++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obama's legacy:

Iran's future may prove not be to our liking. (See 1 below.)

Turning the Internet over to rogues also may not prove to our liking.

But, Obama knows best.  If that is not to your liking just ask him. (See 1a below.)
===
Obamacare provides insights into what is wrong with American's relationship to their government. (See 2 below.)
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Dawn of the New Iranian Empire

By Michael Rubin

That Iran has not started a war in the last 200 years has become a common refrain among those who want to downplay the threat posed by the Islamic Republic. Alas, it is a false claim, but that has not diminished enthusiasm for it.

This is not the only myth that surrounds the Islamic Republic today. Also fundamental to its self-image is that the Islamic Republic has become a beacon of anti-imperialism, standing for the aggrieved and the oppressed against the Great Powers that would victimize them. It is this myth—propelled and repeated in official Iranian statements ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution—that has attracted so many progressives in Europe and the United States to view the Islamic Republic with a sympathy and to make normalization with it a progressive cause. First, a bit of history: Imperial powers did victimize Iran over the centuries. The Portuguese seized Bahrain and other Persian Gulf islands in the sixteenth century. The nineteenth century was a time of almost constant British and Russian encroachment along Iran’s frontiers. While the European powers never formally colonized Iran, the British conspired at one point with Zill al-Sultan, the powerful governor of Isfahan, in order to divide Persia. In 1907, the Anglo-Russian Convention maintained theoretical Persian unity but nevertheless divided the country into spheres of influence in a move that Iranians saw as a great betrayal. Suffice to say, the notion of imperialism has traditionally touched a raw nerve among Iranians given Iran’s experience during the imperial era.

To internalize the anti-imperialist cause and embrace Iran makes little sense, however. Aside from Russia, Iran is the world’s most imperialist country today. It may not engage in formal empire building, unless Kayhan editor (and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appointee) Hossein Shariatmadari’s dreams of annexing Bahrain come true. When it comes to informal empire, however, the Islamic Republic is on the march.

Despite then-Iranian UN Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif’s pledge to credulous American diplomats in 2003 that Iranian forces would stay out of Iraq, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corpsinfiltrated thousands of militiamen and its own forces into Iraq almost immediately; they never left. Iraqis certainly do not like the Iranian presence. Some politicians will take advantage of Iranian backing but Iraqi nationalists—even Iraqi Shi’ites—view those in Iran’s pocket as quislings. In historiography, the notion of informal empire was largely economic. Iran fits the bill here, as Iraqis—especially those in southern Iraq and Baghdad—complain how Iran dumps cheap manufactured goods on Iraq, eviscerates Iraqi industry, and seeks to establish a monopolistic dependency on the Islamic Republic.

Syria, too, has become part of Iran’s imperial design. Analysts can point out how Iran needs Syria as a hub to support and supply Hezbollah. They can also rightly point out Bashar al-Assad’s sectarian solidarity with Iran, or Syria’s legacy as the only Arab state that supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. Still, there’s something more going on when Iran dispatches thousands of “volunteers” and Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corpsmen to fight in Syria. If Assad remains on top when the dust settles, he will no longer be a partner of Iran. Rather, he will be a clear subordinate. The real leadership inside Syria will be just as much in the Iranian embassy which, not by coincidence, is traditionally headed by a member of the Qods Force, the unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps charged with export of the revolution.

Southern Lebanon has been under de facto Iranian suzerainty for decades and, with then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s acquiescence to the Doha Agreement in 2008, Hezbollah now has effective veto power over the rest of Lebanese society.

Iranian authorities never dreamed they would also be in de facto control of the Yemeni government through their client Houthis. Put aside Saudi errors in its military campaign—none of that justifies Iran’s presence in the country. Nor is there popular support: The Houthis simply seized power and, with Iranian backing, used brutal force to consolidate it over areas that were never traditionally Houthi. Indeed, the Houthis represent perhaps the clearest example of Iranian imperialism. The Zaydi Shi’ism practiced by the Houthis is theologically closer to Sunni practice than the Twelver Shi’ism practiced in Iran. And yet part of the Iranian presence seems to be for the purpose of ‘returning the Houthis to the fold’ by proselytizing the Iranian brand of Shi‘ism.

That Iran was a “regional power” was once a staple of Iranian rhetoric. In recent years, Iran began talking about itself as a “pan-regional power.” Now it describes its strategic boundaries as the Eastern Mediterranean and Northern Africa. Make no mistake: The Islamic Republic is an imperial power, little different in its quest for political and economic domination of poorer states as its tormentors were in the nineteenth century.

1a) Meet the New Authoritarian Masters of the Internet

Getty Images

by John Hayward29 Sep 2016  1,982Comments

President Barack Obama’s drive to hand off control of Internet domains to a foreign multi-national operation will give some very unpleasant regimes equal say over the future of online speech and commerce.

In fact, they are likely to have much more influence than America, because they will collectively push hard for a more tightly controlled Internet, and they are known for aggressively using political and economic pressure to get what they want.

Here’s a look at some of the regimes that will begin shaping the future of the Internet in just a few days, if President Obama gets his way.

China

 China wrote the book on authoritarian control of online speech. The legendary “Great Firewall of China” prevents citizens of the communist state from accessing global content the Politburo disapproves of. Chinese technology companies are required by law to provide the regime with backdoor access to just about everything.

The Chinese government outright banned online news reporting in July, granting the government even tighter control over the spread of information. Websites are only permitted to post news from official government sources. Chinese online news wasn’t exactly a bastion of freedom before that, of course, but at least the government censors had to track down news stories they disliked and demand the site administrators take them down.

Unsurprisingly, the Chinese Communists aren’t big fans of independent news analysis or blogging, either. Bloggers who criticize the government are liable to be charged with “inciting subversion,” even when the writer in question is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Chinese citizens know better than to get cheeky on social media accounts, as well. Before online news websites were totally banned, they were forbidden from reporting news gathered from social media, without government approval. Spreading anything the government decides is “fake news” is a crime.

In a report labeling China one of the worst countries for Internet freedom in the world, Freedom House noted they’ve already been playing games with Internet registration and security verification:

The China Internet Network Information Center was found to be issuing false digital security certificates for a number of websites, including Google, exposing the sites’ users to “man in the middle” attacks.

The government strengthened its real-name registration laws for blogs, instant-messaging services, discussion forums, and comment sections of websites.

A key feature of China’s online censorship is that frightened citizens are not entirely certain what the rules are. Huge ministries work tirelessly to pump out content regulations and punish infractions. Not all of the rules are actually written down. As Foreign Policy explained:

Before posting, a Chinese web user is likely to consider basic questions about how likely a post is to travel, whether it runs counter to government priorities, and whether it calls for action or is likely to engender it. Those answers help determine whether a post can be published without incident — as it is somewhere around 84 percent or 87 percent of the time — or is instead likely to lead to a spectrum of negative consequences varying from censorship, to the deletion of a user’s account, to his or her detention, even arrest and conviction.

This was accompanied by a flowchart demonstrating “what gets you censored on the Chinese Internet.” It is not a simple flowchart.

Beijing is not even slightly self-conscious about its authoritarian control of the Internet. On the contrary, their censorship policies are trumpeted as “Internet sovereignty,” and they aggressively believe the entire world should follow their model, as the Washington Post reported in a May 2016 article entitled “China’s Scary Lesson to the World: Censoring the Internet Works.”

China already has a quarter of the planet’s Internet users locked up behind the Great Firewall. How can anyone doubt they won’t use the opportunity Obama is giving them, to pursue their openly stated desire to lock down the rest of the world?

Russia

Russia and China are already working together for a more heavily-censored Internet. Foreign Policy reported one of Russia’s main goals at an April forum was to “harness Chinese expertise in Internet management to gain further control over Russia’s internet, including foreign sites accessible there.”

Russia’s “top cop,” Alexander Bastrykin, explicitly stated Russia needs to stop “playing false democracy” and abandon “pseudo-liberal values” by following China’s lead on Internet censorship, instead of emulating the U.S. example. Like China’s censors, Russian authoritarians think “Internet freedom” is just coded language for the West imposing “cultural hegemony” on the rest of the world.

Just think what Russia and China will be able to do about troublesome foreign websites, once Obama surrenders American control of Internet domains!

Russian President Vladimir Putin has “chipped away at Internet freedom in Russia since he returned to the Kremlin in 2012,” as International Business Times put it in a 2014 article.

One of Putin’s new laws requires bloggers with over 3,000 readers to register with the government, providing their names and home addresses. As with China, Russia punishes online writers for “spreading false information,” and once the charge is leveled, it’s basically guilty-until-proven-innocent. For example, one of the “crimes” that can get a blogger prosecuted in Russia is alleging the corruption of a public official, without ironclad proof.

Human-rights group Agora estimates that Russian Internet censorship grew by 900% in 2015 alone, including both court orders and edicts from government agencies that don’t require court approval. Censorship was expected to intensify even further throughout 2016. Penalties include prison time, even for the crime of liking or sharing banned content on social media.

Putin, incidentally, has described the entire Internet as a CIA plot designed to subvert regimes like his. There will be quite a few people involved in the new multi-national Internet control agency who think purging the Web of American influence is a top priority.

The Russian government has prevailed upon Internet Service Providers to block opposition websites during times of political unrest, in addition to thousands of bans ostensibly issued for security, crime-fighting, and anti-pornography purposes.

Many governments follow the lead of Russia and China in asserting the right to shut down “extremist” or “subversive” websites. In the United States, we worry about law enforcement abusing its authority while battling outright terrorism online, arguing that privacy and freedom of speech must always be measured against security, no matter how dire the threat. In Russia, a rough majority of the population has no problem with the notion of censoring the Internet in the name of political stability, and will countenance absolutely draconian controls against perceived national security threats. This is a distressingly common view in other nations as well: stability justifies censorship and monitoring, not just physical security.

TURKEY

Turkey’s crackdown on the Internet was alarming even before the aborted July coup attempt against authoritarian President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Turkey has banned social media sites, including temporary bans against even giants like Facebook and YouTube, for political reasons. Turkish dissidents are accustomed to such bans coming down on the eve of elections. The Turkish telecom authority can impose such bans without a court order, or a warning to offending websites.

Turkey is often seen as the world leader in blocking Twitter accounts, in addition to occasionally shutting the social media service down completely, and has over a 100,000 websites blacklisted. Criticizing the government online can result in anything from lost employment to criminal charges. And if you think social-media harassment from loyal supporters of the government in power can get pretty bad in the U.S., Turks sometimes discover that hassles from pro-regime trolls online are followed by visits from the police.

Turkish law infamously makes it a crime to insult the president, a law Erdogan has already attempted to impose beyond Turkey’s borders. One offender found himself hauled into court for creating a viral meme – the sort of thing manufactured by the thousands every hour in America – that noted Erdogan bore a certain resemblance to Gollum from Lord of the Rings. The judge in his case ordered expert testimony on whether Gollum was evil to conclusively determine whether the meme was an illegal insult to the president.

The Turkish example introduces another idea common to far too many of the countries Obama wants to give equal say over the future of the Internet: intimidation is a valid purpose for law enforcement. Many of Turkey’s censorship laws are understood to be mechanisms for intimidating dissidents, raising the cost of free speech enough to make people watch their words very carefully. “Think twice before you Tweet” might be good advice for some users, but regimes like Erdogan’s seek to impose that philosophy on everyone. This runs strongly contrary to the American understanding of the Internet as a powerful instrument that lowers the cost of speech to near-zero, the biggest quantum leap for free expression in human history. Zero-cost speech is seen as a big problem by many of the governments that will now place strong hands upon the global Internet rudder.

Turkey is very worried about “back doors” that allow citizens to circumvent official censorship, a concern they will likely bring to Internet control, along with like-minded authoritarian regimes. These governments will make the case that a free and open Internet is a direct threat to their “sovereign right” to control what their citizens read. As long as any part of the Internet remains completely free, no sector can be completely controlled.

Saudi Arabia

The Saudis aren’t too far behind China in the Internet rankings by Freedom House. Dissident online activity can bring jail sentences, plus the occasional public flogging.

This is particularly lamentable because Saudi Arabia is keenly interested in modernization, and sees the Internet as a valuable economic resource, along with a thriving social media presence. Freedom House notes the Internet “remains the least repressive space for expression in the country,” but “it is by no means free.”

“While the state focuses on combatting violent extremism and disrupting terrorist networks, it has clamped down on nonviolent liberal activists and human rights defenders with the same zeal, branding them a threat to the national order and prosecuting them in special terrorism tribunals,” Freedom House notes.

USA Today noted that as of 2014, Saudi Arabia had about 400,000 websites blocked, “including any that discuss political, social or religious topics incompatible with the Islamic beliefs of the monarchy.”

At one point the blacklist included the Huffington Post, which was banned for having the temerity to run an article suggesting the Saudi system might “implode” because of oil dependency and political repression. The best response to criticism that your government is too repressive is a blacklist!

The Saudis have a penchant for blocking messaging apps and voice-over-IP services, like Skype and Facetime. App blocking got so bad that Saudi users have been known to ask, “What’s the point of having the Internet?”

While some Saudis grumble about censorship, many others are active, enthusiastic participants in enforcement, filing hundreds of requests each day to have websites blocked. Religious figures supply many of these requests, and the government defends much of its censorship as the defense of Islamic values.

As with other censorious regimes, the Saudi monarchy worries about citizens using web services beyond its control to evade censorship, a concern that will surely be expressed loudly once America surrenders its command of Internet domains.

For the record, the Saudis’ rivals in Iran are heavy Internet censors too, with Stratfor listing them as one of the countries seeking Chinese assistance for “solutions on how best to monitor the Iranian population.”

North Korea

You can’t make a list of authoritarian nightmares without including the psychotic regime in Pyongyang, the most secretive government in the world.

North Korea is so repressive the BBC justly puts the word “Internet” in scare quotes, to describe the online environment. It doesn’t really interconnect with anything, except government propaganda and surveillance. Computers in the lone Internet cafe in Pyongyang actually boot up to a customized Linux operating system called “Red Star,” instead of Windows or Mac OS. The calendar software in Red Star measures the date from the birth of Communist founder Kim Il-sung, rather than the birth of Christ.

The “Internet” itself is a closed system called Kwangmyong, and citizens can only access it through a single state-run provider, with the exception of a few dozen privileged families that can punch into the real Internet.

Kwangmyong is often compared to the closed “intranet” system in a corporate office, with perhaps 5,000 websites available at most. Unsurprisingly, the content is mostly State-monitored messaging and State-supplied media. Contributors to these online services have reportedly been sent to re-education camps for typos. The North Koreans are so worried about outside contamination of their closed network that they banned wi-fi hotspots at foreign embassies, having noticed information-starved North Korean citizens clustering within range of those beautiful, uncensored wireless networks.

This doesn’t stop South Koreans from attempting cultural penetration of their squalid neighbor’s dismal little online network. Lately they’ve been doing it by loading banned information onto cheap memory sticks, tying them to balloons, and floating them across the border.

Sure, North Korea is the ultimate totalitarian nightmare, and since they have less than two thousand IP addresses registered in the entire country, the outlaw regime won’t be a big influence on Obama’s multi-national Internet authority, right?

Not so fast. As North Korea expert Scott Thomas Bruce told the BBC, authoritarian governments who are “looking at what is happening in the Middle East” see North Korea as a model to be emulated.

“They’re saying rather than let in Facebook, and rather than let in Twitter, what if the government created a Facebook that we could monitor and control?” Bruce explained.

Also, North Korea has expressed some interest in using the Internet as a tool for economic development, which means there would be more penetration of the actual global network into their society. They’ll be very interested in censoring and controlling that access, and they’ll need a lot more registered domains and IP addresses… the very resource Obama wants America to surrender control over.

Bottom line: contrary to left-wing cant, there is such a thing as American exceptionalism – areas in which the United States is demonstrably superior to every other nation, a leader to which the entire world should look for examples. Sadly, our society is losing its fervor for free expression, and growing more comfortable with suppressing “unacceptable” speech, but we’re still far better than anyone else in this regard.

The rest of the world, taken in total, is very interested in suppressing various forms of expression, for reasons ranging from security to political stability and religion. Those governments will never be comfortable, so long as parts of the Internet remain outside of their control. They have censorship demands they consider very reasonable, and absolutely vital. The website you are reading right now violates every single one of them, on a regular basis.

There may come a day we can safely remand control of Internet domains to an international body, but that day is most certainly not October 1, 2016.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
2) Obamacare, and What (Else) Is Leading Americans to Revolt

By Keith Jackson

What is wrong in health care reflects what is wrong with our relationship with government as a whole in America today.  What is currently in place with Obamacare is a network of government and business elites administering a bloated bureaucracy divvying up dollars we don't have and giving lip service to "helping out the middle-class" by indirectly bankrupting them.

There is an added anchor dragging the health care system down, just like the economy as a whole, caused by the cost of an undocumented alien population and their need for care.  On top of all this is a "legal lotto" justice system that lurks in the background, pays little to no attention to the presumed legal contracts between the doctor and the patient, and has a vastly underappreciated cost, just as it does with our entire economy outside of health care.  It is no wonder we've become sick and tired of the establishment behind the system.

The Affordable Care Act has placed an estimated 247 new bureaucracies between our tax dollars and our health care.  K Street crony capitalists, being what they are, have moved in to capture easy dollars created by these new pay-for-play government entities.  The corruption in the system is made manifest by the real cost they add to administering our care with no added value.

When you review your medical bill, the costs are frequently shockingly high, while the ultimate reimbursement to the physicians themselves is often laughably low.  Who gets the real money?  Americans think the entrenched politicians and their friends in business are the beneficiaries, just like in every other area where government is involved.  When so much of the wealth of our country is absorbed into the Washington, D.C. area, it is hard to think otherwise.

The two crony systems currently making a windfall profit through their lobbyists are the insurance companies and the hospital corporations.  Obamacare has promised to make good on any losses incurred by Blue Cross, United Health Care, et al. in initiating the health care exchanges.  Three years of artificially low risk is good for a company and its stock value – a crony's best outcome.  The reason every one of these companies is about to bail out or has already abandoned the system is because these dollars dry up in 2017.  We are all waiting to see how the elites cash in on the next permutation of this craziness, because we know they will always come out ahead.

Meanwhile, hospital corporations, who can charge more per "Relative Value Unit" – a complicated source on which the whole current reimbursement system runs – are taking this opportunity to absorb the struggling medical businesses that used to be run by the doctors themselves.  Does this lower costs?  Of course it doesn't, and it is the corrupt relationship between government and large corporations that allows this to happen.

Doctors, meanwhile, aren't allowed to be doctors anymore because of the hoops that must be jumped through to allow for testing and treatment.  Insurance representatives, often uneducated, check the medical records for necessary words and phrases before tests and treatments are allowed.  Many are disallowed.  A lot also falls on the patient, who must often check up on the denied test to see where to go from here.  It is transparently obvious that the insurance companies actually want every party to give up, throw up their hands, and hope they can do without the desired information these abandoned tests would have shown.  This keeps down costs and boosts profits.  Entrenched elites are well aware of how this helps their bottom line, just as government-sponsored rules and regulations hold down competition in all kinds of businesses.

Similarly, the trend in insurance coverage is for much higher deductibles in the policies obtained by the middle and upper-middle classes.  This was a predictable outcome when you know that government is asking us to ignore actuary tables and is outlawing pre-existing conditions costs.  Having to come up with $10K before you have any procedure performed is quite the argument against proceeding in that direction.  Huge costs are being avoided by this little factor of the equation alone, and this outcome of Obamacare was predictable by these elites as well.

Conversely, we as a country act as if there were unlimited dollars for undocumented aliens.  Our hospitals are packed with uninsured and illegal residents getting essentially free cancer treatment, obstetric care, and emergency room evaluation.  Just like the actual costs illegals foist on the country by depressing wages and worsening unemployment in America as a whole, the money spent on them and their health is a high-cost loss to American taxpayers, who should be getting the benefits instead.  Elites have been playing the open border game for generations, getting cheap labor to pluck their chickens, stock their warehouses, roof their homes, cut their grass, and pick their grapes, meanwhile avoiding insuring them and laughing while their stooges in the government promise to do something about the issue.

Finally, the rule of law and the sanctity of a contract administered and adjudicated by a mature and efficient legal system are essential for any business.  Doctors spend a good bit of effort during their time with patients explaining the risks of surgery and other medical procedures.  A supposed legally binding contract is signed when this is done.  If anything untoward occurs, this contract is essentially worthless.  The American legal system in regard to the medical profession is a legal lotto that resembles a slot machine to the network of elites in the legal system and the insurance companies.  A good example of this idiocy is exemplified by the "negotiation" of reward, which has nothing to do with reality and nearly everything to do with the size of the doctor's insurance policy.  Settlements are made within a few hundred dollars of the maximum the policy allows, because the threat of going to court is so odious to the doctor.  As soon as the ink dries on the check, both sides "high five" and grab a drink at the bar while the doctor goes home doubting his choice of career.

Many Americans at a certain stage of their lives, especially if they are trying to run a small business, know that the legal system is geared to benefit those who inhabit the network of elites.  They know to avoid the courtroom.  Whenever you have the misfortune to have to visit a courtroom in your city, you notice that those who bring along a lawyer are taken to the head of the line.  While all the poor shmucks without representation watch in knowing disgust, the lawyer might bring up the fraternity that his son shares with the judge's kid, or the country club they belong to with the latest improvement on the par 3s.

Americans have revolted against the entrenched power brokers in Washington, D.C. by screaming support for those who promise to break up the system.  This is why such anti-establishment candidates as Trump and Sanders got traction.  There is a wholesale repudiation of those elites standing arm and arm with the entrenched, establishment elected officials telling us what to do while we see their results doom us to lives that are less about Americans succeeding and more about enriching Washington, D.C.

Just like American society as a whole, reliance on free markets, open competition, and removal of wasteful government barriers are the best way to have a good health care system with the possibility of it being more affordable and efficient.  But if the corruption is not addressed; if the legal system isn't interested in the rule of law, property rights, and the sanctity of contracts; if the illegal immigrant issue isn't addressed; and if we continue to regulate small business so that big business isn't threatened, Americans should and probably will revolt.  We shouldn't put up with Obamacare, just as we shouldn't put up with a government that stifles our freedoms and economic mobility, the latter being the secret to our nation's success and exceptional character.