President Obama Blames the Internet for the Rise of Trump – Technology Needs "More Control"

Screenshot of President Obama Listening while DiCaprio Calls for "Deniers" to be banned from public office.
Screenshot of President Obama Listening while DiCaprio Calls for “Deniers” to be banned from public office.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Breitbart – President Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel have jointly blamed the disruptive influence of the Internet for their political losses, and have demanded more government control of emerging technology.

Obama and Angela Merkel Blame Internet and Social Media for Disrupting Globalism

President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are blaming the internet for disrupting the forces of globalism, suggesting that technology is making it more difficult to unite people behind a common purpose.

“Because of the internet and communications, the clash of cultures is much more direct,” Obama said during a press conference on his trip to Berlin. “People feel, I think, less certain about their identity. Less certain about economic security.”

Obama predicted that the rise of technology needed to be managed to give world citizens more control, beyond the simplistic answers found online.

His German counterpart agreed.

“Digitization is a disruptive force, a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change, transformation of a society,” Merkel added.

She compared the internet to the invention of the printing press, citing the consequences it had on industrialized countries.

It took a while until societies learned how to find the right kind of policies to contain this and to manage and steer this,” she said.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/17/obama-angela-merkel-blame-internet-social-media-disrupting-globalism/

President Obama didn’t used to worry so much about the internet, back in the days when the internet helped Obama win office.

To his credit Obama also spent a fair part of his speech emphasising the importance of elections having integrity, of citizens being able to replace a government which was doing an unsatisfactory job – a right which has grown rather tenuous under the auspices of the authoritarian undemocratic European Union.

Why is this criticism of internet freedom relevant to WUWT?

Imagine if Climategate had occurred in the 1990s, or even the 1980s. Would we have ever heard about it? Most Mainstream Media didn’t start to cover Climategate until they had their noses rubbed in it, by rising awareness on non traditional news outlets.

Thanks to the Internet, the power to judge is placed into the hands of the people – even the Communist Chinese with their vast teams of internet censors have trouble controlling the flow of information.

Sure a lot of the information purveyed on the internet is nonsense – but the mainstream media also purveys a lot of nonsense. I have never seen compelling evidence that well paid mainstream media journalists are more careful about vetting the stories they publish than dedicated volunteers.

With unfiltered information from the internet at our fingertips, we have an opportunity to learn what is really happening in the world, beyond the control and social management of politicians like the Obamas and Merkels of the world.

To me, this unprecedented access to raw information is a freedom worth protecting. Because this window of freedom will potentially slam shut in the very near future, as the rise of artificial intelligence makes it increasingly possible to clamp down on the flow of information presented on the internet. For example, the climate fanatics at Google are working very hard on trying to filter search results according to their view of what constitutes the “truth”.

The following is the clip of President Obama and Merkel discussing the challenges posed by the Internet. The full original press conference is available here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
329 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Barry Sheridan
November 18, 2016 2:09 am

The EU has for some years acted to suppress and reverse any decision made by an electorate that is not in line with its agenda. This organisation is a dictatorial entity whose aims are to govern without reference to anyone but itself. In effect it already does, the result of this will be economic and social collapse and then civil unrest. It will not take much longer!

R. Shearer
Reply to  Barry Sheridan
November 18, 2016 5:24 pm

Ah, ah, ta express my opinion, ah, ah, lol.

Bryan A
Reply to  R. Shearer
November 19, 2016 11:47 am

It would appear that Obama’s chief complaint isn’t one of unprecedented access but rather one of unpresidented access

Jim Mayer
Reply to  Barry Sheridan
November 19, 2016 3:04 am

So President Obama Credits the Internet for the Rise of Trump, huh?
– Well, then by all means this Technology Needs to “Remain Freely Accessible”

Jim Mayer
Reply to  Jim Mayer
November 19, 2016 3:25 am

I wonder if these 2 smucks have any clue how irrelevant they’re about to become, parti-cularly Obama. Since he’s not going to be followed up by HRCriminal, but instead, one who’s gonna turbo charge a paper shredder, ala ‘Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor,’ & and run every one of those executive orders through it 10 minutes into his admin, & flush the paper scraps down the crapper, relegating BO to nothing more than a footnote in history. Or, for those of us who had to endure him, an 8yr-long case of heartburn.

Simon
November 18, 2016 2:12 am

Can you ever imagine Trump giving such a considered and eloquent speech?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 2:16 am

He doesn’t have to BS like these two. I saw it on the news just now, and quite frankly, it was a joke. You don’t seem to like democracy. Get used to it Simon, the war on climate is over.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 18, 2016 9:50 am

The war isn’t over, not by a long shot. CAGW has taken a body blow with Trump’s election, but it won’t mean a thing if we don’t press the opening relentlessly. They’re on the ropes; we need to keep hammering until the KO.

Simon
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 18, 2016 10:51 am

“Patrick MJD November 18, 2016 at 2:16 am
He doesn’t have to Trump would give a speech like this…. “I am going to make it terrific, no seriously it will be terrific” then I see why you don’t get Obama when he speaks.

jmorpuss
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 18, 2016 2:09 pm

Patrick MJD “You don’t seem to like democracy.”
People think that Democracy means freedom. The only freedom we get is on voting day, and even then we vote in the best liar, look how Trump is slowly going back on his promises. A good politician tells the people what they want to hear, not what’s really going on behind closed doors. I think people are confused to what the word Democracy really means. Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratia literally “rule of the commoners”), Don’t forget RULE means CONTROL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
The way to control a nation, is to control knowing or knowledge, “What they don’t know can’t hurt us” , And how can the common person ever predict the end game if all the peace’s of the puzzle aren’t available . 2009 Executive Order permitting retroactive classification[edit]
On December 29, 2009, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13526, which allows the government to classify certain specific types of information relevant to national security after it has been requested.[30] That is, a request for information that meets the criteria for availability under FOIA can still be denied if the government determines that the information should have been classified, and unavailable. It also sets a timeline for automatic declassification of old information that is not specifically identified as requiring continued secrecy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)
We should all hale the moderator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderator for controlling the information we receive .

Menicholas
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 18, 2016 3:08 pm

We have to have President Trump appoint a blue ribbon commission on climate information education.
It needs to focus on bringing factual information to the public.
Part of this could be forcing government paid climate scientists to publically defend their positions in a series of rigorous debates, which will cover everything from Aardvark to Zebra.
Another will be a public vetting of the alterations to the historical record, which those doing the altering being compelled to explain and defend every single change made.
Public service announcements should be mandated which give brief tutorials on various aspects of the alarmist positions…lets hear it debated why anyone should believe:
– sea level rise is accelerating
– Sea ice fluctuations are a problem for any person or animal
– Warming itself is a bad thing for life, for crops, for people, for anything at all
– CO2 is a pollutant, rather than the essential base of the entire biosphere and food chain
– Oceans are in danger of becoming acidic
– CO2 is the temperature control knob of the atmosphere
– It is warmer now than at various times in the past several thousand years
– GCMs are a valid way to predict the future of the Earth’s climate regimes
– We do not have to worry about global cooling and the possibility of a glacial advance worldwide
– CO2 fertilization is not very good news, which has greened the globe and allows plants, trees, and crops to grow and thrive under more arid conditions than previously was the case
– There is any chance at all of a temperature tipping point
– It is right to impoverish people based on a highly speculative idea that is looking increasingly far fetched and unlikely to be remotely true
– The scientific method should not apply to climate related studies
– So-called educators who scare children with horror stories should not be tarred and feathered…with hot tar
– There is anything unusual occurring with the weather
And everything else I may have forgotten to mention.
Once people have been educated, it will become impossible to revive this hoax, and attention will turned to a different type of climate justice…making those who have lined their pockets on this scam accountable for their thievery.
If all that is done is cancel some programs in the US, we will remain open to the possibility of the whole thing being revived in short order.
Everyone must know the truth, and that must be achieved in a orderly and systematic way, and it must be done right away.
Anyone like this idea?

Reply to  Menicholas
November 18, 2016 5:07 pm

Menicholas,
“And everything else I may have forgotten to mention.”
While these are all good things, the problem will not go away permanently until 2 things happen. First, the science must be correctly settled and second, politics must be removed from the science. If the broken science of climate alarmism isn’t corrected (including the disinformation in many text books at all educational levels), there will be undercurrent of warmist noise against the new legislative normal and the next time power shifts, any gains made now will be undone, especially if the rest of the world doesn’t come to their senses.
Settling the science should be relatively easy if you limit the discussions to known, first principles physics. When you run out of known physics, see how far away you are from reality to determine if anything else needs to be explained. You will find that even mapping the system to a simple gray body model whose temperature is the surface temperature and whose emissivity is about 0.61, little else needs to be explained, moreover; satellite data confirms that this relationship tracks across the entire range of temperatures found on the surface and emissions into space. The sensitivity of this model is deterministic at about 0.3 C per W/m^2 and well below the IPCC lower limit of 0.4C per W/m^2. The ‘settled’ sensitivity of a gray body is, 1/4eoT^3, where e is its emissivity and o is the SB constant. Note that even at an emissivity of .000001, the sensitivity is still a function of 1/T^3 which always decreases as T increases.
NO KNOWN PHYSICS CAN MODIFY THE 1/T^3 DEPENDENCY. Modifying this dependency from being proportional to 1/T^3 to being proportional to T^n, where n >= 1 is the only way to support a sensitivity as high as claimed and this is indisputably impossible.
Most of what’s unsettled about climate science are the consequence of the many uncertainties and excess complexity added to provide the wiggle room required to support the hypothesized sensitivity whose most significant precondition was that it be high enough to justify the formation of the IPCC. Unfortunately, this precondition is incompatible with the condition that the presumed sensitivity actually be physically realizable.

Menicholas
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 18, 2016 3:09 pm

mods, can you check for my post?
Thanks.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 18, 2016 4:09 pm

Suckers are still buying “considered” (thoughtful expression) and “eloquent” (basic speech skills) as being the qualifying traits of a president.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 18, 2016 5:22 pm

@ Menicholas…fully agree with your sentiment, and your list of information which the public should be exposed to in greater detail.

Simon
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 18, 2016 8:38 pm

Menicholas November 18, 2016 at 3:08 pm
“Part of this could be forcing government paid climate scientists to publically defend their positions in a series of rigorous debates, which will cover everything from Aardvark to Zebra.”
Ludicrous idea. They are scientists they are not known for their debating skills. They are completely different concepts. Monckton is a fine example of why this idea has no merit. He is an excellent debater, one who sounds convincing and real, but when you look at his ideas one by one, they are flawed. Anyway, don’t be lazy, the information is all there for you to read.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 19, 2016 12:05 am

“jmorpuss November 18, 2016 at 2:09 pm
Patrick MJD “You don’t seem to like democracy.”
People think that Democracy means freedom. The only freedom we get is on voting day,…”
I never said freedom. But I totally agree with you, 1 day’s worth of freedom.

BiggerBrat
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 19, 2016 2:36 am

[snip policy violations lose the ugly language and labels – mod]

BiggerBrat
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 19, 2016 2:39 am

[snip policy violations lose the ugly language and labels – mod]

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 19, 2016 5:49 am

We live in a Representative, Constitutional REPUBLIC., not a Democracy. That’s why the Founding Fathers instituted, amongst other things, the Electoral College, to give equal representation to ALL. Just sayin’

Santa Baby
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 19, 2016 9:35 pm

The leftist politicized environment and climate science and made them into another victim group and are using those to promote leftist policy and agendas. The war is against policy based science. And as long as there are leftists this will never end.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 20, 2016 1:39 pm

Menicholas–i like your idea just fine! Thanks.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 20, 2016 4:01 pm

co2isnotevil ,
For a gray , ie : flat spectrum , ie : absorptivity = emissivity = constant the ae drops out of the equation and the temperature is the same as the “black” body temperature determined by the total energy impinging on the body , ie : the StefanBoltzman calculated temperature . Thus we can say the gray body temperature in our orbit is about 278.6 +- 2.3 from peri- to ap- helion . The effect of non flat spectra are orthogonal to that .
Do we agree on that bit of physics which goes back to Ritchie’s 1830s experiment ?
Secondly , could you point us to a derivation of the T^3 relationship you assert ? Are you simply taking the reciprocal of the derivative of the SB equation ? So that’s the definition of sensitivity ?

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
November 20, 2016 4:30 pm

Bob,
Yes, the slope of the SB relationship is the exact sensitivity of either a black body or a gray body and given by 1/4eoT^3, where e is the emissivity and o is the SB constant. In LTE, emissions == absorption, thus increasing absorption by 1 W/m^2 requires an equivalent increase in emissions of 1 W/m^2. Also, the specific spectral properties are irrelevant when we are talking about EQUIVALENT temperatures where the EQUIVALENT temperature is just the inverse of the SB law applied to total emissions. It’s joules that matter, not where in the spectrum those joules are, except to the extent that the energy of each individual photon is proportional to its frequency, moreover; the spectrum of energy emitted by the planet is rarely attenuated by more than 3 DB over what it would be without atmospheric absorption.
Note too that the equivalent gray body temperature of the planet is both the average temperature of the surface and the color temperature of the planets emissions, that is, the temperature corresponding to the peak emission wavelength. In fact, the satellite sensors are tuned to a transparent band in the atmosphere and what the sensors voltage is proportional to is the color temperature of the radiation.
At this point, it’s important to recognize the the gray body model of the planet is the combination of a black body emitter model of the surface and a gray body absorber model of the atmosphere. The combination has the equivalent behavior of a gray body emitter. I’ve shown the plot of satellite data that confirms that the planet obeys this relationship a few times before, but here it is again,
http://www.palisad.com/co2/tp/fig1.png
The green line is the SB relationship for an emissivity of 0.62. Each little red dot is the average of 1 month of satellite data (3 decades of data from GISS!) where the surface temperature is plotted against the planet emissions for constant yearly insolation slices of the planet (2.5 degree wide slices of latitude). There can be absolutely no doubt that the planet looks relatively close to an ideal gray body from space, thus its sensitivity must correspond to the data. All the data is plotted to scale along with the ‘consensus’ sensitivity. As you can see, the consensus sensitivity seems to represent a slope passing through zero, rather than a slope tangent to the SB relationship at the operating point of the planet.
If you want to trace this back to Riche, you could do that as it was he who noticed that black bodies even exist, but the actual physics came later in the century. None the less, this is the consequence of long settled physics.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 20, 2016 5:34 pm

I think it important to get terminology agreed .
Do you disagree with anything http://cosy.com/Science/RadiativeBalanceGraphSummary.html ? There is really only one equation : the ratio of dot products of spectra times the gray body temperature . I believe what you refer to as emissivity is actually that ratio . I’m not even considering separate layers of the surface of the “heated” body — just it’s absorptivity(=emissivity) spectrum as seen by the source .
If this experimentally testable billiard ball under a sunlamp problem is not well understood and agreed upon there is no hope for convergence on any more elaborated model .
I still don’t understand what the reciprocal of the slope gives you . If you wanted to talk about the 2nd derivative , that I could .
Also , where is the mean of the planet 255K ? Where does it decrease from the 279 gray body temperature in our orbit ?

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
November 20, 2016 6:04 pm

Bob,
The BB emissions of the planet have an EQUIVALENT temperature of 255K. That is, an ideal BB at 255K would emit the same amount of energy as Earth, albeit with slightly different spectral properties. However; if you examine the spectrum, the temperature of the emitter itself based on where the peak emission are (Wein’s displacement law) is about 288K (the temperature of the surface and color temperature of the planets emissions). What makes the emissions gray is spectral attenuation.
The slope of the SB relationship is dE/dT, which is energy as a function of temperature. We really want the slope of temperature as a function of energy, dT/dE, since that has the same units as the sensitivity, which is really just the reciprocal of dE/dT. You can get the same result by differentiating T = (E/eo)^-25 and then substituting eoT^4 for E.
Regarding your link, the only thing I would quibble about is the importance of the spectrum itself relative to the ability to calculate an energy balance. Joules are joules and its joules that must be balanced.
Venus can be better understood by considering that it’s solid surface has more in common with the solid surface of Earth beneath the oceans than with the virtual surface of Earth whose temperature we care about. Neither is in direct equilibrium with the Sun, neither exhibits diurnal or seasonal variability and the mass of Earth’s oceans is the same order of magnitude as the mass of the Venusian atmosphere. You can consider the virtual surface of Venus to be the cloud tops that are in direct equilibrium with the Sun and like the temperature of Earth’s solid surface below the oceans is a function of the PVT profile of the H2O ocean above, the temperature of the solid surface of Venus below its CO2 ocean is similarly determined.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 24, 2016 11:32 am

Sorry to be so long replying . HTG BTW .
WRT the meaning of the reciprocal , all I can say is a self directed “doh” .
I’d drop the first “BB” from your first sentence because the 255K claimed is the BB temperature given by SB to the integral of some measured mean spectrum for the Earth as seen from the outside .
As an APL programmer and implementer ( check out CoSy ) capable of expressing even spectral maps over the sphere in a line or two . I want to know the real measured spectra and how they are measured ( which seems a , to put it mildly , non-trivial task ) from which I — or anyone with these essential algorithms — can calculate the temperature themselves and stop this endless parroting of the 255K meme disconnected from available measurement .
I think it a hallmark of this historic fraud that NO source is available on the web which goes thru these most basic measurements and the computations performed upon them and the >century old reasoning ( theory ) behind those algorithms .
WRT the computations at http://cosy.com/Science/RadiativeBalanceGraphSummary.html , ” Joules are joules and its joules that must be balanced” is what my ratio of dot products presented there does . It takes the Sun’s power spectrum ( approximated by the Planck function ) weighted by the portion of the celestial sphere it subtends , and weights each wavelength by a few hypothetical ae spectra for the earth including the step function ae spectrum which produces the 255K meme . Give me an actual spectrum and I’ll give you the equivalent BB temperature .
A clever YouTube demonstration of this basic equation would be a tremendous step towards returning this stagnant nonscience to the standards of other branches of analytical quantitative applied physics . I will repeat my contention that it is a rare “climate scientist” who even knows how to calculate the mean temperature of a billiard ball under a sun lamp .
WRT Venus : I think we are on the same diamond . What I would point out is that the force which causes the P which “stabilizes” the PVT profile is gravity . It is that energy which must be accounted for up to the effective “radiative surface” ( which is wavelength dependent ) . It is that energy which an increasing number of individuals are recognizing is inexcusably left out of the GHG equations which is the reason why the bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops .
And in the case of Earth , it is gravity , not some GHG spectral effect which must explain the 33K difference between the ( accepting the 255K approximation ) radiative balance of the planet with the outside and our surface — because no symmetric electromagnetic effect ( stack of filters ) can “trap” energy . And the Divergence Theorem insists the mean internal energy density equals that of the surface .
This too can be put to YouTube experimental test .

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
November 25, 2016 12:52 pm

Here is a link to a measured spectrum. It looks very close to the spectrum I calculate with my model. You should notice that the attenuation in absorption bands is generally no more than 50% of what it would be otherwise, despite nearly 100% absorption of surface emissions. These emissions can only originate from GHG’s re-emitting absorbed energy when we are looking at clear sky emissions since O2 and N2 do not radiate any energy.
It’s also a little misleading showing this as a linear function of the wavenumber, because it over-emphasizes the region below 12u. If you plot this as output per unit wavelength, the peak moves to about 10u. The wavelength scale along the top is misrepresentative since the spectrum power is expressed per unit wavenumber not per unit wavelength. When plotted as power per unit wavelength, the plot looks much different with the peak appearing at about 10u with the lower energy tail at higher wavelengths being significantly reduced. It’s quite invalid to use both scales in one plot. When plotted as energy per unit wavenumber, the effects of CO2 and H2O absorption get exaggerated which is why this is the preferred presentation. If you project where the peak is (the color temperature of the emissions), it corresponds to the surface temperature.
To illustrate why the wavelength scale is invalid, consider the 280K line. From Wein’s Displacement Law, the peak wavelength should be at 10u, not 18u as this plot suggests. The most representative way to plot is this is as energy per proportional bandwidth which will produce a result somewhere in the middle.
The primary IR sensors for weather satellites are only sensitivity between 8u and 9u and/or between 11u and 12um and do not capture energy in absorption bands. The only exception is the water vapor channel which is tuned to a specific H2O absorption band so the water vapor concentration can be measured.
https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+emission+spectrum&client=ubuntu&hs=l3i&channel=fs&tbm=isch&imgil=hWatm5-N1I5i_M%253A%253BC0Dhui5xaMitQM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.acs.org%25252Fcontent%25252Facs%25252Fen%25252Fclimatescience%25252Fatmosphericwarming%25252Fearthatmosphere.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=hWatm5-N1I5i_M%253A%252CC0Dhui5xaMitQM%252C_&usg=__q6P0tIDcMf27YXFK7qot1tXwn9w%3D&biw=1422&bih=732&ved=0ahUKEwjmociVz8TQAhXHr1QKHRxVC-EQyjcILA&ei=3Y04WKa_Isff0gKcqq2IDg#imgrc=-Y5FHJotLFML7M%3A

ClimateOtter
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 2:17 am

If you are referring to oh!bummer and merkel, you forgot your /SARC! tag.

skorrent1
Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 18, 2016 9:42 am

Cut BHO some slack. He didn’t have his trusty teleprompter, so he had to think, hard, for each word. He even wound up saying that the young’uns, who are out in the streets raising hell, are more “accepting” of “diversity”. It is to laugh!

TerryS
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 2:18 am

Can you imagine the howls of 3rd Reich, censorship, 1st amendment violation, oppressing any opposition, dictatorship etc from the MSM if Trump had given any part of the speech?

Le Roy
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 2:22 am

Obama talks the talk and he talks the talk then he talks the talk and he talks…………….sigh

Stephen
Reply to  Le Roy
November 18, 2016 3:30 am

Thank the Lord that the American people saw through the Hillary and no reelection for the Dems or we would soon have been under the cosh of a totalitarian society as obarmy has indicated, I have always called him the windbag of Washington, thank god for trump, and I am borne English.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Le Roy
November 18, 2016 10:49 am

Yes, but he also gave the ICANN authority to the UN.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Le Roy
November 19, 2016 1:15 am

The thing Obama and Merkel should have emphasised is:
In accordance with Universal Declaration Human Rights:
“Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Period!

Khwarizmi
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 2:25 am

Can you imagine Obama being as brutally honest as Trump?
To be honest, I didn’t listen to Obama, in case he said “workin’ folks” or “workin’ families” again in his pseudo-folksy manner.
Trump doesn’t like teleprompters or scripts.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Khwarizmi
November 18, 2016 7:41 am

Come owwwnn, maaan!

AndyG55
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 2:52 am

You mean such a SLIMY LOSER speech !! right Slimon?

Tim Hammond
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 4:18 am

No, but since the eloquence is in the service of nonsense, and the consideration is given by two people who can only think in one way, what’s the value of consideration and eloquence.
Obama, Merkel and others are finally being judged on what they have done rather than their fine words – Merkel has presided over mass poverty and unemployment in Greece – so what’s worse, making hundreds of thousands needlessly poor or making bad speeches?

george e. smith
Reply to  Tim Hammond
November 18, 2016 12:32 pm

How Merkel ruin Greece ?
Now Beethoven did write a ” Ruins of Athens. ” overture. Very nice, but he did not ruin Greece either.
I think there are people living in Greece for a long time.
Maybe some of them know who ruin Greece.
G

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  Tim Hammond
November 19, 2016 5:56 am

Can we find away to arrest PUPPET MASTER, GEORGE SOROS who backs Alinski-Created Useful Idiots?

Menicholas
Reply to  Tim Hammond
November 19, 2016 6:49 pm

I hear tell Putin has issued an arrest warrant for Soros.
Not sure if this is true, but maybe we can negotiate an extradition treaty with Russia?

Phill
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 4:27 am

How’s the labotomy going?

MarkW
Reply to  Phill
November 18, 2016 9:14 am

He’s having his lab surgically removed?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Phill
November 18, 2016 1:04 pm

Or was that labia?

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 4:33 am

Can you ever imagine Trump giving such a considered and eloquent speech?.
It was too wonderful. (I was waiting for the part where they said we have to burn freedom in order to save it.)

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 18, 2016 8:14 pm

obummer is an idiot

Latitude
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 5:57 am

Can you ever imagine Trump giving such a considered and eloquent speech?
==
No, thank God….Trump can’t lie with a straight face like that
BTW….Wordpress is censoring….blocking links to Breit Bart

Monna Manhas
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 7:07 am

As a Canadian, I have observed that Americans generally admire “speechifying” – the more eloquent (and long-winded), the better. Canadians are generally more impressed with debating skills.
Myself, I’d rather have good, solid content than lots of words, no matter how elegantly crafted.

Phil R
Reply to  Monna Manhas
November 18, 2016 10:40 am

Monna,
Not Canadian, but agree with your comment. Unfortunately, for the prog-left, they don’t need debating skills or “speechifying” when they can attack, demonize, and marginalize people they disagree with by calling them uneducated, white-privileged racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, homoxenophobes, xenohomophobes, misogynists, and whatever other victim-hood theory epithets they imagine into being,

Steve R
Reply to  Monna Manhas
November 18, 2016 11:19 am

I dont think Americans admire “speechifying” windbags any more than Canadians do. Its nust a whole lot more difficult to know that because American media has no connection with American people.

Reply to  Monna Manhas
November 18, 2016 1:04 pm

Monna Manhas: I’m American, and I completely agree with you! Obama’s speeches almost never really say anything! Even the beginning of this one he starts off saying people think he’s done a good job. Well, his popularity evidently has nothing to do with his job performance because our country’s in a heap of trouble right now. What the America really thinks, however much they like Obama’s personality, is demonstrated in the resounding loss by Hillary Clinton who was going to give us more of what we got the last eight years.

Janus100
Reply to  Monna Manhas
November 18, 2016 3:00 pm

So, you did not vote for Justin, I suppose…

Menicholas
Reply to  Monna Manhas
November 18, 2016 3:12 pm

The latest is the crime of being white and a nationalist.
And where the hell did the alt right materialize into existence from?

Menicholas
Reply to  Monna Manhas
November 19, 2016 7:05 pm

While Obama was busy being so wildly popular, his party lost power at the local, state, and federal level in every election but one since he took office.
And the loss of support for his party has been nothing short of historic.
Republicans now hold more power at the federal level than at any time since at least 1928, and when you look at the state level, it is oven more striking…only four states out of fifty are controlled by the Democrats.
Republicans have complete control of executive and both legislative branches in 26 states, have 34 of 50 governorships, and control 66 of 99 state legislative houses.
Since 2008, the Democrats under Pelosi and Reid and Obama have been soundly rejected and turned out of office in huge numbers.
2018 looks to be another very bad year for the Democrats, with 25 democrat senators up for re-election, a large number of them in states that Trump just won or almost won. Republicans are only at risk in perhaps 4 seats that year.

Reply to  Menicholas
November 19, 2016 7:20 pm

The middle is moving towards the right leaving only the most ideologically committed staying with the left, which is moving the left further left driving more of the left leaning middle to the right.
This is another example of the ‘zero sum’ kind of positive feedback that describes the climate system. There’s only so many voters, just as there are only so many joules. It’s not an example of the power gain feedback used to describe the climate which would require an exponentially increasing supply of voters.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 7:29 am

Once again the forces of the left define smart as whatever they agree with.
Have you ever heard Obama when he isn’t reading words someone else wrote for him.

Phil R
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 10:47 am

MarkW,

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

William F. Buckley Jr.

Menicholas
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 3:14 pm

I ha…ha…ha…have a few t t t t t t t times, just not v v v v v v v very recently.

Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 7:35 am

Can you imagine those who are fighting for freedom think lies are truth when dressed up fancy suits and speeches?

stock
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 9:50 am

I hope you are being sarcastic??

William Sweeney
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 11:33 am

Obama reads well. When there is no teleprompter, he’s horrible.

george e. smith
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 11:58 am

What ” Eloquent ” speech are you talking about ??
You can tell from Obama’s tennis neck motions, that he is simply reading the drivel that somebody else put on his stereo tele-prompters !
When he doesn’t have his ” Here; say this ! ” machine, he has to be carful not to trip over his own tongue.
He is not capable of giving an eloquent speech, even if he could write one .
G

Mindy Morken
Reply to  george e. smith
November 21, 2016 5:56 pm

I’ve been saying for 8 or 9 years now (almost 10!) that the O’Bama’s speeches are not much other than a litany of trite bromides strung loosely together with non-sequiturs. Generally vapid, vacuous and shallow, they are cringe-worthy exhibitions of the pompous yet jejune thought processes of a callow pseudo-intellectual.
If you can overlook that, and the finger-wagging tone, I guess they’re OK.

brians356
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 1:40 pm

No, thank God!
If what you most need from a President is eloquent speech, you had all the soporific you could eat for eight years. Lisping, thoughtful, measured droning, laced with frequent “Ahhh ….”. A few peeks behind the facade, like “Navy corpse-man” and “We’ve been in, what, fifty-seven states?”
Now it’s time for a man of action and blunt talk, who recognizes that AGW is a “hoax”, at the bully pulpit. Think TR rather than FDR.

Reply to  brians356
November 21, 2016 10:52 am

Don’t forget – he sees dead people too (5/27/2008): ” On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in…in the audience here today”

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Simon
November 18, 2016 5:05 pm

Never seen his struggle as badly as this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I4Jsf9IwoQ
If Trump has Obama’s speechwriters and reads from the teleprompter, of course he can give what you call a “considered and eloquent speech.”

ANGEL OF REALITY
Reply to  Simon
November 19, 2016 2:03 am

[snip policy violations lose the ugly language and labels – mod]

J.H.
Reply to  Simon
November 19, 2016 7:45 am

But he isn’t. He said nothing considered or eloquent. He spent a huge amount of time telling us the internet needs censoring because Government can’t control it…. The rest is just waffle.

Reply to  Simon
November 19, 2016 9:01 am

Siskle and Ebert, give it tw thumbs up.

Reply to  Simon
November 19, 2016 12:13 pm

Eloquent in the ears of the beholder. Thank God, there are few speech’s left. Then we can get on with creating jobs and eliminate unnecessary spending.

November 18, 2016 2:14 am

“Imagine if Climategate had occurred in the 1990s, or even the 1980s.”
Rather difficult to hack Gb of emails then.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2016 2:18 am

IBM had an e-mail system in the 80’s.

ClimateOtter
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2016 2:18 am

More than likely, nick, it would have been the whistleblower carting off box after box of photocopied memos.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 18, 2016 7:23 am

Quite right. The Norfolk Police and Scotland yard could find no evidence of hacking, despite their extensive and prolonged investigations. Everything pointed to an internal whistle-blower. Even if it was hacking, that doesn’t change the shocking content of what was revealed, and what SHOULD have been the final nail in the coffin of the AGW scam.

TerryS
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2016 2:20 am

I was using email in a University in the 1980s

Reply to  TerryS
November 18, 2016 2:36 am

Yes, at 1200 baud. But how to hack without an internet?
I was using email too. Overnight to UK.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  TerryS
November 18, 2016 2:55 am

Any electronic data can be “hacked”, don’t need the internet for that. The internet just makes it easier to do and disseminate as clearly evidenced by “Climate Gate”.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  TerryS
November 18, 2016 2:56 am

1200 baud? LOL That’s fast!

TerryS
Reply to  TerryS
November 18, 2016 3:15 am

In the early to mid 1980s the UK University backbone operated at 2Mb/s. Local networks operated at 10Mb/s.
The original climategate release was 64936854 bytes long. At 2Mb/s it would take less than 5 minutes to download. It would take a local user less than 30 seconds.
You are doing what many people do and conflating the advent of the World Wide Web with the Internet. The Internet was around long before that and operating at fairly decent speeds.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  TerryS
November 18, 2016 3:29 am

I don’t think Nick knows what “internet” means.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  TerryS
November 18, 2016 3:33 am

“Nick Stokes November 18, 2016 at 2:36 am
…without an internet?”
Did you really say that? Hey, 2 PC’s connected together with, say a “cable”, is *an* internet!

Reply to  TerryS
November 18, 2016 5:06 am

… 2 PC’s connected together with, say a “cable”, is *an* internet!

That would be an ‘intranet’.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  TerryS
November 18, 2016 6:07 am

The US Department of Defense awarded contracts as early as the 1960s for packet network systems, including the development of the ARPANET.

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  TerryS
November 18, 2016 10:06 am

Nick
Coming to the UK? Are you doing a tour like Anthony a year or so ago? Will you be visiting the Met Office? Will all your British friends have a chance to meet up over a nice cup of tea and a crumpet? (other bread products are available)
tonyb

Patrick MJD
Reply to  TerryS
November 19, 2016 12:17 am

“Greg F November 18, 2016 at 5:06 am”
Actually, I was wrong. INTERNET is computer *NETWORKS* inter-connected, the bit I got wrong. With my experience, I am embarrassed to have posted that LOL. Well, everyone can make a mistake, as the DALEK crawled off of a dustbin!

garymount
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2016 4:18 am

I recently archived an article from my Simon Fraser University news paper from when I was taking some more computer science courses : Titled The Age of e-mail
https://garymount.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/1994-email-article/

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2016 6:26 am

Imagine if Climategate had occurred in the 1990s, or even the 1980s.

This statement was about the technical details of climategate; it was about the scandalous malfeasance it represented, and about whether or not the means of communication then available would have favoured suppression or exposure to the general public.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2016 6:27 am

correction: was NOT about …

MarkW
Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 18, 2016 7:32 am

The point is that without the reach of the internet, nobody would have ever heard of ClimateGate.
The MSM would not have covered it. Just as they have yet to cover it.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2016 7:32 am

Something like Climategate almost certainly happens quite often – it’s just that before the internet none of us knew anything about it.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2016 8:34 am

lol “hacked”
Nick still sticking to the party line that Climategate was the result of a thief and not a whistleblower! It’s because of the power of the internet to no longer allows gatekeepers to control the message that your comment seems doubly ridiculous in this context.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave in Canmore
November 18, 2016 9:16 am

Hacked or leaked, the data is still the same.

oeman50
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2016 10:45 am

We had to wait for Algore to invent the internet, which then allowed Climategate to happen. So one of the biggest negative revelations of the politics behind CAGW was due to the invention of one of the proponents of CAGW. Makes my head hurt.

Roy
Reply to  oeman50
November 19, 2016 3:33 am

Apart from having being a distinguished politician in his earlier career, Al Gore is one of the greatest scientists of all time. After all, where do you think the term “algorithm” comes from?

george e. smith
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2016 12:25 pm

Well there wouldn’t even have been Gb of data to hack. And the 1980’s and the 1989’s were quite different.
I seem to recall using something called a type 103 modem, in a “Personal Electronic Messaging” system that I was designing for a startup company; circa 1981 or 82. It contained a strip printer like is in modern cash register strip printers, that print on about three inch wide paper, dot matrix. There was a one line 12 character LED display to see what you were typing on the built in keyboard.
So I think the 103 was 300 baud. We actually sold a couple of hundred of those things, to people who could only talk to each other, so they had to know somebody else who had one.
It was a good idea at the time; but it clearly was not the right idea. The company did not survive for very long. I think I still have a founder stock certificate (real one) for 600,000 shares, that cost a whole penny per share.
No it wasn’t my idea, but I had to design something to carry out this other chap’s idea.
G

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  george e. smith
November 19, 2016 6:16 am

I remember NETSCAPE was the first viable browser, who lost market share to Explorer in the first Browser War. I also remember the long distance telephone charges from AOL and slow as hell 14.4 connectivity. Man I am older than dirt!!

Reply to  george e. smith
November 21, 2016 5:16 pm

Likely. I had a 300 baud modem (acoustic coupler!) in the mid 80s for use with on-line services sold by The Source and I was a BBS operator a few years later. I remember when AoL was Apple on-line ;).

Reply to  cdquarles
November 29, 2016 11:17 am

Apple was late to the Internet. Both they and Microsoft tried to create their own BBS service to compete. Apples was called EarthLink. Apple Finally caved in the late 90s.

November 18, 2016 2:18 am

@ Barry Sheridan – I could not agree more. The EU started as a common trading platform but has now morphed into a dictatorial State with unelected Commissioners setting the agenda.
However, change is coming and I also agree that this change could be quite swift. There is a Referendum of sorts in Italy that will be a good indicator.
http://time.com/4547342/italy-referendum-renzi-campaign-brexit-trump-populist/
And then both Merkel and Hollande are up for re-election in 2017. It is going to be an interesting 12 months!

urederra
Reply to  Darcydog
November 18, 2016 3:53 am

No worries, our unelected president of the EU, Jean-Claude Juncker has already spoken to leaders of other planets to solve the problem, whatever the problem is.

Reply to  urederra
November 18, 2016 4:17 am

Yes! – Thanks urederra LOL!!! – I have seen this before – but very much worth another look! IMO…..

jones
Reply to  urederra
November 18, 2016 5:40 am

He’d hit the Vladivar a bit harder than usual that week.

Tim Hammond
Reply to  Darcydog
November 18, 2016 4:23 am

No it did not. The original European Coal and Steel Community was explicitly set up for political, not economic reasons. Its founders stated that the community was set up to stop war though “regional integration”. It also had as its aim the taming of markets and nationalism – which the French blamed for WWII.
The whole point was to move to an organisation of technocrats because the people could not be trusted not to vote for people like Hitler – democracy was to bypassed and everything run by experts.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Tim Hammond
November 18, 2016 5:44 pm

I think there must be an incongruity. Surely, you must mean “the people could not be trusted to vote FOR people like Hitler–democracy was to be bypassed and everything run by experts.” That would be internally consistent. Who needs Hitler, when you can have your fascism by remote control?

Pumpsump
November 18, 2016 2:20 am

Is it any wonder that Trump was able to win an election despite being the underdog? I don’t number as one of his supporters but the increasingly blatant methods of those who hold power and seek to reinforce their position appears to be rousing opposition to it and (just) enough previously complicit Liberals (proper Liberals that is) have turned their backs on their leaders in distaste.

Menicholas
Reply to  Pumpsump
November 18, 2016 3:20 pm

They forgot to cheat big enough this time, was what it was.
They misunderestimated the amount Trump was going to crush her by.
Turns out 3-5 million fake votes was not enough.

MarkG
Reply to  Menicholas
November 18, 2016 8:39 pm

Not really true. The problem they had was that the easiest places for them to fake votes were the ones where Clinton was going to win anyway.
Hence all the kerfuffle about ‘the popular vote’, while she lost the actual election. She could get millions of fake or illegal votes in California, but they made no difference.

John G.
Reply to  Menicholas
November 19, 2016 7:48 am

That’s why they were going to all that trouble to move the illegals all around the country . . . too little and too late but wait ’til next time.

November 18, 2016 2:22 am

President Obama and Merkel Call for More Internet Controls
Censorship
To stupid to realise that they are extinct

mountainape5
November 18, 2016 2:23 am

Yes Obama, we need a government to give us the “right” answers online. How about get over your self, clown!

Martin Moffit
Reply to  mountainape5
November 18, 2016 9:28 am

It’s pure leftist doublespeak. We need to restrict something so the people have more control. War is love. Next would come the Ministry of Truth. Thank goodness they’re out of power for the time being.

Joel O'Bryan
November 18, 2016 2:23 am

Remember, this is also the man who pledged to have “the most transparent administration ever.” Something completely within his control, and he did the exact opposite. Obama speaks with “Forked Tongue.”
. (a term from the 18th and 19th centuries when Native American tribes came to realize US govt officials signed treaties with them they never intended to keep and actually did the exact opposite once the indians gave up their lands & freedoms.)
The key reason Obama allowed ICANN to go private was to remove US 1st Amendment Free Speech guarantees from the global internet. Eventually ICANN will come under the UN. Then those web sites that committ “crimes against humanity,” such as climate skeptics, can be silenced.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 18, 2016 1:27 pm

How hard would it be to set up another internet system?

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 18, 2016 1:45 pm

How hard would it be to set up another internet system?
Trivial. You don’t even need a new physical infrastructure. A VPN is essentially an invitation only network separate and distinct from the actual Internet.

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 21, 2016 5:21 pm

Not hard at all. The protocols are open. If TPTB tried it, people would work around the mess in a matter of hours.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 18, 2016 2:04 pm

United Nations has already demonstrated that it is susceptible to discrimination based on opinions:
Tell the UN to stop blacklisting our journalists!
Totally in breach with The Human Rights:
“Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
And totally in breach with the Preamble:
“Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”
Which actualize a few quotes:
“The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
— Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961
“The Utopian attempt to realize an ideal state, using a blueprint of society as a whole, is one which demands a strong centralized rule of a few, and which is therefore likely to lead to a dictatorship.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
“It can’t happen here” is always wrong: a dictatorship can happen anywhere.”
― Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography
“Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power.”
– Bertrand Russell
United Nations is a dangerous construction.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Science or Fiction
November 18, 2016 6:06 pm

Why is Ban Ki-Moon silent, when Obama and Merkel speak against basic Human Rights?

Green Sand
November 18, 2016 2:24 am

The distinctive MO of a failed politician – find fault in anything, anybody, but yourself. Begone yesterday’s man, come January we will witness the end of an error!

CodeTech
November 18, 2016 2:24 am

This is more ominous than almost anything I’ve yet heard. They’re no longer even pretending to be anything other than totalitarians.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  CodeTech
November 18, 2016 2:38 am

They talk as if they won the election and there are enough people left on their side to vote for communistic strangulation of their own online freedoms. That’s just full-stupid right there. Send ’em to North Korea – and anyone else that like their proposal.

Warren Latham
November 18, 2016 2:27 am

Thanks Eric. Good to get information like that so quickly.
Here is another “speech” but this one is rather special by Senator Malcolm Roberts (Aus)..
It is his maiden speech in the Australian senate. It is wonderful.
[duration is 24m-44sec.]
He rips into the Australian eco-tards, corrupted taxation system and rips into the so-called United Nations.
I know you will have witnessed it of course but THIS speech really needs to be seen and heard by every person in the world (this world, not the imaginary second or fifth one).
Senator Roberts is a breath of fresh air. He ought to be the man in charge of Australian government so that all the damage (caused by the eco-tards) can be repaired.
Regards,
WL
https://youtu.be/SnR-ITb3CnM

Hivemind
November 18, 2016 2:32 am

Think of the Great Firewall of China if you want to see an example of where this would go. It isn’t just China, either. Many Arab countries run their own firewalls too.

Warren Latham
November 18, 2016 2:35 am

… and this other “speech” (attached here below) is also rather wonderful in its’ way …
PS: observe the credits at the end: marvellous stuff !
Regards,
WL
https://youtu.be/4kib9asbp6s

Jimmy Haigh
Reply to  Warren Latham
November 18, 2016 2:49 am

Someone must have done one recording the moment that he was told that Trump had won the election.

Jimmy Haigh
November 18, 2016 2:41 am

Everyone is to blame – except them – and their lunatic policies.
And everyone says that Obama is a great orator? What??? As soon as he opens his mouth I have to switch off.

graphicconception
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
November 18, 2016 6:50 am

I started watching the clip but found it hard-going and stopped it playing. The answers clearly were not on a tele-prompter.

AndyG55
November 18, 2016 2:50 am

You are next Merkey.. Germany needs a good drain clean.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  AndyG55
November 18, 2016 7:43 am

She knows it’s coming. No longer can you rely on her pet poodles in the press to spin the election discussion so the public are fed the lie that democracy is a choice between two establishment parties with almost the same policies telling the public that there is no other way.

gnomish
November 18, 2016 2:53 am

the emperor blames the optometrist for his wardrobe malfunction, right?

M Seward
November 18, 2016 3:01 am

What a pair of slithering whingers. I do not think there are two leaders since the likes of Neville Chamberlain who have made such massive blunders in reading the the way the world actually works.
Obama decided he could just do a Pontius Pilate on difficult realities in the middle east and Afghansitan apparently forgetting that he was Caesar and not just the local Govetrnor.
Merkel, allowed herself to get submerged in political correctness in facing the refugee emergency yet it is in significant part down to to Germany’s pathetic 1% GDP defence spending and faux pacifist stance that has allowed the situation to araise. Getmany has sat back and wrung its hands since the Bosnia crisis as have many other EU members.
Blame it on the internet!! What a joke. They have run their foreign policy like it was a Twitter stream, FFS.

TA
Reply to  M Seward
November 18, 2016 1:14 pm

Yeah, Merkel has put Europe in mortal danger with her uncritical welcoming of Muslims who don’t want to fit into European society, but want to establish their own society inside Europe, inherently destablizing all involved.
Obama is the largest enabler of radical Islamic terrorism in the history of the world, with the exception of Islam’s founder.
Two huge disasters for humanity standing next to each other in the picture.
Are they even aware of how much suffering they have caused? I don’t see that awareness in Obama. Otherwise, he would be hanging his head in shame, but instead, his nose is jutted up into the air. I don’t think he personally connects himself to the mayhem he has spawned in the world.
Merkel is the same. She is still determined to import more trouble into Europe, despite the obvious problems it is causing. She is a clueless danger to the future of Europe.

KenB
November 18, 2016 3:03 am

The short answer for politicians that LOST the election. You had the main stream media in your political pocket also the behind the scenes “controllers” at Wiki (connally) Facebook (according to insiders) and of Course Google too, who tried to filter and frustrate the publication of conservative material, sadly for your side, or should I say despite the thumb on the media scales, Trump got his message through and then Wikileaks revealed the very guys that were fiddling and tipping those scales. Dragging down politics, integrity, justice and yes science, the ruling by executive fiat and revelling in authority, the arrogance, the ignorance. Then you want to turn around and beg your media pals to start a campaign to censor free speech. That is the last straw! Clean up your democrat mess, sack your officials, the political machine staff that stuffed it up.
Once you do that Free speech is your best friend and a good way to get false media out of the way People can think for themselves. Censorship if you try it, will mean even longer political wilderness exile. Many are sick of the whole economic mess created for the world. Sits like this one embrace opportunity to openly discuss issues that are of concern. Political or Media censorship to silence one side, like has been happening in the field of climate science has to be addressed and corrected.

MarkW
Reply to  KenB
November 18, 2016 7:36 am

Google has announced that they are going to start blocking “fake” news sites.
How much you want to bet that this boils down to all conservative sites.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 7:40 am

Google can block anything they want to, there’s no law preventing them from doing so.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 9:17 am

Trust a leftist to declare that legal equals moral.

KenB
November 18, 2016 3:05 am

Sites like Watts …not sits..

Reply to  KenB
November 18, 2016 7:08 am

I typically sit for Watts… Although I do have to get up and pace a while, forcing more blood to the brain, for some of the articles. (My thanks to the technical-type writers here for doing their bit to keep my waistline constant.)

Peta in Cumbria
November 18, 2016 3:12 am

In the vernacular, he’s Passing The Buck
Its what chronically/clinically depressed people do because their brains (bodies also) have been robbed of the ability to think & act quickly & decisively.
They lack self-confidence= the ability to maintain any given position or decision they’ve taken.
They are prone to self doubt, procrastination are are easily (mis)led by others.
IOW: They are addicted to sugar, in its manifold forms – little different to the ‘functioning alcoholic’

November 18, 2016 3:29 am

From Wikipedia …

Barack Obama on social media
The topic of Barack Obama’s usage of social media in his political campaigns, including podcasting, Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube has been compared to the adoption of radio, television, MTV, and the Internet in slingshotting his presidential campaign to success and as thus has elicited much scholarly inquiry. In the 2008 presidential campaign Barack Obama had more “friends” on Facebook and Myspace and more “followers” on Twitter than his opponent John McCain.
Obama’s official website is barackobama.com. It is run by Chris Hughes, one of the three co-founders of Facebook, and has been described as a “sort of social network”. Steve Spinner, a member of Obama’s National Finance Committee, says that while previous campaigns have used the internet none had yet taken full advantage of social networking features. The website included online tools that allowed members to identify neighbors that the Obama campaign thought might be potential backers and then report back on any resulting conversations.
Members of the site could also create blogs, post photos, and form groups through the website, but each member must publish limited biographical profile and no more than one photo. According to Hughes, during the 2008 campaign, over two million accounts were created for the website to “organize their local communities on behalf of Barack Obama”. He estimates that more than 200,000 events were organized [sic] through the website. Moreover, 400,000 articles were written in blogs. 400,000 videos that supported Obama were posted into YouTube via the official website. 35,000 volunteer groups were created. $30 million were spent by 70,000 people into their own fundraising webpages. In the final four days of the 2008 campaign, three millions phone calls were made through the website’s internet virtual phone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_social_media

Reply to  rovingbroker
November 18, 2016 7:12 am

Media is a great thing for tyrants – but only when it flows in one direction, from top to bottom.
Radio – Hitler made great use of it, so to a lesser extent did Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo. As did the real Godfather of the American Regressives, Roosevelt (Franklin).

Editor
November 18, 2016 3:38 am

Actually the comparison of the internet with the printing press is very relevant.
It was the latter which liberated us from feudal, medieval society.
Merkel is wrong to say that they learnt how to control it though (except maybe in East Germany!!). It was the other way round – society had to adapt to it

TinyCO2
Reply to  Paul Homewood
November 18, 2016 4:44 am

Hah, that’s exactly where my thoughts went.

graphicconception
Reply to  Paul Homewood
November 18, 2016 7:08 am

They did learn to control it. The media moguls moved in and imposed their editorial will on their newspapers and other media channels.
For many years, we did not realise the extent to which the MSM were distorting the news but the Internet and, later, social media, gave us a way to discover the news before it appeared in the MSM.
News reporting has changed very rapidly over the last 150 years. Gone were the days when news of a remote battle would appear in the papers a fortnight later. Nowadays, we get mobile phone footage on social media moments after the event. The recent terrorist attacks in Paris were a case in point.
Obama and Merkel are wanting to go down a very dark path. That should be resisted.

Thomas Agerbaek
Reply to  Paul Homewood
November 18, 2016 1:12 pm

Merkel, that plump little woman, said in all ernest a few years back that “das Internet ist Neuland für uns alle” (the Internet is new territory for all of us), to republic-wide scorn and ridicule.
She´s a weak nitwit, and an unmitigated catastrophe for Germany.

joel
November 18, 2016 3:43 am

She finds the internet disrupts society but massive immigration by 3rd world Muslims into a middle class tolerant Christian society doesn’t.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

November 18, 2016 3:50 am

clueless

Leo Smith
November 18, 2016 3:56 am

Some years ago I met up with a bunch of Californian hippies who had just sold their IT business to a bunch of mean nasty corporate asset grabbers, riding the Internet boom.
“Why did you do that?” I asked.
“Man, the Internet is the most subversive thing since the printing press. They want to own it, to control it, but they can’t”
20 years later, he was right.

Leo Smith
November 18, 2016 3:59 am

After I had posted that, I remembered something.
Obama is a hypocritical Cnut.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics/?_r=0
If the Internet had been controlled, he would never have been elected.
Hmmm. Maybe there is some merit after all…

Doug Huffman
November 18, 2016 4:00 am

All right! Alt-right. Alternative right and meme magick

November 18, 2016 4:08 am

So “technology is making it more difficult to unite people behind a common purpose” ?
The Donald doesn’t seem to have found it a problem.

Calico
November 18, 2016 4:11 am

You know, they call the Republicans the party of no ideas, but the only idea Democrats ever have is to suppress more freedoms.

Marcus
November 18, 2016 4:19 am

..If the want my internet mouse, they can pry it from my cold, dead hands !! LOL

November 18, 2016 4:26 am

For once he is right. Without the internet we wouldn’t know about the climate change scam.

ozspeaksup
November 18, 2016 4:41 am

the new age version of?
Farenheit 451
anything allowing the masses to get educated and informed
needs be banned/destroyed/controlled
bit late but theyre stupid enough to think they can

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 18, 2016 5:06 am

When the progressives figure out that are too late wrt information distribution, they will quickly become converts to 2nd amendment advocacy, thereby legitimately obtaining weapons so that they can retrench and FORCE compliance to their campus-esque restriction on free speech and implementation of censorship.
It is the natural next step. see here…Progressives want to restrict free speech… in the name of free speech??!!! and kill you in the process. Firemen… to burn truth. Spooky huh?

Chimp
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 18, 2016 1:05 pm

Bring it, baby. You won’t be happy with the result.
US citizens have the right to decide whether her family can stay here or not. Illegal immigrants don’t get to decide on their own.
Legal immigrants have to wait years and jump through hoops, then experience investigations into their living arrangements. They are the residents who suffer unfairly under Clinton’s beloved, “Y’all come!” open borders.

arthur4563
November 18, 2016 4:54 am

Usually Obama and Merkel’s idiocies are tolerated by their own supporters, but not even their braindead followers can stomach this crap. Obama has to be the dumbest President evah!
He contradicts himself this time and adds an argument so stupid that one must wonder whether
he can think logically about anything. And I love Merkel’s idiot claim that “we learned how to control books” after that technology appeared. Well, Merkel, apparently you haven’t seen what gets
published over the past half century. How about 1000 JFK assassination conspiracy books that
provide 1000 different theories to explain something that needed no explanation? And I
don’t hear anything about the biased news media that supported Obama for the past 8 years,
hiding all of his many blunders. Hard to believe that these two pinheads are leaders of world powers. Well, what were once world powers. Now they are bent on eliminating free speech. Or rather free speech by their political opponents. Ah, for the bad old days, when a half dozen media outlets could get together and protect their chosen Dems. Competition amongst ideas is what saves a free country. THAT is what these two dimwits are railing about, not the internet.

hunter
November 18, 2016 5:01 am

Typical statist sore loser thugs. Obama promoters bragged about how they used social media to get out their message and voters. Now these same arrogant people blame the media instead of facing not only the unpopularity of their message but its failure. This latest ploy, the corporate censorship of “fake news” by common carriers like Face Book, Twitter and Google is the latest. Imagine American Airlines deciding that certain people can’t fly simply because they disagree with American Airlines politics. Who would tolerate that? And the so-called “fake news”? Let’s start a review of just how many stories the MSM has phonied up on climate alone. How about suppressing stories on the Clinton Foundation? Or the Zimmerman tragedy? Or misleading stories supporting Obamacare? Or ignoring the refugee problems in Europe? And so much more. Google and FB have been directly coordinating with Obama these past years. Now we see what they are coordinating on: protecting their monopolies at the cost of our civil liberties. And the truth the so-called progressives claim to care so much about

MarkW
Reply to  hunter
November 18, 2016 7:42 am

I would tolerate American Airlines deciding that they won’t carry passengers who’s politics they disagree with.
The difference is that it’s a private company with many competitors. Just as I have the right to patronize whichever companies I chose, they have the right to pick the customers they will serve.
Now such a policy is stupid, and will cause an extreme customer backlash, but that is their choice. Just like it was Mozilla’s choice to fire a CEO that didn’t support gay marriage.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  hunter
November 18, 2016 7:51 am

Face Book, Twitter and Google are not “common carriers”
..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

MarkW
Reply to  gallopingcamel
November 18, 2016 9:18 am

Notice how the leftist justifies censorship because it is legal.

old construction worker
November 18, 2016 5:06 am

Fist step: Turn over control of the internet to an international body. Done
Second step: Do not issue domain names without detailed, government approve “plan of use” *Of course there will be a hefty fee involved.
Third step: Set up a bureaucratic system to police the internet with the power to shut down internet site without do cause.

Felflames
Reply to  old construction worker
November 18, 2016 5:36 am

Humans are a creative bunch.
Shut down the internet, people will just go build their own.
That is what some people are already doing in some locations.
https://popularresistance.org/creating-an-alternative-internet-to-keep-the-nsa-out/

Dave Ward
Reply to  Felflames
November 18, 2016 6:19 am

I’m glad people are working on this, but as one commenter inferred, it’s not going to be a panacea. Governments effectively control the radio spectrum via the ITU, and you can be damn sure they would deploy measures to make life difficult if they chose to. Anything utilising radio waves is at risk of interception and jamming – these mesh networks largely rely on ubiquitous 2.4 & 5Ghz WiFi frequencies, so we could see a 21st century version of the famous Soviet “Woodpecker” jammers that short wave enthusiasts like me remember well. I believe there are point to point systems using high power Infrared diodes, similar to remote control devices, but they too can be “swamped” if you know where the receiver is. Lazers are a better bet, and I have no doubt that surplus commercial microwave equipment could be put to use if things get really out of hand…

Russell
November 18, 2016 5:11 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZw4buvizJk Texas Gusher Exposes Lie Of Peak Oil Pushed By Media

James Bull
November 18, 2016 5:16 am

Has anyone asked Big Al if he thinks his invention is a bad thing?
I’m sure he would be very upset to hear these comments by his friends.
James Bull

Joe Ebeni
November 18, 2016 5:20 am

Hey POTUS…..read the First Amendment much??? You know….from that pesky, silly document from 1789..

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Joe Ebeni
November 18, 2016 7:33 am

He’s a great Constitutional scholar, remember?

Stu
Reply to  Joe Ebeni
November 18, 2016 10:55 am

That’s why he gave away the internet control. The US Constitution says nothing about other countries limiting what we see and know.

TinyCO2
November 18, 2016 5:22 am

The trouble for Obama and Merkel is that the ‘fake’ news stories have less effect than the true ones. Merkel might not like people hearing about attack in Germany from migrants but those accounts are genuine. The harder she tries to silence them, the more likely they are to attract attention and make people angry.
The way people access the internet isn’t as straight forward as either of them is assuming. People form groups of like minded souls and even if all the big names froze out undesireables like sceptics, some company or some country would provide a platform. Sure, people use Facebook and Twitter but they’re not essential. I didn’t find any of the sceptic web sites I look at now through any of the main seach or social networks. I arrived here by idle comments made by other people. ‘Hey, check out this site…’ type of thing. While I now have bookmarks to my favourite sites, when I’m on someone else’s PC I sometimes follow the blog roll on the first site I come to. Or I get to Scottish Sceptic’s uclimate site and use it like a newspaper – what story looks good today? On other issues I engage with, all form the same sorts of node networks. Thus you get history blogs, dieting blogs, wood work blogs, etc. You can’t kill every hub connection off a determined social network.
And even if they started shutting key sites down. We’d work out how to circumvent it, wouldn’t we?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  TinyCO2
November 18, 2016 6:53 am

“The trouble for Obama and Merkel is that the ‘fake’ news stories have less effect than the true ones. ”
——————-
Worth repeating, thanks.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  TinyCO2
November 18, 2016 9:07 am

Google have already done something like this. I’ve been monitoring climate news for years. At one time WUWT and many other sceptic blogs would get published. But they were not highly rated. Then I suggested to Anthony that he change his key words so that he got higher up – and he did – then a few months later, Google altered the news searches and internet searches to almost remove WUWT from board news and google searches (unless you put in a very specific search which can only be satisfied by an article on WUWT).
That is absolutely appalling, given that WUWT this the mainstream media in term of climate. It is the same as if Google removed from its listings any blogs that favoured republicans – unless the search could not return any other site.
It is quite blatantly an attempt by google to prevent people reading what is on WUWT and to “force” us to read the establishment views in the “mainstream” media and from academics.
The problem for the establishment, is that I seldom use google to find climate articles – nor any politics. They shut the door after the horse bolted.

Hugs
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 18, 2016 12:41 pm

I’ve noticed the same. Cook’s 97% site comes way too easily on top compared to wuwt. I’m pretty certain this is not so much an accident but a political side taking.
I hardly ever try to google anything else than SS or wiki anyway, because I know it wont find contrarian stuff anyway
However, google works with magic – it is not a simple issue.

MarkW
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 18, 2016 1:10 pm

Certainly couldn’t be due to relative traffic.

Dave Ward
November 18, 2016 5:50 am

“Obama predicted that the rise of technology needed to be managed”
WTF doesn’t begin to cover my anger on reading that statement.

Just Steve
Reply to  Dave Ward
November 18, 2016 9:19 am

Inside every liberal is a totalitarian waiting to emerge. Notice how Merkel said “we learned to CONTROL books”, so of course now the internet needs controls. Freedom of thought is such a pesky thorn in the side to our betters.

Hugs
Reply to  Just Steve
November 18, 2016 12:44 pm

I don’t get why would you call a totalitarian ‘liberal’?
Merkel is burning books, that is not liberal!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Just Steve
November 18, 2016 3:56 pm

Hugs, “A rose by any other name….”
Those who desire totalitarianism, total control and power, simply desire it and will seek to achieve it under any guise. Usually bureaucracies are a major tool.
Freedom means that sometimes people are free to do and say that with which one might not agree.
The job of Government is make sure you are free to the same as long neither suppresses the other’s freedom.
Tricky job.

Berzrkr50
November 18, 2016 5:52 am

The Goreian clowns are going to end up looking like serious idiots… Global Climate Change… *SPIT*

commieBob
November 18, 2016 5:53 am

She compared the internet to the invention of the printing press, citing the consequences it had on industrialized countries.
“It took a while until societies learned how to find the right kind of policies to contain this and to manage and steer this,” she said.

She has it exactly backwards. The printing press had huge effects on society. Outside the Soviet bloc I can’t think of any policies taken by any country to contain, manage, and steer the printing press. What happened was that society adapted to the presence of the press.
My favourite effect of the printing press is anonymous pamphleteering. It allows the wide dissemination of unpopular ideas and protects people against the tyranny of the majority. It is constitutionally protected and important for the proper functioning of democracy.
The internet is anonymous pamphleteering on steroids. Trying to clamp down on the internet is antidemocratic.

Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2016 7:20 am

Today’s world, though, it’s very difficult to stay anonymous and disseminate your message. Just ask the poor guy facing five years in jail for “pamphleteering” in opposition to the Muslim Nazi meeting at Brown University.

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2016 7:45 am

Trust a former East German to assume that it is the role of government to manage and steer society.

BFL
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 9:41 am

More than just “East German” so just to add one of those “ideation theories” maybe her leadership role in overwhelming Europe with a practically non-integrable culture was possibly on purpose:
“One Washington foreign policy expert, who did not wish to be named, this week described Merkel to Breitbart London as “a former member of the East German Communist Party who functioned as a mid-level propaganda commissar for the Free German Youth, that is, the young Communists.”
“She and the then-KGB operative Putin, who is fluent in German, were active in East Germany at the same time. Whether they met or worked together, I don’t know, but they were both in the same line of work.”
In April Cliff Kincaid, a director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, wrote “Merkel was known to be suspiciously pro-Russian when she ran for high office in Germany but that her political party, the Christian Democrats, nominated her anyway.”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/07/03/how-close-was-young-communist-merkel-to-east-german-regime-americans-want-to-know/

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 10:55 am

It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out that most of the elites in the Christian Democrats share Merkels pro Soviet err Russian sympathies.

Hugs
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 12:55 pm

No sane person from DDR has ‘pro Soviet sympathies’.
I’m not sure about Putin – is he blackmailing Merkel?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 1:12 pm

Those who benefit from the system supported it.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 1:12 pm

I should have mentioned that the only ones who benefit from such a system are those who are running it.

Marcus
November 18, 2016 5:54 am

Seems like Obama is encouraging the rioters in the U.S…Maybe he should give back that Peace Prize he received, before he was even the President, for doing absolutely nothing !
Fox News: “Obama to anti-Trump protesters: March on”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/17/obama-to-anti-trump-protesters-march-on.html

Tom Schaefer
November 18, 2016 6:21 am

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” -Thomas Jefferson

November 18, 2016 6:40 am

The MSM don’t call it censorship when they suppress alternative views such as the views of climate skeptics, they call it fact checking.

Mjw
November 18, 2016 6:46 am

As Obama and Merkel are in favour of complete control of the internet they wouldn’t mind if it was their opponents exercising it.

Flyoverbob
Reply to  Mjw
November 18, 2016 7:00 am

i recognize your sarc. Their opponents would keep it pretty much as it is. They are admitting is THEY have lost control and want it back.

Scottish Sceptic
November 18, 2016 6:48 am

As I’ve already written extensively on the subject in The Internet Revolution for Numpties I’ll just try to summarise:
The internet has created a way for news and ideas to bypass the old establishment which maintained control of society through control of print, broadcasting, publishing (and in academia: academic journals). Now almost anyone with a PC can start publishing & broadcasting their ideas.
Previously the establishment media, supported the establishment politicians and establishment (or PC=Press Consensus) views. They did so by constantly telling us that their views, were the public. As in “the public think that ….”
Now ordinary people are bypassing the press and establishment and hearing from other ordinary people and finding out that the public don’t have the views that the press portray us as having.
This is threatening to all those politicians, journalists, academics etc. who used to use their control of what we the public heard to force through their very minority views as “the public view”.

Alan Robertson
November 18, 2016 6:52 am

It’s been less than 2 months since the US gave away control of the internet. Now, exactly 1 day after Chinese President Xi Jinping gave a speech calling for other nations to join in “greater governance” of the internet, Obama gives essentially the same speech.
Who didn’t see this coming?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-internet-idUSKBN13B1FF

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 18, 2016 9:14 am

Every few months my children tell me “you should be using … ” another digital network which is not part of the internet. Anyone who tries to regulate the internet is doomed to complete utter failure. I can’t find a fraction of what I’ve written – and I know where to look – there’s not a hope of government finding it.

rogerknights
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 18, 2016 10:14 pm

Unfortunately, China IS successfully regulating the Internet.

rwoollaston
November 18, 2016 6:53 am

This is both worrying and funny. I remember from my undergraduate days a study of political power which identified the third dimension of power as control over the agenda. This, not technology, is what Obama’s really on about; the existence of social media gives voice to those who previously didn’t have one, and who were never heard before by politicians. I’m also interested to learn the distinction politicians would draw between populism and democracy; presumably it’s populism if they don’t like the answer.

huntet
Reply to  rwoollaston
November 18, 2016 7:02 am

Bingo! “It’s wonderful democracy if Obama and pals win, it’s evil populism if they don’t win. And the soon to be former President gave away control of the most open means vof communications ever devised to a bunch of anti-freedom thugs. That alone should place Obama near the top of the list of worst President ever.

graphicconception
Reply to  rwoollaston
November 18, 2016 7:24 am

“Control over the agenda” is exactly what the CO2 scare is based on. Whole generations are being brought up thinking that CO2 is the only game in town.
This was reinforced when, on a TV science program, the presenting scientist asked a schoolgirl what the most prevalent gas in the atmosphere was. She answered, CO2. He corrected that and then asked for the second most prevalent gas, and she tried CO2 again …

MarkW
Reply to  rwoollaston
November 18, 2016 7:47 am

The problem with most populists is that they want to use government to take rights away from anyone who doesn’t agree with the populist.
Populism is indistinguishable from socialism in it’s methods. It’s goals are slightly different, but that’s it.

rwoollaston
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 1:04 pm

It would be good to start with a definition of populism that distinguishes it from democracy. You have pointed out a characteristic that you believe to be populist, but the same could be said of any democratic system with an embedded majority (such as the misguided attempts to establish ‘new’ democracies in the Middle East and parts of Africa.)
I think the sense in which the word ‘populist’ has been bandied about recently is more about it not being the will of the ‘elite.’

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 1:14 pm

All I can do is look at what most people who call themselves “populist” say they want to do once they are the ones in charge.

MarkW
Reply to  rwoollaston
November 18, 2016 9:21 am

As the old saying goes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
There is nothing magical about naked democracy. Without some mechanism to protect the rights of the minority democracy is as tyrannical as any dictator.

cc
November 18, 2016 7:03 am

Merkel is exactly correct that the printing press caused change: the Reformation to be exact, a response to church corruption.
She says:
“It took a while until societies learned how to find the right kind of policies to contain this and to manage and steer this,” she said.
What exactly is the “manage and steer” she speaks of? Official censorship. In the end it failed but there was lots of censorship of the press and even arrests for heresy and treason over the past 500 years in Europe (and elsewhere). All this concern about “fake news” and disruption is only because they both lost. Obama was fine with fake news and astroturfing during his campaigns.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  cc
November 18, 2016 9:09 am

Speaking of the printing press, and the Reformation in response to church corruption, Martin Luther became the first “media celebrity” His picture was on all the pamphlets attacking church practices, so all readers in Europe had a pretty good idea of his arguments and what he looked like.

tadchem
November 18, 2016 7:03 am

“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. ” – Robert A. Heinlein
The populist uprising is composed of people who don’t want to be controlled, and who don’t want to control others.
The would-be controllers are the collective enemy of all free societies.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  tadchem
November 18, 2016 7:13 am

“The populist uprising is composed of people who don’t want to be controlled, and who don’t want to control others.”
—————–
As opposed to the current rioting and protests in US streets, which are essentially calls for limiting political discourse, though it’s doubtful that few of the masked dimwit perpe(traitor)s have taken their thinking that far.

MarkW
Reply to  tadchem
November 18, 2016 7:48 am

How do you reconcile not wanting to control others, with wanting to be able to tell others which countries they are permitted to buy stuff from?

Jtom
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 6:38 pm

No need to. No one is proposing an embargo of trading with another country. OTOH, many of those ousted from government were trying to dictate WHAT we purchase from others, like health care.

November 18, 2016 7:04 am

This opinion piece is total spin. Obama did not say or imply government should “control’ the internet. Please stick to climate itself, not fantasy.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  donjindra
November 18, 2016 7:15 am

Believe what you want, but one might suggest that you try opening your eyes first.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  donjindra
November 18, 2016 7:37 am

So you think “private” monopolies should be able to control what is allowed to be said on the internet and that is better?

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 7:51 am

There is no such thing as a “private monopoly”. All monopolies need the police power of government in order to protect their monopolies.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 7:54 am

When Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop operating systems, there was no government police power that protecting it.

Reply to  gallopingcamel
November 21, 2016 8:59 am

They never had a monopoly. Apple was always there (and Linux).

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 9:22 am

Microsoft never had a monopoly, not even close.
There were always options for those who asked for it. And millions did.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 10:45 am

markw
What about Rockefeller, Carnegie, AT&T, Comcast, etc. Sure they need government looking the other way but that is far from using the police power to force people to use them. Monopolies control a market and Microsoft did for PC operating systems.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 21, 2016 10:16 am

YOu need to learn about the companies you quote. AT&T and Comcast achieved their dominance through government restrictions. Standard Oil may have gotten that way through inaction (smart investing), but it could not STAY that way without government assistance.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 10:58 am

None of those examples ever came close to a monopoly either.
Microsoft never controlled the market for desktops. There was always Apple as well as a number of other competitors.
BTW, AT&T was a monopoly. It was a monopoly because the government passed a law saying that it was the only company allowed to do what it was doing.
It’s not that they need the government to look the other way. It’s impossible for a private company to form a monopoly. What they need is the active help of the government.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 1:15 pm

I realize that I should have edited my first sentence to exclude AT&T after I posted. I remembered the AT&T/government connection when I was half way through the post. Sorry about that.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 1:18 pm

MarkW says: “Microsoft never had a monopoly, not even close.”
..
Federal judges are smarter than you: https://www.cnet.com/news/judge-calls-microsoft-a-monopoly/

gallopingcamel
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 1:21 pm

PS MarkW, it was the “police power of the government” (prosecutors) that brought suit in United States v. Microsoft Corporation 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 2:00 pm

GallumpingDromedary, I love it when you socialists actually believe that judges are the last word on economic questions.
Try dealing with reality, not with what some ignorant judge egged on by even more ignorant attorneys, using a law that had nothing to do with the subject at hand, had to say.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 2:02 pm

There were and are many viable competitors to Microsoft, by definition it couldn’t be a monopoly. A group of politicians who were paid off by those who find buying politicians easier than actually fighting for market share passed a law that has no basis in reality.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 2:52 pm

MarkW says: “Try dealing with reality” …OK, the reality is that judges and attorneys are a lot smarter than you are. Keep in mind MicroSoft had to settle the case by opening up their API’s. What is more important is the MicroSoft was able to establish their “monopoly” without needing the police power of government. In fact it was the police power of government that put a stop to them contrary to your claim that government police power “protects” a monopoly.

Reply to  gallopingcamel
November 21, 2016 11:54 am

What is more important is the MicroSoft was able to establish their “monopoly” without needing the police power of government.

Really? You mean MS has NO Patents? And they never took any other company to court over them?
LOL! I would say that MarkW is a lot smarter than you think, and you have no basis to say any judge is smarter. Other than bigotry.

MarkG
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 18, 2016 8:52 pm

“contrary to your claim that government police power “protects” a monopoly.”
Microsoft only had what power it did because of software copyright.
Hey, guess what software copyright is? Whoah, you got it… A GOVERNMENT-GRANTED MONOPOLY.
If there’s one thing governments love, it’s first creating a problem, and then coming in to offer the ‘solution’ to that problem, which is always to give more money and power to the government that created it in the first place.

Reply to  MarkG
November 21, 2016 3:08 pm

Bingo!

gallopingcamel
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 21, 2016 12:09 pm

philjordan…..the “government” does not enforce patents. Patents are enforced by civil lawsuits. This case was about monopoly not about patents. So, your statement about “smarter” is suspect. Secondly, the judge made a determination based on evidence presented, so another strike against MarkW.
..
MarkG makes the same mistake.

Reply to  gallopingcamel
November 29, 2016 8:19 am

Galloping – it is a “civil” case, however there is no case if the “government” has not created the laws to make the case. So yes, the government does enforce them by the laws they make (they merely assess civil penalties instead of criminal ones).
Monopolies are created by the government and then regulated by the same beast that created them.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 21, 2016 3:56 pm

If a patent isn’t a state granted monopoly, was is it?
Who gives power to the civil courts?
What if someone wants to ignore the civil courts?
Do you get the difference the civil courts and arbitration associations?

MarkW
Reply to  donjindra
November 18, 2016 7:50 am

Yea right, he just wants to control the information on the internet. He didn’t say anything about controlling the internet itself.

Reply to  donjindra
November 18, 2016 7:52 am

The UN should control the internet, that is what he “said” when he handed control over to the World Government known as the UN. I think that comes out to “it should be controlled by the world governments”.
Germany is reportedly already censoring the internet, as are all countries that allowed in invaders from the Middle East. It keeps people from knowing what is going on and creating any resistance.
Since both leaders are communists at heart, this is not likely untrue.

Scottish Sceptic
November 18, 2016 7:09 am

Obama: “I have confidence that over the long term ….”
I’ve been studying the phenomenon of the internet revolution – obviously with particular interest in its manifestation in Climate, but also with regard to Brexit, Trump, UKIP, etc. … I’ve got no confidence in the long term!!! So Obama is a complete fool if he has.
It is fairly easy to understand how the power shift from establishment elites to individuals will have profound effects on society: article link, however, it is very difficult to predict how societies will respond to such a profound change in their dynamics.
To that end, I should point out that ISIS, as well as Trump as well as the sceptic movement, UKIP, even in Scotland the disgusting SNP …. they are all part of this change in society away from the previous establishment elites.
In some cases, the change is good (sceptics) in others, pretty harmless (SNP) but some like ISIS are disgusting. I’ve no idea how to assess which types of revolution will predominate.
What we can predict with confidence, is change and revolution – probably far far more extensive than any of us can imagine. It won’t merely be a change of president. The last time we had such a dramatic change was the invention of printing. That led to the loss of power of the Catholic church, the rise of protestantism, arguably the industrial revolution and the bloody overthrow of monarchies. My big concern, is that whilst the printing revolution took hundreds of years to take effect … the internet revolution could take a few decades.
Therefore there is a huge potential for enormous, and potentially very bloody change. On the other hand, there is also potential for beneficial revolutions. What I don’t think anyone can predict with any confidence, is where we go from here. Whether we descend into a bloody bloodbath of anarchy, or whether (after the initial downfall of establishment elites) we see almost nothing but benefits.
However, maybe Obama’s got a crystal ball?

petermue
November 18, 2016 7:23 am

They’ll always find excuses and a culprit for everything but their own inability.

MarkW
November 18, 2016 7:27 am

God forbid the peons have any information that is not government approved.
No wonder these guys are envious of the Chinese dictators.

November 18, 2016 7:36 am

This is not the first time that Obama has attacked technology as bad. He did blame ATMs for hindering his wondrous “recovery” that never materialized.
I guess his legacy will be a Luddite.

November 18, 2016 7:42 am

Remember what Winston Smith’s job was in “1984”? Control of information has been a goal of authoritatarians for a long time. For that matter, Martin Luther took advantage of a then new technology, the printing press, to spread his political/religious message. Wanting to impose a “nihil obstat” on all reporting is a common goal.
A fair nimber of American leftists have expressed admiration for the current Chinese government for being able to “get things done”. Bill Clinton’s allies in the old media were doing a fair job at supressing the Lewinsky scandaly before Drudge made it impractical in what was the relatively early days of the Internet.
Consider the press in the US about “fake news” having such a dread effect (Hillary lost!). All I think that can be done is to press on, and actually think about what you read.

Bill P.
November 18, 2016 7:44 am

So now the, what, 40-year-old Internet is “emerging technology?”
What career politicians really mean is this is “an emergency” that threatens their power.

Dr. Deanster
November 18, 2016 7:47 am

Excellent Article Eric …. you should get it posted in the NYT!!
However, you need to add a line. The internet has made it such that deceptive political movements, such as that of the far left and the DNC and RNC, can no longer obfuscate the truth by censoring pertinent information.
Obama is correct … the internet played a huge role in Hill’s defeat, and will be the basis of his own legacy’s defeat. Due to the information on the internet, the people began to make up their own minds what was truth, and what was a lie. As Stossell notes, crowd sourcing is usually pretty accurate, because it takes into account such a larger body in information.

Scottish Sceptic
November 18, 2016 7:55 am

To be totally frank: Obama and Merkel must find it incredibly difficult to understand politics where many people have given up trying to be heard by the biased media.
20 years ago, if you felt strongly about a subject, the only way you’d get heard is by writing 100 letters to the press – and hoping one would get published. And as a result, whilst the press didn’t like some views, they heard they existed and even sometimes published them.
Then along comes the internet, and instead of spending an hour writing a letter, I spend an hour writing a dozen comments to various blogs. You and me we’re hearing what the public thinks about global warming. But those idiots in the media – they’re not getting in anywhere near the number of letters, they aren’t being hassled by sceptics and when they publish their biased views as “science” … they’re not getting anywhere near the number of complaints they would have got 20 years ago.
So, paradoxically, from being in the centre of public debate and hearing the diversity of views, now with the internet, journalists are some of the most out of touch people on the planet.
And as many politicians still rely on what they read in the broadcast media – they in turn are even more out of touch with the public views on a whole range of issues which are not popular with journalists.
Because journalists were biased – we moved online – so they stopped hearing from us – so they then imagined that what they saw on the internet represented a small group of delusional people, rather than the vast bulk of public opinion.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 18, 2016 11:14 am

Excellent point! Consider the impact of Facebook, however !.6 Billion subscribers (almost 1/4 of the planet’s population), requiring in excess of 500,000 computer servers to manage traffic and I have yet to see anything of value emerge from it. The exact opposite in fact – gazillions of useless human orifical emissions.
I worked with a guy in Florida (we are both technologists) and were/are socially connected for years also (college football, BBQing, Wine to name a few commonalities). He frequently cheated on his wife and had several “Swinger” Yahoo profiles. He lived a double-life. Their pre-teen daughters were oblivious. I was aware of much of his public and private life – a significant portion of which was disturbing.
Facebook arrived and naturally this guy was all over it like an alcoholic over cheap vodka. The Facebook persona he established paints him as a virtual Saint and only those who know him as I do are aware of his reality. He has a significant Facebook following, including his 2 daughters now in College and they generally respond to his publishings with resounding choruses of Hosannas, while I feel the urge to vomit. I suspect this example is not atypical of today’s society. Funny thing is the guy has some redeeming qualities, thus explaining why I haven’t completely disowned him.
Similarly with Barry Soetoro (aka B.H Obama). A congenital liar with the public facing personality to persuade the masses to ignore the truth and reality.

Griff
November 18, 2016 8:28 am

What Obama actually spoke out against was fake news sites…
https://www.cnet.com/news/president-obama-hits-out-at-facebook-for-eroding-democracy/
If you put out a news story which gets picked up by facebook etc users you can earn a tiny bit of money from clicks… so some people now construct completely fake stories designed to appeal to (say) Trump supporters and make a living out of this e.g. in Macedonia… this happens mostly where a few hundred dollars is real money. But it is not not always in far flung parts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
November 18, 2016 9:24 am

Leftists define anything they disagree with as fake.
Under these type of guidelines, Drudge would have been banned because he picked up stories that the MSM wanted concealed.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
November 18, 2016 9:26 am

For how many months were the big media groups telling us that the Hillary private server story was completely fake. Until they were forced to admit that it wasn’t.
Under your rules, they never would have been forced to admit the truth, because everyone who repeated a story the government declared to be fake, would be shut down.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Griff
November 18, 2016 9:57 am

WHO is the angel to be given the power to declare which ones are “fake”?

MarkW
Reply to  The Original Mike M
November 18, 2016 10:59 am

Government of course.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Griff
November 18, 2016 10:00 am

“so some people now construct completely fake stories designed to appeal to (say) Trump supporters and make a living out of this”
As compared some other people paid by George Soros to construct completely fake stories designed to appeal to (say) Hillary supporters.

MarkW
Reply to  The Original Mike M
November 18, 2016 10:59 am

Or declare that stories that are embarrassing to the government’s candidate are fake, even when they are actually true.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Griff
November 18, 2016 2:48 pm

Mmmm. No, Grift. That’s his rationalization he’s putting forward to justify censorship.
Of course, you know that. And so does the Washington Post.

clipe
Reply to  Griff
November 18, 2016 4:20 pm

<a href="Report on Scourge of Fake News Turns Out to Be Faked

clipe
Reply to  clipe
November 18, 2016 4:23 pm
simple-touriste
Reply to  Griff
November 19, 2016 9:00 pm

Fake news sites, like those saying “Trump wants China to bomb North Korea”? Like those “Trump admits paying no taxes what-so-ever”? Like those “Trump says he cheated on federal taxes”? Like “Trump has a server making suspicious DNS requests, proves a secret link with a Russian bank”? (actually, a mass mailer sending Trump estate ads to the SMTP servers around the world)
We have those in France; we too call them “the press”.

Gary Pearse
November 18, 2016 8:42 am

Freedom of the internet should be be the subject of a constitutional addition to free speech. That the left has no shame in even voicing this totalitarian idea shows how far it has gone. Basically they are saying ‘we had them bamboozled and their education all but destroyed, but that damned internet did an end run around our collective plans for the world.

Curious George
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 18, 2016 9:42 am

Absolutely. The Internet is a great thing as long as it allows us to spread our propaganda. It is absolutely horrible because it may be also used to spread the truth .. truth? Of course not. WE determine what is the truth.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 18, 2016 11:27 am

Think about how many home school web sites will disappear because they have “fake” things in their curriculum.

MarkG
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 18, 2016 8:59 pm

Literally saying that in some cases: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
“we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.”

Leonard Herr
November 18, 2016 8:44 am

“give world citizens more control”. Think about that one for a bit, it will give you nightmares.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Leonard Herr
November 18, 2016 11:08 am

The socialists of the world, to include Merkel and Obama, seem to believe that “world citizens” agree with them. It is actually narrow personal, tribal and national interests that predominate. Adults need to hear from all of them; not from just the socialist-approved sources.
In free societies, truth eventually wins out; maybe just not as fast as one would like. Lies perpetuate where “citizens” have more control.

Mjw
Reply to  Leonard Herr
November 18, 2016 1:06 pm

At the Global Greens Conference in Dakar, Senegal Africa, 1 April 2012, Australian senator and Australian Greens Party leader Bob Brown advocated that there be established a “global parliament” where “every citizen should have an equal say”.
When he resigned he made a speech about aliens visiting.

D. Carroll
November 18, 2016 8:50 am

Obama has always been a great speaker, you’ve gota give him that. Where trump shoots from the hip, Obama takes careful aim. But he’s still a man with a gun. (metaphorically speaking)
Like all politicians, He doesn’t practice what he preaches.
(The demands and responsibilities of a US president are not ones that can be treated casually. In a big, complex, diverse country. The only way to be successful is by listening and reaching out to and working with a wide verity of people. )

Russell
Reply to  D. Carroll
November 18, 2016 8:57 am

Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s mentor – Hate speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc

MarkW
Reply to  D. Carroll
November 18, 2016 9:27 am

Have you ever heard Obama when the teleprompter breaks down?
He’s great at reading words others have prepared for him. On his own, he’s a clown.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 11:53 am

Well .. he’s okay with short phrases like “Hold up!” and even some simple commands like “Everybody sit down and be quiet for a second.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5clY5JWE54#t=77

BFL
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 1:58 pm

My favorite:

The Original Mike M
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 3:51 pm

BFL – It’s almost as though the lie in what he had just stated rose up and slapped his brain short circuiting too many neurons to continue.
“… is if we turn against each other based on divisions of race or religion … eh eh eh eh eh …..”
(Now hold on here Barrack, what am I about to say? Let’s see… I’m the one who has been getting people to turn against each on the basis of race and religion so shouldn’t I be saying how successful I’ve been at doing that? NO NO NO! What in the world happened here? I have to say something but what was it? Where am I going with this? Yikes eh eh eh eh eh….)

LarryFine
November 18, 2016 9:09 am

What kind of person believes that they are smarter than whole nations, that open access to information is dangerous, that speech and communication among citizens is threatening, that free and fair elections aren’t valid when they lose, and that violent insurrection is preferred to the peaceful and lawful transfer of power?
A. Nazi leaders.
B. Communist leaders.
C. Democrat politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats.
D. All of the above.
Answer: D.

ossqss
November 18, 2016 9:16 am
Roy
November 18, 2016 9:28 am

If anyone needs any convincing of how dangerous the plans of Merkel and Obama are they should consider the response of the politicians and the mainstream media to what happened in many German cities last New Year’s Eve.
New Year’s Eve sexual assaults in Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany
During the 2015/2016 New Year’s Eve celebrations, hundreds of sexual assaults (including groping), at least five rapes, and numerous thefts were reported in Germany, mainly in Cologne city centre. Similar incidents were reported in Hamburg, Frankfurt, Dortmund, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart, and Bielefeld. …
All of the incidents involved women being surrounded and assaulted by groups of men on the street. Police estimate that 1,200 women were sexually assaulted and that at least 2,000 men were involved, acting in groups.[28] Police reported that the perpetrators were men of “Arab or North African appearance” and said that Germany had never experienced such mass sexual assaults before. …

The Cologne assaults were not reported by the national media for days, and The Local says many news outlets started reporting it only after a wave of anger on social media made covering the story unavoidable. Although Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker condemned the assaults, she was strongly criticized for some of her comments and was accused of blaming the victims. Cologne’s police chief, Wolfgang Albers, was transferred to provisional retirement for his handling of the situation. The police response and delayed media reaction met strong criticism from German citizens, with some placing blame on the European migrant crisis.
Merkel was brought up in East Germany when it was ruled by a Communist regime. There the media was rigorously controlled. In the modern re-united Germany the media seems to exercise a lot of self control to suppress certain viewpoints. If it were not for the Internet the authorities and the mainstream media might have succeeded in their attempt to suppress news of the New Year’s Eve sexual assaults. Merkel has consistently advocated stricter control of the Internet.
Merkel Accuses Facebook, Google Of “Distorting Perception”, Wants Access To Algorithms
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-26/merkel-accuses-facebook-google-distorting-perception-wants-access-algorithms
While Facebook and Google have been repeatedly accused of media bias and manipulating public opinion, especially during the US presidential campaign, an unexpected attack on the two media giants came today not from the US but from Germany, when Chancellor Angela Merkel launched a full-on attack at the two companies, accusing them of “narrowing perspective,” and demanding they disclose their privately-developed algorithms. Merkel previously blamed social media for anti-immigrant sentiment and the rise of the far right.
This is not the first attack on social media by Merkel and her Grand Coalition government. Curious, while the German politician advocates diversity of views, she has previously accused it of perpetrating opinions that are most at odds with those of the establishment and traditional media.
In other words, instead of seeking to cripple the informational monopoly of Facebook and Google, Merkel was merely pursuing her own, ulterior motives. Last month, the chancellor accused AfD, the recently-established anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim party, which receives overwhelmingly negative coverage in most newspapers, of “spreading their lies” through social media, as it achieves breakthroughs in regional elections around the country.
n other words, the Germans want to tackle the biased information and “distorted perceptions” with state censorship. Somehow that strikes us as ironic.
In the end, it turns out Merkel’s mini crusafe is nothing more than an attempt at scapegoating her own immigration policy failures on the web giants. Justice Minister Heiko Maas – who said that there had been a 77 percent increase in hate crimes following the arrival of 900,000 asylum seekers – has given internet media companies until February next year to comply with EU directives on xenophobia and racism, or face legal action.

Hugs
Reply to  Roy
November 18, 2016 1:06 pm

Touche. Merkel is an idealist but the German MSM is really hopeless.

The Original Mike M
November 18, 2016 9:49 am

Three reasons I can think of at the moment for why we should NEVER allow thugs like Obama to ever regain power over us –
** “Phony news” on the Internet helped expose the fact that Bill Clinton was getting BJ’s in the oval office.
** “Phony news” from the Internet blogosphere exposed the fraud by Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and two others for fabricating documents from Lieutenant Colonel Killian for the purpose of hurting George Bush’s reelection.
** “Phony news” from the Internet blogosphere exposed that MSNBC fraudulently edited the 911 tape of George Zimmerman for the purpose of painting him as a racist.
Those were all true, they were exposed by us and, without a free Internet no one would have ever known about them from the likes of CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, NYT, et al. A free Internet is like sunshine – the BEST disinfectant.

MarkW
Reply to  The Original Mike M
November 18, 2016 12:24 pm

Would that be the memo that was written in a font that didn’t exist at the time the memo was supposed to have been written, and on a proportional spacing printer of the type that only the highest end type-writters supported at the time. Certainly not the type to be found in Air Force clerk’s office.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 3:38 pm

Yep. I remember back in 2004 typing out the same text myself both on Word 97 trying various fonts, etc. Luckily, the person who produced the fakes, (probably Burkett) was just stupid to use a proportional Truetype font. The wiki entry shows a blink comparison of a Word document and the document CBS presented as written by Killian –comment image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

stock
November 18, 2016 9:52 am

These Globalist Criminals need to be locked up

Graham
November 18, 2016 9:52 am

Oh yes Obama control and censor the Internet that will get your dems reelected every time!! Wonder if he realises that many people voted for Trump to get away from having their lives being controlled and regulated?

Eric H
November 18, 2016 9:59 am

Wow, the arrogance. They see the people as stupid sheep and themselves as the enlightened shepherds who must protect the masses from themselves. Unfortunately, many of their supporters see themselves the same way. I wouldn’t let Obama carry my tools…

MarkW
Reply to  Eric H
November 18, 2016 11:04 am

That is easy to show in how leftists declare over and over again that people are helpless and only government action can save them.
Look at how they insist that only government can ensure the safety of food, or the products you buy.

BFL
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2016 2:06 pm

While the FDA does get over zealous (much like the EPA) some basic rules are needed:
“Canning was a popular method of preserving meats, but it was often so poorly done that, while only 379 soldiers died in combat during the Spanish American War, 1,000 or more soldiers died from eating the spoiled canned meat supplied to them. But you didn’t need to be a soldier to suffer; just buying food for your family was a risky business, especially if you were poor. Foods were often bug-ridden, adulterated, and advertised with exorbitant (read: lying) claims.
During this time there were few standards or regulations for either processing or selling food. Meat processing plants were filthy, and more than just food would get into your mouth! Upton Sinclair went undercover into one such plant to write his book The Jungle, which brought these conditions to light. While Sinclair’s focus was the preaching of socialism, his descriptions of plant conditions impelled U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt to order a full investigation of the meat-packing industry. This led to the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 , beginning the thrust of the regulations that the U.S. (and, in their own versions, Canada and the rest of the world) follows today.”
http://www.food-safety-and-you.com/HistoryofFoodSafety.html

TomRude
November 18, 2016 9:59 am

If ANY other proof was necessary to realize the entire green agenda is a conspiracy for global dominance…

November 18, 2016 10:56 am

Typical of the left to find something other than their policies as the reason they lost. They also seem to forget that the candidate they chose for POTUS would be in jail if not for her political connections and that this was known long before she was nominated. Yes, the Internet played a part, but the part it played was to bring into sharp focus those issues that the left wanted to keep hidden. If not for a MSM that fawned over Clinton and generally ignored the issues the left wanted to hide, she would have even lost California and New York.

MarkW
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 18, 2016 11:04 am

Which is why they want the power to ban any news that they declare to be “fake”.

Marcus
Reply to  MarkW