be allowed to be a primary and growing source of alternative information that challenges daily the corporate media propaganda system that acts like a megaphone for a control freak government.



The Rasmussen poll reveals that while many Americans may not fully understand the underlying reasons for government control of the internet – to stifle opposition to the government in the same way the Chinese have – they are steadfastly opposed to more regulation.

Homeland Security’s Coming War Against 9/11 Truth Activists

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 21, 2010

Rep. Peter King of New York is about to become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. On Saturday, King announced he will hold hearings on the “radicalization of the American Muslim community.” King is convinced al-Qaeda has penetrated America and is now recruiting citizens to engage in terrorist acts.

“We want to assess the extent of the radicalization of the Muslim community,” said King. “It’s clear to me there has not been sufficient cooperation.”



American Muslims are rightfully afraid and outraged by King’s call for McCarthy-like hearings.

9/11 truth activists should be too.

Earlier today Newsday posted an op-ed by King, where he wrote the following:

In the days following 9/11, I made several television and radio appearances supporting American Muslims, saying that they had nothing to do with the attacks and were as loyal and patriotic as any Americans. I particularly warned that we could not do to Muslims what was done to Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor.

Even today I cannot begin to describe the disappointment, anger and outrage I felt when, barely a month after those attacks that killed so many hundreds of Long Islanders, prominent Long Island Muslim leaders were insisting there was no evidence that al-Qaida was responsible for the attacks — even saying it could have been the CIA, the FBI or the Zionists!

Even more troubling is that to this day, no Muslim leader has denounced those vile remarks. Nor did Newsday say a word about these slanders — no moral outrage or condemnation. No demand for an apology or even an explanation. (Emphasis added.)

In other words, if you doubt the official fairy tale – as millions of Americans do – Rep. King considers you a peddler of “vile remarks.” You may be the subject of a future House “investigation” that doubles for a witch hunt or inquisition.

Stock up for the Holidays with eFoodsDirect and get FREE Shipping! (Ad)

It is not strictly Muslims the government has targeted for failure to buy into the absurd nonsense that Arab cave dwellers made NORAD stand down and suspended the law of physics on September 11, 2001.

The term “white al-Qaeda” was created for a specific reason.

TSA Admits Lying About Naked Boy Controversy

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 20, 2010

The TSA has been caught in yet another act of public deception after the agency was forced to admit that it lied when it initially claimed a 5-year-old boy was strip-searched at Salt Lake City International Airport last month because he had set off a metal detector.

The video of a disgruntled father removing his young son’s shirt so TSA agents could pat down the boy arrived at the height of the outrage against Big Sis last month and prompted widespread condemnation of ludicrous airport security measures. One of the media personalities who spearheaded the TSA revolt, Matt Drudge, ran the story at the top of his website for nearly two days.

The TSA tried to placate the fury many Americans felt when watching the clip by claiming that the boy had set off a metal detector and therefore had to be subjected to advanced screening. Even after the boy’s shirt was removed, he was still subjected to a pat down around his genital area.

However, Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who will soon take charge of the House subcommittee overseeing the TSA, forced the agency to back down and concede that the TSA’s original statement was a total fabrication.

“I said, ‘You guys knew that at the beginning. You lied at the beginning,’” Chaffetz told the Salt Lake Tribune.

“New information was brought to light that indicated the initial report was incorrect,” the TSA said, admitting that the boy was patted down not because he set off a metal detector but due to “bulky clothing”.

However, the video clearly shows that the only item of clothing the boy is wearing is a pullover sweatshirt – he is not wearing a bulky coat or anything of that nature. So in effect, the TSA has attempted to cover up a lie with yet another lie, in its farcical efforts to justify groping naked 5-year-old boys in the name of security.

As we have documented, the TSA has proven itself to be completely untrustworthy and deceitful, having lied about almost every issue related to airport security since the very outset.

- Immediately after naked body scanners were introduced, TSA lied in claiming that scanner images did not show intricate details of genitalia, a claim disproved by images taken from the TSA’s own website which clearly show the size and detail of a man’s penis, as well as several incidents where airport security workers have abused the scanners to ogle naked pictures of their colleagues and go on to describe details of their genitalia.

- Janet Napolitano herself brazenly lied when she claimed that Johns Hopkins University had studied naked body scanners and declared them to be completely safe. In reality, Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine stated, “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays,” adding, “…we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner.”

- TSA has consistently lied in claiming that naked body scanner images cannot be stored, a claim disproved by a Homeland Security letter which specifically states that the machines “have the capability to retain and export images”.

- TSA continues to lie about the fact that it temporarily curtailed security measures as a political ploy to deflate the national opt out day protest, despite verified reports from all over the country confirming that body scanner machines were roped off and aggressive pat downs were dispensed with.

- TSA has been caught in numerous other lies, all of which are documented here.

Given the plethora of examples of TSA deceit, and the agency’s ceaseless habit of lying to cover up its own malfeasance, state and local authorities across the country need to unite and follow New Jersey’s example by kicking the bums out for good, eliminating the TSA not only from airports, but as a federal agency altogether.

YouTube Allows Users to Flag Content as Terror Promotion

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 16, 2010

Google’s YouTube now allows users to flag content that allegedly supports terrorism. Google claims to have instituted this policy after receiving complaints.

YouTube now allows you to declare videos the product of nefarious terrorists.

In May, the government told YouTube to censor content on the site. Senator Joe Lieberman wrote a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt. “A great majority of these videos document horrific attacks on American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan,” said Lieberman.

He also said other videos “provide weapons training, speeches by al-Qaeda leadership, and general material intended to radicalize potential recruits.”

Around the time the government instructed Google and YouTube what to do with their content, two former CIA officials admitted to creating a fake video in which intelligence officers dressed up as Osama Bin Laden and his cronies. The CIA actually considered creating a fake video of Saddam Hussein engaged in sexual acts with a teenage boy and flooding Iraq with copies.

In 2007, expert computer analyst Neal Krawetz presented evidence revealing that al-Qaeda tapes were forgeries. “Krawetz’s most telling discovery comes in the form of a detail contained in a 2006 Ayman al-Zawahiri tape. From his analysis he concludes that the As-Sahab logo (the alleged media arm of Al-Qaeda) and the IntelCenter logo (a U.S. based private intelligence organization that “monitors terrorist activity”) were both added to the video at the same time,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote on August 2, 2007.

The IntelCenter is linked to iDefense, a web security company staffed with ex-military intelligence officers. Its purpose is to disseminate propaganda that supports the profitable manufactured war on cave dwellers and a variety of operatives and patsies that work either witting or unwittingly for the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

After Lieberman leaned on Google, the company encouraged users to flag content they found objectionable. Now YouTube has added an option to flag content users believe promotes the sort of terrorism the government and its corporate media propaganda apparatus have propagandized the public for nearly a decade to believe actually exists.

In February, YouTube introduced “Safety Mode,” a filter designed to filter out objectionable content. “Sexually related content is not the only thing that will be affected by safety mode. A newsworthy video that contains graphic violence such as a political protest or war coverage would also be included, YouTube said,” AppScout reported.

It is obvious where all of this is going headed. Users will now flag Alex Jones videos and hundreds of other truth videos as terrorist promotion. Google’s YouTube will remove the videos and will then say the content was removed at user request.

Lieberman’s letter and Google’s response are part of an ongoing psy-op designed to convince people that terrorists are working feverishly to destroy America because Muslims hate us for our freedoms. It is a classic example of problem-reaction-solution.

The CIA created what is now called al-Qaeda from the remnants of the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s. The CIA and military intelligence have produced a series of audio and video tapes portraying a number of al-CIA-duh scary operatives in turbans threatening Americans. These have complimented absurd terror events like the Christmas underwear and Times Square non-bombings. In response to these ludicrous events, government officialdom has warned the internet may need to be regulated for our own good. Google and YouTube have played their part by introducing an option that allows users to censor videos purportedly discovered and posted by a military intelligence front company. In this way, people can decide for themselves what is terrorism.

Not that Google is an innocent bystander. It was created with CIA seed money, according to ex-CIA agent Robert David Steele.

“I think Google took money from the CIA when it was poor and it was starting up and unfortunately our system right now floods money into spying and other illegal and largely unethical activities, and it doesn’t fund what I call the open source world,” Steele told Alex Jones in December, 2006.

Breaking News: Wikileaks Hacktivists Shut Down Amazon’s European Websites

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Sunday, December 12, 2010.




UPDATE: Amazon’s websites have just come back online. The down time was a good two hours. Twitter is still raging on the issue.

It appears that Wikileaks hacktivists have made good on their threat to take down one of the Internet’s global behemoths. Amazon’s European websites are down and inaccessible, costing the company untold millions on one of the busiest shopping days of the year in the run up to Christmas.

Firing the biggest salvo in what hacktivists have dubbed a new cyber-war, Wikileaks supporters have seemingly exacted revenge for Amazon removing Julian Assange’s website from its cloud network of servers at the behest of Joe Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee ten days ago.

“Catching you up to speed, it is entirely possible that Anonymous, the 4chan-started “hacking” group could be behind the down time. The group, which has tossed attacks at MasterCard, Visa and PayPal since the arrest of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has claimed in the past that it would target Amazon. It was widely known that Wikileaks was using the Amazon DNS services, and Amazon then pulled the site from the services due to its activities,” reports TheNextWeb.

I was personally trying to buy Christmas presents at around 8pm GMT on Amazon.co.uk. The website became increasingly lethargic before it went down altogether.

Amazon’s websites in France, Germany and Italy are also all offline at time of writing, although Amazon.com is still accessible at the present time.

Assange Prosecution: A Brazen Effort to Kill Alternative Media

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 8, 2010

Now that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is in custody, we can expect the U.S. government to request his extradition and prosecute the Australian for espionage. “Any such proceedings would set up a test of whether the First Amendment’s protection for a free press extends to a website with a worldwide audience,” notes McClatchy today.

The Supreme Court rejected a Nixon administration effort to stop the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers.

In 1917 the United States enacted the Espionage Act, a law that has made it a crime to “willfully communicate” secret government information that could expose national secrets held by officialdom. Since the law was passed, however, the government has avoided prosecuting journalists for publishing classified information.

“The First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the press has protected journalists in the past, though it is not clear whether the courts would consider Assange a journalist,” writes McClatchy.

Assange’s “actions are not those of a responsible journalist that would enjoy the protection of the Constitution,” opines Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel at the CIA. Government, of course, will decided what is responsible and irresponsible journalism and the high court will enshrine this in law.

The establishment – including its highest court – may eventually restrict the First Amendment and have its protection apply only to selected corporate media journalists and other propaganda functionaries of the elite.

Any such ruling by the Supreme Court will send a message to investigative journalists and alternative news organizations and publications – you will be prosecuted for revealing “government secrets,” in short it may soon be illegal to report information the government wants to keep hidden from the American people.

According to a Congressional Research Service analysis, the Supreme Court has not resolved the question of “whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, government may ever punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but the ensuing publication as well.”

A d v e r t i s e m e n t
In 1971, the Supreme Court rejected a Nixon administration effort to stop the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers. Nixon’s effort to prosecute leakers Daniel Ellsberg and the late Anthony Russo – who were not journalists, but RAND corporation researchers – was dismissed due to “prosecutorial misconduct.”

The Supremes indicated, however, that it would have been possible for the government to prosecute the newspapers involved.

“Freedom of speech is a basic US constitutional right,” notes the Christian Science Monitor. “““What Assange and WikiLeaks may have done, however, is set up a lawyer’s dream of a case which would allow the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict between two basic rights — the right to speak, and the right of the US to hold close its secrets.”

The Obama administrarion has declared the Wikileaks “disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government.”

In fact, the disclosures put at risk the widespread government policy of withholding information from the American people.

In 2006, Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, said that every “administration wants to control information about its policies and practices, but the current [Bush] administration has restricted access to information about our government and its policies at unprecedented levels. The result has been the suppression of discussions about our country’s direction and its security. How can the public or even Congress make informed decisions under such circumstances? The movement away from public accountability must be reversed.”

A record number of Freedom of Information Act requests indicate government is becoming more secretive, not less.

Declarations of transparency and open government notwithstanding, the Obama administration has continued the concerted effort to keep the American people in the dark about the operation of its government, especially in regard to foreign policy.

Never mind the idiocy of government officials and neocons such as William Kristol who have called for not only harassing, kidnapping, and “neutralizing” Julian Assange and the Wikileaks operation, the ultimate result will be to harass and neutralize the alternative media that continues to draw millions of people away from government propaganda disseminated by the corporate media.

In order to convert the United States into a third world slave gulag with a high-tech police state overlay, the ruling elite will target and attempt to liquidate alternative media. Eventually extraditing and prosecuting Julian Assange as an enemy of the state is an important element in the effort to kill the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.