Debbie Wasserman Schultz Doesn't Do Anything to Stop Internet Giveaway, Against the Interest of Many District 23 Voters

Hollywood, FL, September 23, 2016 (Newswire.com) - ​​​​​​​​​​On September 30th, 2016, our Internet could be delivered to another governing body, outside of U.S. control, unless the U.S. Congress stops this. The Obama administration is pushing through a radical proposal to give control of Internet domains to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which also includes 162 foreign countries. If that proposal goes through on September 30th, countries like Russia, China, and Iran which are authoritarian controlled or theocracies could be able to censor speech on the Internet, including here in the U.S. by blocking access to sites they don't like. This greatly concerns Bright Star Pac about the future of Internet freedom.

If a domain name for example was against the Communist Party in China or a domain name was against the Russian Federation or a domain name was against deities or religious figures like Allah or Mohammed, those names for example could be rejected or censored. The content on these domain names if even allowed, like mohammedisafalseprophet.com (a fictitious domain name for example) could then be censored as well.

If the U.S. Chamber of Commerce does not represent the governing body over ICANN, what if the U.N. took its role?  There will be a vacuum that needs to be filled by a governing body. A potential scenario where the governing body restricts any domain names or websites critical of religion is not far-fetched. In the past, the U.N. has had non-binding resolutions such as an Anti-Blasphemy law, which condemned speech against the religion of Islam or other religions. The U.N. is made up of so many nations that have not practiced the ability to criticize religion, so this kind of censorship and mentality could influence how ICANN conducts its policies.

For example, just today there are over 20 countries which make it illegal to criticize religion. Why wouldn't these countries if they controlled ICANN, institute their policies or control of banning or punishing domain names or websites with content that criticized religion?

In spite of the many problems that the U.S. has had historically, its 1st Amendment has been withheld throughout over 200 years. The U.S. has fought for freedom of speech as an inherent right of people. Many countries have failed their own people by suppressing speech and creating so many laws to make people fearful of speaking their mind whether it's criticism of classes, dynasties, religion, politics, current regime, etc. If the U.S. understands the concept of freedom of speech and has a better track record at defending the inherent right of people, shouldn't it be given the benefit of the doubt to be the steward of the Internet?

Countries like Russia and China don't believe in free speech. Their governments actively censor Internet traffic. They suppress minority religious faiths, proselytizing and dissidents who protest the current regimes. ICANN could do the same thing if under the control or influence of these nations—putting foreign countries in charge of what you can say online, prohibiting content that they disagree with.​

The concept of "hate speech" carries laws with it in some European nations. The U.S. allows "hate speech". It can be argued that it is more beneficial and noble of a society to allow hate speech in order to know what is ridiculous or stupid or what to be condemned. Ideas whether they have merit or not can be contested loudly without fear of Internet or government censorship. It can be viewed that it is much more healthy for a society to know the extremes of thought in order to make the best decisions for its survival or best decisions on how to live. 

In the U.K. recently, there is now a government force being created in order to punish online trolls who speak negatively against Islam but do so with private or fake Internet user names. However, it could be considered beneficial to allow online trolling so that people can express themselves and potentially warn others about the potential threats of cultural and religious ideas, which may cause harm to others.  

Since the U.S. has a better grasp of free speech, why should it give away control of the Internet? ​The Internet is the greatest tool of freedom of speech and a free market that the world has ever seen.

Why is Debbie Wasserman Schultz doing nothing to prevent this transfer of the Internet authority on September 30th, 2016?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, U.S. House Representative of District 23 and a disgraced former DNC chairperson, is viewed by many as very partisan in her leadership. On talk shows or speeches she is seen as usually kowtowing the Administration's position on everything, including the recent Iranian nuke deal that conflicted with the desires of Jews within District 23. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is doing nothing at all to stop the internet giveaway and protect the free flow of information online. Obama's proposed Internet giveaway could cause irreparable damage not only on our nation, but on free speech across the world. It would be a great threat to our National Security. But above national security it seems to Debbie Wasserman Schultz are the interests of a Democratic Party executive administration.

ICANN sets policies that affect the Security of the World Wide Web so This Transfer/Giveaway has Inherent Problems for the U.S. and Citizens' Privacy

​When someone goes to a website they expect it to work and they are not directed to another destination. If ICANN is under the authority of communist regimes or terrorist friendly nations, websites could be redirected to volatile entities.

Also consider that many U.S. government websites are on .gov and .mil.  The Department of Defense, the Army, the Marines, the Air Force, and the Navy all use the .mil top-level domain. The CIA, the FBI, White House, and the Department of Homeland Security all use .gov. After the Internet Giveaway, ICANN is just required to give advanced notice if they won't be using those domain names anymore. There is no assurance that ICANN will indefinitely keep .gov, .mil, etc. If it isn't in the interest of the multi-stakeholder body that controls ICANN in the future, they could shut down these vital government websites of the U.S.

Also, what if someone was going to the IRS site and giving their own personal information ? Could they be assured that the information was secure? What if the destination was forwarded to a fake I.R.S. phishing scam website which made people think they were entering information into and paying the IRS but yet they were exposing their information and giving payments to a foreign entity? 

Wasserman Schultz is running for re-election in Florida's District 23. She won the Democratic nomination by a very narrow margin, just 7k votes in her primary. 21,000 District 23 Democratic Party Primary voters voted for her opponent Tim Canova. There are serious questions about her governance or representation. Was the DNC favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders and suppressed democracy or the will of the voters?  Also, how can she be trusted to lead the District, when she allowed the email hacking of the DNC?  How could she promote Obama's Iran Nuke deal when Iran constantly threatens the very existence of Israel and many of her constituents have ties to Israel?

Ways Voters Can Oppose the Internet Giveaway and Reclaim District 23:

​Call Debbie Wasserman Schultz and complain: (954) 437-3936​. Good luck though. Does she work more for Obama than the voters of District 23? Did she work more for Hillary Clinton than the DNC?

​An Option is to Vote Out Debbie Wasserman Schultz November 8th.

Voters can voice their opposition to actions like this by voting for Joe Kaufman, the GOP candidate opposing Wasserman Schultz in the November 8th election.  As Kaufman states, "My appeal to Bernie Sanders' voters is to vote their conscience and help me bring down the establishment, which Debbie represents. When I get to Washington, I will be the servant to all of my constituents, whether they are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or anything in between." Joe Kaufman is a big proponent of freedom of speech and he has a track record of using his speech and writings to warn of potential U.S. domestic terror groups. Joe Kaufman is a big proponent of the free market that exists on the Internet. 

​After the DNC scandal, will Debbie Wasserman Schultz be elected another 2 years for U.S. House of Representatives District 23?

Democratic Party voters on November 8th may just abstain from voting and not go to the polls.​ ​It has been incredibly heartbreaking to Bernie Sanders voters to see the DNC allegedly steered towards Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders during its primary process. 21,000 voters voted for Tim Canova who was Debbie Wasserman Schultz' primary opponent. One could suffice that many were disheartened or angry at Wasserman Schultz and made a protest vote in voting for Canova.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz still won her primary and is now facing GOP candidate Joe Kaufman November 8th. So much disillusionment was prevalent in the Democratic Party, because DNC was supposed to be non-biased-like the Internet governing body U.S. Chamber of Commerce is today...When the WikiLeaks dump was revealed to the public showing emails that were against Bernie Sanders while Debbie Wasserman Schultz was supervising, Wasserman Schultz had to quickly resign. However, right after her resignation, she was hired by Hillary Clinton for her campaign. There was a little bit of irony to Wasserman Schultz being hired right away by the Hillary campaign and it made people wonder where her loyalties and energy were all along.

Here are articles which discuss this great travesty of the Internet giveaway, and the news of this action could still reach a fever pitch in Washington before September 30th. Maybe then, the U.S. Congress would prevent the giveaway from happening.  The aim of fans of the Internet and freedom of speech would be that Congress at the least delays a transfer till after the elections or stops it completely.  Constitutionally, Congress has legislative power over U.S. property.

Unfortunately, major insiders like Google and Facebook are complacent with the idea of an Internet multi-stake holder model, they are supporting Obama's policy of a giveaway, and they do not seem interested in defending the overall concept of maintaining freedom of speech under U.S. authority. Perhaps they are complacent, having arrived at their own success of speech and influence already. Perhaps they are too confident in a multi-stakeholder model, and they doubt the threat of potential Internet censorship in the future.

​http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/14/stop-president-obamas-internet-giveaway/ 

​http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/245704-gop-cannot-give-in-to-obamas-great-internet-giveaway

http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/08/obamas-radical-proposal-could-result-in-censorship-online/​

For more information about this subject and to be updated, one can go to www.brightstarpac.net

Bright Star PAC is seeking donations on their website in order to get the word out about the lack of representation in District 23.  Any small donations help. 

One can also search for Congresspeople to talk to about this travesty by searching on this website below: 

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

Source: Bright Star Pac