Category: Leo Goldstein

The DNC Leaks and Crossfire Hurricane: A Timeline


Driven by their conspiracy theory, Hillary indulged in anti-Russian rhetoric, and the Obama administration drove relations with Russia to the worst point in the last 40 years.  Since the elections, the Democrats, the hard left, and the institutions owned by them have been pushing Trump to aggravate the conflict, started by Obama and Hillary.  But let’s proceed in chronological order.

• Summer 2015 – The FBI warns the DNC about alleged Russian hacking.

The DNC ignores the warning.

• April 28, 2016 – The DNC discovers suspicious activity on its network.

…and calls its lawyer, Marc Elias.  On May 6, after more than a week of waffling, the DNC brings in cyber-security contractor CrowdStrike, selected based on affinity rather than on merits.  CrowdStrike “determines” there were two breaches and names the culprits behind them – Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear – claimed by CrowdStrike to be Russian elite hacker units of FSB and GRU, respectively.

The DNC refused to allow the FBI to access its computers, which it thought had been accessed by FSB and GRU.  Apparently, the FBI consented to be subordinate of FSB and GRU on this issue.

• June 12, 2016 – Assange of WikiLeaks declares that he’s got internal documents from the DNC.

…and is going to publish them.  Surprised, the DNC and Hillary’s campaign decide to pre-empt and even exploit this publication.

• June 14, 2016 – The DNC announces the network breach through a WaPo article.

CrowdStrike publishes alleged technical details on its website.  Both blame the Russian government.  The DNC says that only a few documents had been compromised, including opposition research on Trump.  This is an open invitation for WikiLeaks to publish that research.

• June 15, 2016 – Guccifer 2.0 claims the hack and posts several DNC documents on guccifer2.wordpress.com. 

Guccifer 2.0 wasn’t known before that.  The opposition research is among the published files.  Independent analysts discover Russian fingerprints – the opposition research file shows an error message in Russian and had been last saved on a computer with Windows in Russian by Феликс Эдмундович.  Феликс Эдмундович refers to Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky (1877-1926), the founder of the Cheka, the predecessor to the KGB.  Gotcha!  The ecstatic media form the narrative: all leaked DNC-Hillary documents come from the Russian government; Guccifer 2.0 is a front for a Russian intelligence operation.

Just a few weeks or days earlier, the DNC hired Fusion GPS, which hired Christopher Steele to produce dirt on Trump.  The outcome was a series of absurd pieces, which became known as the “Steele dossier.”  It was called “a garbage document” by Bob Woodward.  The only known version of it was published by BuzzFeed.  The first “Steele report,” dated June 20, makes bizarre claims and leaves the impression that Steele was unclear about what the client wanted him to write.

• July 16, 2016 – Guccifer 2.0 offers WikiLeaks about 1GB of leaked DNC documents.

Hillary, convinced that Guccifer 2.0 was a front for the Russian government, concludes that Putin had betrayed her.  I think that at that time she decided to invent a narrative that she is tough on Russia while Trump is Putin’s puppet.  It was the summer of 2016, and people didn’t know that the MSM had shifted from being biased to being shameless fake news.  Hillary’s plan worked.

• July 18, 2016 – Hillary/DNC launch Trump-Putin conspiracy theory through WaPo and N.Y. Mag.

WaPo publishes an article titled “Trump campaign guts GOP’s anti-Russia stance on Ukraine” (Josh Rogin), and N.Y. Mag “Is Donald Trump Working for Russia?” (Jonathan Chait).  The N.Y. Mag piece is a purported analysis.  It mentions the WaPo article, but it couldn’t have been written in a half-hour.  Thus, these articles were part of a media operation by Hillary and/or the DNC.  The WaPo article falsely claimed that Trump’s campaign had weakened the GOP platform regarding support for Ukraine against a Russian invasion and briefly mentioned Paul Manafort.

This DNC-Hillary media operation has achieved its apparent goal – establishing a crazy conspiracy theory of Trump-Putin collusion as a dominant media narrative.

• July 20-25, 2016 – Third Steele report mentions DNC files on WikiLeaks.

It’s possible that Steele learned the new party line from the July 18 WaPo article, from copycats in other outlets, or directly from Hillary’s boys.  None of the previous “reports” had mentioned a DNC hacking, WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, or Paul Manafort.  But this one talked extensively about Manafort and the DNC documents on WikiLeaks.  Manafort and the DNC leaks had been placed together only in the WaPo article, which was largely retold in this Steele piece.  Examples:

Suggestion from source close to TRUMP and MANAFORT that Republican campaign team happy to have Russia as media bogeyman[.]

TRUMP associate admits Kremlin behind recent appearance of DNC e-mails on WikiLeaks, as means of maintaining plausible deniability[.]

Don’t ask me which “Trump associate admits” something on behalf of the Kremlin – the whole Steele dossier consists of such rubbish.

• July 22, 2016 – A WikiLeaks dump reveals:

The DNC had cheated Bernie out of the votes in the primaries to make Hillary the presidential candidate.

• July 25, 2016 – The Democratic National Convention starts with a huge scandal.

The revelation of the dirty collusion between the Hillary campaign and the Democratic National Committee against Bernie rocks the Democratic National Convention.  Hillary blames Russia and Putin; the MSM echoes.  Hillary, the DNC, and the media become deluded into the consensus that Putin is behind Trump.  Now it’s official: Hillary runs against Vladimir.

• July 26, 2016 – Fourth Steele report is almost entirely devoted to alleged Russian cyber-operations.

Note that the “Steele reports” were received by the DNC, and any piece might have been leaked to the media at any time after receiving.

• July 31, 2016 – FBI launches operation Crossfire Hurricane.

After watching the Democratic convention for days, reading media reports and Steele fantasies conveying the Democratic narrative, Peter Strzok decided to act.  Within two days, he and a few other Obama loyalists in the FBI started the operation Crossfire Hurricane, initially spying on Trump but then attempting a full-spectrum suppression of Candidate Trump and the Republican party.

Aftermath

Within a couple of weeks, CIA director John Brennan and other members of the Obama administration joined Crossfire Hurricane.  Obama-Hillary loyalists in DOJ, FBI, CIA, DNI, and DHS incited Republican senators against Trump, spread anti-Trump propaganda through media leaks, and even broadcasted support to the DNC-Hillary conspiracy theory of in a joint DNI-DHS statement merely a month before the elections.  These efforts continued after the elections and morphed into a coup d’état.

A longer analysis of the DNC leaks and origins of the Crossfire Hurricane from 2015 to August 1, 2016 is available from Leo Goldstein and the Science for Humans and Freedom Institute.

The media’s and the Democratic Party’s obsession with the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory originates from events of April-June 2016.  Media operations by the Democratic Party and its media echo chamber have distorted not only the information about the relevant events, but even the background political picture of April 2016.

The DNC and Hillary constructed a conspiracy theory in which Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC network and subsequent mass distribution of the exfiltrated documents to help Trump beat Hillary.  Such actions were against Russian interests and very unusual for Russian intelligence.

Driven by their conspiracy theory, Hillary indulged in anti-Russian rhetoric, and the Obama administration drove relations with Russia to the worst point in the last 40 years.  Since the elections, the Democrats, the hard left, and the institutions owned by them have been pushing Trump to aggravate the conflict, started by Obama and Hillary.  But let’s proceed in chronological order.

• Summer 2015 – The FBI warns the DNC about alleged Russian hacking.

The DNC ignores the warning.

• April 28, 2016 – The DNC discovers suspicious activity on its network.

…and calls its lawyer, Marc Elias.  On May 6, after more than a week of waffling, the DNC brings in cyber-security contractor CrowdStrike, selected based on affinity rather than on merits.  CrowdStrike “determines” there were two breaches and names the culprits behind them – Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear – claimed by CrowdStrike to be Russian elite hacker units of FSB and GRU, respectively.

The DNC refused to allow the FBI to access its computers, which it thought had been accessed by FSB and GRU.  Apparently, the FBI consented to be subordinate of FSB and GRU on this issue.

• June 12, 2016 – Assange of WikiLeaks declares that he’s got internal documents from the DNC.

…and is going to publish them.  Surprised, the DNC and Hillary’s campaign decide to pre-empt and even exploit this publication.

• June 14, 2016 – The DNC announces the network breach through a WaPo article.

CrowdStrike publishes alleged technical details on its website.  Both blame the Russian government.  The DNC says that only a few documents had been compromised, including opposition research on Trump.  This is an open invitation for WikiLeaks to publish that research.

• June 15, 2016 – Guccifer 2.0 claims the hack and posts several DNC documents on guccifer2.wordpress.com. 

Guccifer 2.0 wasn’t known before that.  The opposition research is among the published files.  Independent analysts discover Russian fingerprints – the opposition research file shows an error message in Russian and had been last saved on a computer with Windows in Russian by Феликс Эдмундович.  Феликс Эдмундович refers to Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky (1877-1926), the founder of the Cheka, the predecessor to the KGB.  Gotcha!  The ecstatic media form the narrative: all leaked DNC-Hillary documents come from the Russian government; Guccifer 2.0 is a front for a Russian intelligence operation.

Just a few weeks or days earlier, the DNC hired Fusion GPS, which hired Christopher Steele to produce dirt on Trump.  The outcome was a series of absurd pieces, which became known as the “Steele dossier.”  It was called “a garbage document” by Bob Woodward.  The only known version of it was published by BuzzFeed.  The first “Steele report,” dated June 20, makes bizarre claims and leaves the impression that Steele was unclear about what the client wanted him to write.

• July 16, 2016 – Guccifer 2.0 offers WikiLeaks about 1GB of leaked DNC documents.

Hillary, convinced that Guccifer 2.0 was a front for the Russian government, concludes that Putin had betrayed her.  I think that at that time she decided to invent a narrative that she is tough on Russia while Trump is Putin’s puppet.  It was the summer of 2016, and people didn’t know that the MSM had shifted from being biased to being shameless fake news.  Hillary’s plan worked.

• July 18, 2016 – Hillary/DNC launch Trump-Putin conspiracy theory through WaPo and N.Y. Mag.

WaPo publishes an article titled “Trump campaign guts GOP’s anti-Russia stance on Ukraine” (Josh Rogin), and N.Y. Mag “Is Donald Trump Working for Russia?” (Jonathan Chait).  The N.Y. Mag piece is a purported analysis.  It mentions the WaPo article, but it couldn’t have been written in a half-hour.  Thus, these articles were part of a media operation by Hillary and/or the DNC.  The WaPo article falsely claimed that Trump’s campaign had weakened the GOP platform regarding support for Ukraine against a Russian invasion and briefly mentioned Paul Manafort.

This DNC-Hillary media operation has achieved its apparent goal – establishing a crazy conspiracy theory of Trump-Putin collusion as a dominant media narrative.

• July 20-25, 2016 – Third Steele report mentions DNC files on WikiLeaks.

It’s possible that Steele learned the new party line from the July 18 WaPo article, from copycats in other outlets, or directly from Hillary’s boys.  None of the previous “reports” had mentioned a DNC hacking, WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, or Paul Manafort.  But this one talked extensively about Manafort and the DNC documents on WikiLeaks.  Manafort and the DNC leaks had been placed together only in the WaPo article, which was largely retold in this Steele piece.  Examples:

Suggestion from source close to TRUMP and MANAFORT that Republican campaign team happy to have Russia as media bogeyman[.]

TRUMP associate admits Kremlin behind recent appearance of DNC e-mails on WikiLeaks, as means of maintaining plausible deniability[.]

Don’t ask me which “Trump associate admits” something on behalf of the Kremlin – the whole Steele dossier consists of such rubbish.

• July 22, 2016 – A WikiLeaks dump reveals:

The DNC had cheated Bernie out of the votes in the primaries to make Hillary the presidential candidate.

• July 25, 2016 – The Democratic National Convention starts with a huge scandal.

The revelation of the dirty collusion between the Hillary campaign and the Democratic National Committee against Bernie rocks the Democratic National Convention.  Hillary blames Russia and Putin; the MSM echoes.  Hillary, the DNC, and the media become deluded into the consensus that Putin is behind Trump.  Now it’s official: Hillary runs against Vladimir.

• July 26, 2016 – Fourth Steele report is almost entirely devoted to alleged Russian cyber-operations.

Note that the “Steele reports” were received by the DNC, and any piece might have been leaked to the media at any time after receiving.

• July 31, 2016 – FBI launches operation Crossfire Hurricane.

After watching the Democratic convention for days, reading media reports and Steele fantasies conveying the Democratic narrative, Peter Strzok decided to act.  Within two days, he and a few other Obama loyalists in the FBI started the operation Crossfire Hurricane, initially spying on Trump but then attempting a full-spectrum suppression of Candidate Trump and the Republican party.

Aftermath

Within a couple of weeks, CIA director John Brennan and other members of the Obama administration joined Crossfire Hurricane.  Obama-Hillary loyalists in DOJ, FBI, CIA, DNI, and DHS incited Republican senators against Trump, spread anti-Trump propaganda through media leaks, and even broadcasted support to the DNC-Hillary conspiracy theory of in a joint DNI-DHS statement merely a month before the elections.  These efforts continued after the elections and morphed into a coup d’état.

A longer analysis of the DNC leaks and origins of the Crossfire Hurricane from 2015 to August 1, 2016 is available from Leo Goldstein and the Science for Humans and Freedom Institute.



Source link

Obamanet vs. Net Neutrality


On December 14, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal another Obama legacy: the Orwellian-named “Open Internet Order” FCC-15-24, or Obamanet. Prepared by far-left groups and Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google and a member of Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, it was adopted by Obama’s FCC in February 2015. The repeal goes in effect in sixty days after official publication unless it’s held up in courts. Howls from the left sound as if a horde of demons is being doused with holy water while the broad public, including many conservatives, is confused. Most people mistakenly believe that Obamanet protected some “net neutrality” (in quotes because the term appeared only in 2003 and the meaning has been changing). On the contrary, Obamanet canceled net neutrality. Conservatives think that the order was redistributing wealth from those who created the internet infrastructure to Obama and Al Gore’s cronies in Silicon Valley. This is correct, but just scratching the surface.

Obamanet has probably been the worst violation of freedom of speech and religion that this country has ever known. The confusion is excusable. The Obamanet order was rewritten secretly after a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking presented an entirely different proposal. Like ObamaCare, Obamanet was extremely lengthy and sprawled on 300+ pages (the original 2005 FCC policy statement, establishing net neutrality as FCC policy, was only three pages long). And there was a repetition of the “We [need] to pass the bill in order to find out what [is] in it” (Nancy Pelosi about ObamaCare) moment. But unlike ObamaCare, Obamanet was presented as a small regulation that was intended to preserve what already existed. Furthermore, Obamanet exploited the technical nature of the subject not understood by commentators, most of the public, and even legal experts. And it received wall-to-wall support from the “tech” monopolies in Silicon Valley that benefited from it.

Obamanet banned freedoms in the name of “protections.” Its language is directed at ISPs, but the target is all citizens, especially children. One of the banned things is family-friendly internet access.

“A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.” (Obamanet, para 112)

Parental control software (like Net Nanny, CyberSitter, Cyber Alert, etc.) that users install on their computers at home has very limited effectiveness today. Children can bypass these controls by bringing outside tablets in (a new tablet can be purchased for $40, a used one might be free) and connecting to their home wi-fi. Frequently, children also have better computer skills than their parents and can disable filtering at home. The only reliable option is network side filtering, which Obama’s FCC has banned (possibly even before 2015). Thus, Obamanet has exposed children to pornography, child predators, and drug dealers. Not surprisingly, PornHub, Netflix, Google, YouPorn, and the new Democratic Party became excited and came forward in force to protect Obamanet. This is a partial list of the most aggressive Obamanet defenders.

I could not find a family-friendly broadband ISP in the US. For comparison, large U.K. internet providers provide family-friendly access as a default option, and most families keep it. (The U.K. ISPs do that on demand from the government. I don’t suggest implementing that in the U.S. Also, different families have different filtering needs in accordance with their religious views. But the government has absolutely no authority to forbid it).

Obamanet has also dispensed with the freedom of speech, and turned Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and few other Obama/Al Gore cronies into internet gatekeepers. Our internet usage is comparable to visiting a physical bookstore or library. If we look at booksellers prior to the rise of Amazon, we’d notice many kinds of stores carrying different books that cater to their target audience. For example, a bookstore in Berkeley has a different selection from a bookstore in a pious Tennessee town. Big chains carry a broad selection of books to cater to broader clientele. There are also religious bookstores, and, conversely, there are adult bookstores. These are expressions of the freedom of speech. An equivalent of the Obamanet in the physical world would be a rule that regulates any business that moves books as common carriers. The Obamanet order says:

“any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service” (para 21), or in the provision of “any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of [broadband Internet access]… or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this Part” (para 25).

Bookstores fall under similar definition of the common carrier. Under Obamanet equivalent, every bookstore must carry all books equally (within their physical capacity). Church bookstores must carry porn and books of all other religions, and must display them equally without discrimination. Old ladies in Tennessee must browse through bookcases of Marxist writings and porn. If they bring to the bookstore their grandchildren, their only way to protect them from pornography is to cover their eyes. It is hard to imagine such rules in the real world, even with Bill Ayers’ friend as president. But similar internet regulations glided in easily, partly because of the technical nature of the subject.

Notice the asymmetry: an adult store can function even if it’s ordered to carry religious literature, but a religious store cannot carry porn, and will likely close. A large chain can continue operating with porn and commie/nazi filth alongside normal books, but it would lose most of its conservative, intellectual, and freedom-loving customers. It would have to adapt to what clientele is left. The management might even mistake the tastes of the remaining customers for the choice of the public, and act accordingly. This is what happened to the internet (and not only the internet) when Obamanet took it over. But I don’t intend to blame Obamanet for everything that has been done to this country since February 2015 or even November 2008. It’s just one factor among many.

Contrary and opposite to the media’s claims, the Obamanet order explicitly canceled net neutrality, which had been an FCC regulatory policy since 2005. Obamanet allowed cable companies to set a usage cap and not to count its own content toward this cap. Internet usage grows very fast, and a usage cap which seems reasonable today would become low tomorrow, all but totally restricting the subscriber to the provider’s own or affiliated content. The Obama’s FCC intended to consider such plans, “based on the facts of each individual case,” which meant to be based on relations between the cable company and the Obama administration. From the Obamanet order:

“Sponsored data plans (sometimes called zero-rating) enable broadband providers to exclude edge provider content from end users’ usage allowances… allowing service providers to pick and choose among content and application providers to feature on different service plans… we will look at and assess such practices under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard, based on the facts of each individual case, and take action as necessary.” (para 151-152)

The posturing of the Obamanet supporters as defenders of a little guy against big and bad cable companies is completely fake. Obamanet does not harm them. Even paid prioritization of internet traffic (as described in the “fast lane/slow lane” commercials) is banned only conditionally. The order contains a promise to waive the ban on a whim:

“The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.” (para 130)

Although the Obamanet order came suddenly, it was just a last step in the series of Obama’s regulations intended to silence opposition on the Internet.

Leo Goldstein has 20+ years of experience in positions ranging from software engineer to chief technology officer in internet technology companies. He used to devote most attention to opposing climate alarmism, until discovering that similarly irrational agendas and their agents have spread all around us and are connected to former bastions of rationality — Silicon Valley and prestigious academic institutions. 

On December 14, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal another Obama legacy: the Orwellian-named “Open Internet Order” FCC-15-24, or Obamanet. Prepared by far-left groups and Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google and a member of Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, it was adopted by Obama’s FCC in February 2015. The repeal goes in effect in sixty days after official publication unless it’s held up in courts. Howls from the left sound as if a horde of demons is being doused with holy water while the broad public, including many conservatives, is confused. Most people mistakenly believe that Obamanet protected some “net neutrality” (in quotes because the term appeared only in 2003 and the meaning has been changing). On the contrary, Obamanet canceled net neutrality. Conservatives think that the order was redistributing wealth from those who created the internet infrastructure to Obama and Al Gore’s cronies in Silicon Valley. This is correct, but just scratching the surface.

Obamanet has probably been the worst violation of freedom of speech and religion that this country has ever known. The confusion is excusable. The Obamanet order was rewritten secretly after a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking presented an entirely different proposal. Like ObamaCare, Obamanet was extremely lengthy and sprawled on 300+ pages (the original 2005 FCC policy statement, establishing net neutrality as FCC policy, was only three pages long). And there was a repetition of the “We [need] to pass the bill in order to find out what [is] in it” (Nancy Pelosi about ObamaCare) moment. But unlike ObamaCare, Obamanet was presented as a small regulation that was intended to preserve what already existed. Furthermore, Obamanet exploited the technical nature of the subject not understood by commentators, most of the public, and even legal experts. And it received wall-to-wall support from the “tech” monopolies in Silicon Valley that benefited from it.

Obamanet banned freedoms in the name of “protections.” Its language is directed at ISPs, but the target is all citizens, especially children. One of the banned things is family-friendly internet access.

“A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.” (Obamanet, para 112)

Parental control software (like Net Nanny, CyberSitter, Cyber Alert, etc.) that users install on their computers at home has very limited effectiveness today. Children can bypass these controls by bringing outside tablets in (a new tablet can be purchased for $40, a used one might be free) and connecting to their home wi-fi. Frequently, children also have better computer skills than their parents and can disable filtering at home. The only reliable option is network side filtering, which Obama’s FCC has banned (possibly even before 2015). Thus, Obamanet has exposed children to pornography, child predators, and drug dealers. Not surprisingly, PornHub, Netflix, Google, YouPorn, and the new Democratic Party became excited and came forward in force to protect Obamanet. This is a partial list of the most aggressive Obamanet defenders.

I could not find a family-friendly broadband ISP in the US. For comparison, large U.K. internet providers provide family-friendly access as a default option, and most families keep it. (The U.K. ISPs do that on demand from the government. I don’t suggest implementing that in the U.S. Also, different families have different filtering needs in accordance with their religious views. But the government has absolutely no authority to forbid it).

Obamanet has also dispensed with the freedom of speech, and turned Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and few other Obama/Al Gore cronies into internet gatekeepers. Our internet usage is comparable to visiting a physical bookstore or library. If we look at booksellers prior to the rise of Amazon, we’d notice many kinds of stores carrying different books that cater to their target audience. For example, a bookstore in Berkeley has a different selection from a bookstore in a pious Tennessee town. Big chains carry a broad selection of books to cater to broader clientele. There are also religious bookstores, and, conversely, there are adult bookstores. These are expressions of the freedom of speech. An equivalent of the Obamanet in the physical world would be a rule that regulates any business that moves books as common carriers. The Obamanet order says:

“any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service” (para 21), or in the provision of “any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of [broadband Internet access]… or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this Part” (para 25).

Bookstores fall under similar definition of the common carrier. Under Obamanet equivalent, every bookstore must carry all books equally (within their physical capacity). Church bookstores must carry porn and books of all other religions, and must display them equally without discrimination. Old ladies in Tennessee must browse through bookcases of Marxist writings and porn. If they bring to the bookstore their grandchildren, their only way to protect them from pornography is to cover their eyes. It is hard to imagine such rules in the real world, even with Bill Ayers’ friend as president. But similar internet regulations glided in easily, partly because of the technical nature of the subject.

Notice the asymmetry: an adult store can function even if it’s ordered to carry religious literature, but a religious store cannot carry porn, and will likely close. A large chain can continue operating with porn and commie/nazi filth alongside normal books, but it would lose most of its conservative, intellectual, and freedom-loving customers. It would have to adapt to what clientele is left. The management might even mistake the tastes of the remaining customers for the choice of the public, and act accordingly. This is what happened to the internet (and not only the internet) when Obamanet took it over. But I don’t intend to blame Obamanet for everything that has been done to this country since February 2015 or even November 2008. It’s just one factor among many.

Contrary and opposite to the media’s claims, the Obamanet order explicitly canceled net neutrality, which had been an FCC regulatory policy since 2005. Obamanet allowed cable companies to set a usage cap and not to count its own content toward this cap. Internet usage grows very fast, and a usage cap which seems reasonable today would become low tomorrow, all but totally restricting the subscriber to the provider’s own or affiliated content. The Obama’s FCC intended to consider such plans, “based on the facts of each individual case,” which meant to be based on relations between the cable company and the Obama administration. From the Obamanet order:

“Sponsored data plans (sometimes called zero-rating) enable broadband providers to exclude edge provider content from end users’ usage allowances… allowing service providers to pick and choose among content and application providers to feature on different service plans… we will look at and assess such practices under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard, based on the facts of each individual case, and take action as necessary.” (para 151-152)

The posturing of the Obamanet supporters as defenders of a little guy against big and bad cable companies is completely fake. Obamanet does not harm them. Even paid prioritization of internet traffic (as described in the “fast lane/slow lane” commercials) is banned only conditionally. The order contains a promise to waive the ban on a whim:

“The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.” (para 130)

Although the Obamanet order came suddenly, it was just a last step in the series of Obama’s regulations intended to silence opposition on the Internet.

Leo Goldstein has 20+ years of experience in positions ranging from software engineer to chief technology officer in internet technology companies. He used to devote most attention to opposing climate alarmism, until discovering that similarly irrational agendas and their agents have spread all around us and are connected to former bastions of rationality — Silicon Valley and prestigious academic institutions. 



Source link

President Trump: Time to Abolish Climate Alarmism in America


Donald Trump’s refusal to bow to climate alarmism causes sincere alarm among leftists.  Compared to it, the investigation of Donald Trump’s alleged “Russian ties” looks like another desperate gambit.  The climate agenda is much bigger than it seems; it moves hundreds of billions of dollars annually and demands trillions.  The media coverage of the G7 summit was mostly about the climate agenda.

In the ’90s, the science wasn’t settled regarding the numerical values of the effect of human-emitted infrared active gases and particulates.  But there has never been evidence justifying alarm.  Today, the science is settled against climate alarmism.  Throughout history, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been much higher than it is today or is expected to be in the foreseeable future, yet life has thrived.  Carbon dioxide is the product of human breath and essential for plant survival.  The global temperature trends over the last hundred years show no correlation with carbon dioxide concentration.  The alarmist denial of this basic scientific knowledge makes the climate agenda an effective weapon of mass social destruction.

At long last, we finally have a president who is willing and able to abolish climate alarmism in America.  The only questions are when and how.  My answers: immediately, unequivocally, and entirely.

There is no middle ground.  Attempts to appease climate alarmists with statements such as “We agree with your concerns, but let us decide on the pace of the actions,” have not only failed to check the climate agenda, but strengthened it as well.  Climate alarmism renouncement must include declaring independence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. entity with an explicit mandate to pervert science, and a review of activities that promoted its self-professed authority in this country. 

The climate agenda must be renounced for its scientific invalidity.  All the economic and political reasons to reject it remain in force, but invoking them tempts European politicians to engage in virtue-signaling and ritual scapegoating of the U.S. 

It is worth remembering what happened with the U.S. and the Kyoto protocol.  It is likely that delegations from some Western countries negotiated the 1997 Kyoto pact with the assumption that they would not have to sign it.  The Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto long before the conference at which it was finalized (the Byrd-Hagel resolution).  Apparently, some Western governments did not think much about what they were writing, expecting that the U.S. would reject it anyway.  Then they would come home and tell their enviros, We did everything you wanted, but those darned Americans derailed negotiations.  To everyone’s surprise, the American delegation, headed by Al Gore, agreed to the negotiated text.  Bill Clinton shelved his copy – something that parliament-appointed governments of the European and British Commonwealth countries could not afford.  They had no practical choice but to submit the pact to their respective parliaments, and the parliaments ratified it.  Thus, Western European countries bound themselves to an absurd treaty, comparable only to a mutual suicide pact.  The responsible political parties and politicians had to explain their actions to the public.  Hence, “settled science,” “climate education,” and so on.  Like a fly in a spider’s web, they entangled themselves deeper with each move.

Indecision and compromise confuse friend and foe alike.  President Trump cannot receive support from the public without making a firm stand.  When he makes it, things will change.  Many smart people will take a harder look at the science, the purported scientists, and the whole process.  Witnesses will come forward.  Real scientists will testify how they or their colleagues were defunded, dismissed, or otherwise mistreated for disagreeing with climate alarmism.  EPA employees will tell how their bosses abrogated their duty and became willing collaborators with Big Green.  Even journalists will come forward and bear witness to how the green activists pressed them for one-sided coverage.  When the wall of silence is broken, and the victims and witnesses feel no fear of retaliation, hundreds will step forward. 

Then whistleblowers will start coming from the ranks of Big Green and other alarm-mongers.  Many non-profit corporations, from the Union of Con Scientists to the MacArthur Foundation, have been supplementing their multi-million incomes and multi-billion endowments with taxpayer money.  Some of them also falsely claimed charitable status and evaded taxes – usually while advocating tax increases for working men.  Certain leftist hedge fund managers took part in bankrupting coal companies and then bought their shares at rock-bottom prices.  Investigations and lawsuits will reveal many more cases.  Multiple laws allow private action for recovery, with the reach and bite of these laws expanded under the Obama administration.

One of the collateral benefits of climatism renouncement will be realization by many decent but deceived people of the left’s nature and agendas.  This will help address other areas, like academic decline.

Climate alarmism will not simply fade away.  Something receiving hundreds of billions of dollars annually cannot fade away.  Besides, very powerful political forces have tied their destiny to climate alarmism.  In the U.S., these forces include Big Green, the mis-educational complex, and possibly even the Democratic Party.  Abroad, most of the European political establishment is on the hook.  Together, they wield a lot of power and know how to use it.  On the other hand, a mere renouncement by the U.S. government would deliver a knockout to climate alarmism.  Abandoning the unratified Paris agreement would be a small step in the right direction. 

Leo Goldstein defends realism in the climate debate.

Donald Trump’s refusal to bow to climate alarmism causes sincere alarm among leftists.  Compared to it, the investigation of Donald Trump’s alleged “Russian ties” looks like another desperate gambit.  The climate agenda is much bigger than it seems; it moves hundreds of billions of dollars annually and demands trillions.  The media coverage of the G7 summit was mostly about the climate agenda.

In the ’90s, the science wasn’t settled regarding the numerical values of the effect of human-emitted infrared active gases and particulates.  But there has never been evidence justifying alarm.  Today, the science is settled against climate alarmism.  Throughout history, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been much higher than it is today or is expected to be in the foreseeable future, yet life has thrived.  Carbon dioxide is the product of human breath and essential for plant survival.  The global temperature trends over the last hundred years show no correlation with carbon dioxide concentration.  The alarmist denial of this basic scientific knowledge makes the climate agenda an effective weapon of mass social destruction.

At long last, we finally have a president who is willing and able to abolish climate alarmism in America.  The only questions are when and how.  My answers: immediately, unequivocally, and entirely.

There is no middle ground.  Attempts to appease climate alarmists with statements such as “We agree with your concerns, but let us decide on the pace of the actions,” have not only failed to check the climate agenda, but strengthened it as well.  Climate alarmism renouncement must include declaring independence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. entity with an explicit mandate to pervert science, and a review of activities that promoted its self-professed authority in this country. 

The climate agenda must be renounced for its scientific invalidity.  All the economic and political reasons to reject it remain in force, but invoking them tempts European politicians to engage in virtue-signaling and ritual scapegoating of the U.S. 

It is worth remembering what happened with the U.S. and the Kyoto protocol.  It is likely that delegations from some Western countries negotiated the 1997 Kyoto pact with the assumption that they would not have to sign it.  The Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto long before the conference at which it was finalized (the Byrd-Hagel resolution).  Apparently, some Western governments did not think much about what they were writing, expecting that the U.S. would reject it anyway.  Then they would come home and tell their enviros, We did everything you wanted, but those darned Americans derailed negotiations.  To everyone’s surprise, the American delegation, headed by Al Gore, agreed to the negotiated text.  Bill Clinton shelved his copy – something that parliament-appointed governments of the European and British Commonwealth countries could not afford.  They had no practical choice but to submit the pact to their respective parliaments, and the parliaments ratified it.  Thus, Western European countries bound themselves to an absurd treaty, comparable only to a mutual suicide pact.  The responsible political parties and politicians had to explain their actions to the public.  Hence, “settled science,” “climate education,” and so on.  Like a fly in a spider’s web, they entangled themselves deeper with each move.

Indecision and compromise confuse friend and foe alike.  President Trump cannot receive support from the public without making a firm stand.  When he makes it, things will change.  Many smart people will take a harder look at the science, the purported scientists, and the whole process.  Witnesses will come forward.  Real scientists will testify how they or their colleagues were defunded, dismissed, or otherwise mistreated for disagreeing with climate alarmism.  EPA employees will tell how their bosses abrogated their duty and became willing collaborators with Big Green.  Even journalists will come forward and bear witness to how the green activists pressed them for one-sided coverage.  When the wall of silence is broken, and the victims and witnesses feel no fear of retaliation, hundreds will step forward. 

Then whistleblowers will start coming from the ranks of Big Green and other alarm-mongers.  Many non-profit corporations, from the Union of Con Scientists to the MacArthur Foundation, have been supplementing their multi-million incomes and multi-billion endowments with taxpayer money.  Some of them also falsely claimed charitable status and evaded taxes – usually while advocating tax increases for working men.  Certain leftist hedge fund managers took part in bankrupting coal companies and then bought their shares at rock-bottom prices.  Investigations and lawsuits will reveal many more cases.  Multiple laws allow private action for recovery, with the reach and bite of these laws expanded under the Obama administration.

One of the collateral benefits of climatism renouncement will be realization by many decent but deceived people of the left’s nature and agendas.  This will help address other areas, like academic decline.

Climate alarmism will not simply fade away.  Something receiving hundreds of billions of dollars annually cannot fade away.  Besides, very powerful political forces have tied their destiny to climate alarmism.  In the U.S., these forces include Big Green, the mis-educational complex, and possibly even the Democratic Party.  Abroad, most of the European political establishment is on the hook.  Together, they wield a lot of power and know how to use it.  On the other hand, a mere renouncement by the U.S. government would deliver a knockout to climate alarmism.  Abandoning the unratified Paris agreement would be a small step in the right direction. 

Leo Goldstein defends realism in the climate debate.



Source link