ELDER PATRIOT – The establishment politicians can’t have it both ways. They’re either ignorant on too many issues or they’re intent on creating more confusion and anarchy. I don’t think they’re ignorant.
Last night’s debate provided a prime example of this when Donald Trump said he would shut down parts of the Internet in conducting the war on radical Islamists. The civil libertarians’ knee-jerk reaction was that this would violate First Amendment protections and privacy rights. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This was not the same as Chris Christie’s authoritarian seizure of the Internet.
Let’s start with the fact that the targets of Trump’s Internet strategy are not American citizens. They are Islamic extremists conducting an open war against the United States. They are not protected by the Constitution and those who seek to extend those protections have declared their allegiance to the enemy, at least on this issue.
So while the other candidates seemed intent on fighting a conventional war that necessitates the use of ground troops and that will result in American casualties, Trump is focused on shutting down the Islamists most productive tool for recruitment – the Internet.
This does not require any specialized technological knowledge. If Trump’s challengers don’t understand this they shouldn’t be on the stage with him.
All Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) are American owned. The explanation that follows will explain why Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to cede American ownership of the Internet to the United Nations.
Trump correctly states that the Internet is ours. Here’s how Trump’s strategy can be an important weapon in shutting down terrorist recruiting.
In order for any device to access the Internet it must be identifiable. This is done using each device’s unique IP address that allows for the identification of the device’s owner.
Shutting down terrorist recruiting websites once their IP addresses are known is that easy. If we want to get technical there are other means of communicating available to them to convey their messages but they are expensive and traceable.
Arguing against such a targeted attack to fight enemies of the state because of Constitutional protections is ridiculous and even akin to aiding and abetting the enemy. These aren’t U.S. citizens. If they were the N.S.A. would already be conducting this surveillance and maybe even using disruptive techniques against them as most writers for websites such as the one you’re reading can attest to.
Likewise, arguments that this strategy wouldn’t be 100% effective suggests we’re too stupid to understand disrupting supply lines is never the total solution but rather an important component to winning battles and wars. In this case shutting down 95% of their current recruitment channels makes overwhelming sense.
Why is Trump the only one making sense on this issue? Why are the other candidates lining up to engage in a half-hearted direct military conflict that will only ensure more U.S. casualties and greater riches for the military-industrial complex and the bankers that fund them?