IAHF List: Tomorrow, December 21, Obama's Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to violate a court order while kowtowing to the UN by finalizing regulations intended to massively restrict all of our access to the internet and world wide web. 
The UN is also getting in on this act, and its time, once again, to read our illustrious congress the RIOT ACT or we will lose our ability to bypass the mainstream media and to learn the truth about anything whatsoever. The ruling elite HATE websites like IAHF's and intend to shut all such non mainstream news sources down. 
Government intervention on the Internet is not a good thing for us freedom-loving patriots, like you. Our Internet freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Is this Barack Obama's new Fairness Doctrine; or is this a bad joke of "Merry Christmas" against your Internet privacy? Barack Obama has a "Christmas surprise" for YOU...based upon the new December 21st deadline for new FCC regulations. 
His administration's Federal Communications Commission, wants to take control of the Internet. And this could happen four days BEFORE Christmas--TOMORROW! No, not many people know about these new regulations---that's why I am urgently writing to you today!
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is ready to include the Internet to its lengthy list of federal government-regulated industries. BEFORE CHRISTMAS!
December 1st, FCC Chairman Julius, Genachowski, announced that he circulated draft rules he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies. And these regulations are to take place TOMORROW!
Barack Obama will control the Internet under the disguise of making sure our safety and security are of his greatest concern. Mr. Genachowski's December 21st proposal must be REJECTED by Members of Congress. In fact both the Senate and the House should make it even clearer that the FCC should STOP trying to expand its IMPERIAL POWERS!
Call your Senators and Congressmen via the Capital Switchboard at 202-224-3121, if you can't get through, get their numbers via www.senate.gov and via www.house.gov.
Give them this message and urge others to also:
The Washington Times reports: "With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the 'freedom' of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped 'non-public, for internal use only' to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled December 21st vote. So much for 'openness'."
Mr. Genachowski said: "Heavy use in some areas of the Internet slows the "web experience" for everyone sharing the same information superhighway lines. Even though that is partially true, the United States government should not dictate to us what we can and cannot do on the Internet. Apparently, the FCC thinks they need to protect "movie buffs."
The Internet must be under the control of the PEOPLE, not the FCC, and I want to know what you intend to do to protect me from the FCC??? It is outrageous that a group of unelected bureaucrats are being allowed to draft these regulations when the courts have already ruled that they lack jurisdiction to do this.
I am aware that the UN is pushing Obama to screw us this way because I've read all about it and I'll email this to your office along with my demand to know what you intend to do to protect me from this outrageous genocidal tyranny:
The United Nations have been discussing a global effort to regulate free information via the internet.
In the wake of WikiLeaks, we should have expected this sort of reaction from the corridors of power.  The de-centralized nature of the internet is good enough for material consumption to sustain economies, but problematic when the very nature of state and financial power–which is centralized–is called into question.
We might further say that free speech is permissible as long as its practitioners confine themselves to a neutered form of state criticism  (in most western democracies, excepting authoritarian regimes like China), as voiced publicly or symbolically by voting; but, expand the definition of free speech to a free flow of information and governments become all too aware of their fragile grip on control.
According to Australia’s ITNews, at the UN’s Commission on Science & Technology gathering, ”Representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet—specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.”
There is but one response in the case of all states, since they are all threatened: regulating internet free speech to control the free flow of information.  The UN gathering of December 15-17 was a response to ECOSOC Resolution 2010/2, which, when read, is so infected with labyrinthine citations and footnotes that it would make David Foster Wallace blush and Terry Gilliam’s bureaucratic hatred multiply.
ECOSOC Resolution 2010/2 states in the Internet Governance section that the World Summit on the Information Society:
“Reaffirms the principles enunciated at the World Summit that the Internet has evolved into a global facility available to the public, that its governance should constitute a core issue of the information society agenda and that the international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of Governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.  Reaffirms the principles enunciated at the World Summit that the Internet has evolved into a global facility available to the public, that its governance should constitute a core issue of the information  society agenda and that the international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of Governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.”
The language suggests all interests will be involved, including ‘civil society’ (code for citizens who are content with the status quo).  Absent from this is any mention of the right of people to have access to information–elevating states, corporations (private sector) and international organizations above the rights of the people.  Does anyone actually believe that those most threatened by free information will allow those who benefit most (the people) a role in the debate of internet governance?
In fact, only government was represented at this gathering, causing a stir amongst internet advocates.  As Vint Cerf (Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist) points out:
“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.”
From taking control.
Vested interests–those naturally opposed to the free flow of information–would like to take control.  What does control look like?  China.  Saudi Arabia.  North Korea.  Any state that attempts to control what governments, created by people after all, generate in the form of documents detailing policy decisions–decisions supposedly taken in the best interest of all.  Only fools believe in such absurdities.
Behind every mass interest, behind every public assurance of actions taken on behalf of the greater good, lies a special interest–a vested interest.  And there are those who might still believe that state power can ensure the greater good.  Of course the stakeholders of power and influence, whether state or corporate (though what is the difference these days?), would want to tame the internet in the wake of WikiLeaks, disregarding the many billions of people worldwide who desire a free flow of information by way of transparency.
The states with membership in the UN are to decide on international internet regulation?
They are states.  And as states they represent the positions of power and those who possess it.  The decisions will be arrived at by a small number of people from each member state by way of personal opinion, legitimized (we are told) through professional credentials in diplomatic, legislative, bureaucratic and corporate sectors.
For perhaps the first time in recorded history, human civilization possesses the means to distribute widely and with instantaneous velocity vast amounts of information.  For the first time, states cannot keep many of the inner workings of government hidden.
And so a two-fold reflex is occurring.  The first: the tightening of information controls at the highest level of government.  Cut off access to the information.  But, that is not enough, for there will always be those individuals who will leak information because their conscience demands it.  What then?  Control the internet.
Steps must be taken to combat this sort of authoritarian impulse by ensuring channels by which information can circumvent any control.  And if this internet is to be controlled, let an underground internet flourish and rise up from the ashes of this one.
As Cerf noted in his blog post:
“We don’t believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance. The current bottoms-up, open approach works—protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let’s fight to keep it that way.”
Has there been an over-reaction to the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF)?  Perhaps.  As Ars Technica’s Nate Anderson noted, the IGF does not have any decision-making powers and many governments aren’t about to listen to China and Saudi Arabia talk internet governance, especially after China’s diplomat Yang Xiaokun denied that China censors information.
But, it seems that Anderson’s article misses a critical point.  The fact that internet governance is even being discussed at all in the UN is troubling, even if the discussion is being held within a non-decision-making body.  Their opinions will surely influence decision-making bodies and arerepresentative of state opinion on free information.
He is right, however, that Brazil‘s mention of WikiLeaks in the forum might worry people–as it should.
IAHF Needs Your Support:   Please donate now via this paypal link or by sending a donation to IAHF 556 Boundary Bay Rd. Point Roberts WA 98281 USA...... Please forward this widely and repost to your site, remember to delete the unsub link at the bottom first before forwarding or reposting!! Together we can defend health freedom and ALL freedom. The PRICE of freedom is eternal vigilance!