It’s Springtime For Hitler
Aug 31, 2009 Political
Actually, this post is not as bright and funny as the farce The Producers, by Mel Brooks- this is just about the same old mundane dictatorial powers that any old power- mad Socialist would have, indeed, this has already been done in this hemisphere. As we have seen, Hugo Chavez has taken over the media in his country, all the better to keep “his” country on “his” message.
Apparently it’s like the new x-box- every little dictator now wants this, and Hussein is no different, To hell with those pesky little amendments, especially the first one- you know, the freedom to speak freely, to assemble, religion, all that jazz- well, we really don’t need that do we? Especially if people are going to be critical of the Resident- his feelings get hurt so easily.
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”
news.cnet.com
This is troubling, but not unexpected, given the way the Resident is mangling all our other freedoms, in the name of “an emergency”- ooooh, Uncle Hugo would be soooooo proud- little Barry is growing up- it’s just soooooo cute when dictators learn to take away their first liberties. Did anyone get a picture?
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
news.cnet.com
You know, I hate to say I told you so, but I surely did. This is what happens when you give idiot children matches- you shouldn’t be surprised when your house burns down, and here and now, the possibility exists in a dramatically more “real” fashion than ever before.
First you have the “Diversity Thug” wanting to silence Talk Radio, which he will extend to TV (just watch)- and now a new law to shut down the internet in case of an (wonderfully vague) “emergency”- sounds a lot like the “denial of services” attacks Russia made on Georgia, crippling their communications before Russia attacked that country.
But this is our own country- who are they afraid of? Who are they planning to attack?
“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”
Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.”
news.cnet.com
Yep- it’s coming- totalitarian control. It will be slow but steady- you will hardly notice when they wrap the coils of oppression around you. The groundwork is beginning- brought to you by “progressives” from both sides of the aisle. You might think I am delusional- some of the liberals that come here certainly will, but then they refuse to see the evidence in front of their own eyes, and that’s great for them.
Until the day where they do not agree with the Resident and his minions.
By then it is too late.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: dictator Barry, idiots, internet, regulation, suppression of speech
At a Loss For Words
Jul 18, 2009 Political
Everybody on the left has had a boring mantra with regards to the Iraq War- NO BLOOD FOR OIL. Sounds simple enough, but then these same people carp on how much this war is costing our country. Wouldn’t it be nice if we, the United States, got a little of that money back from Iraq in the form of oil, which we could use to alleviate some of the money crunch in this country? After all, it is the currency du jour in Iraq at the moment- but noooooo. Several Senators have taken it upon themselves to ensure that the Chinese get the sweet deals, not us. WTF?
The Iraqi government was poised to sign no-bid contracts with those firms this summer to help make immediate and needed improvements in Iraq’s oil infrastructure. The result would have been significant foreign investment in Iraq, an expansion of Iraqi government revenues, and an increase in the global supply of oil. One would have thought that leading Democratic senators who claim to be interested in finding other sources of funding to replace American dollars in Iraq, in helping Iraq spend its own money on its own people, and in lowering the price of gasoline for American citizens, would have been all for it. Instead, Senators Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, and Claire McCaskill wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rice asking her “to persuade the GOI [Government of Iraq] to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a hydrocarbon law is in effect in Iraq.” The Bush administration wisely refused to do so, but the resulting media hooraw in Iraq led to the cancellation of the contracts, and helps to explain why Iraq is doing oil deals instead with China.
.weeklystandard.com
Isn’t that sweet of them, throwing the poor Chinese a bone like that- after all, those poor Chinese have nothing, that’s what my mother always told me when I wouldn’t finish my meal, I was lectured incessantly about the starving people in China, so perhaps this was some kind of “HusseinAid” or something, but it just didn’t seem right to me. Hadn’t we spent our blood and fortune over there to help the Iraqis? Shouldn’t we, as the Mafia might say, “get a taste?” Apparently not until Iraq mollifies these politicians, we do not.
Senators Schumer, McCaskill, and Kerry claimed to be acting from the purest of motives: “It is our fear that this action by the Iraqi government could further deepen political tensions in Iraq and put our service members in even great danger.” For that reason, presumably, Schumer went so far as to ask the senior vice president of Exxon “if his company would agree to wait until the GOI produced a fair, equitable, and transparent hydrocarbon revenue sharing law before it signed any long-term agreement with the GOI.” Exxon naturally refused, but Schumer managed to get the deal killed anyway. But the ostensible premise of the senators’ objections was false–Iraq may not have a hydrocarbons law, but the central government has been sharing oil revenues equitably and there is no reason at all to imagine that signing the deals would have generated increased violence (and this was certainly not the view of American civilian and military officials on the ground in Iraq at the time). It is certain that killing the deals has delayed the maturation of Iraq’s oil industry without producing the desired hydrocarbons legislation.
weeklystandard.com
Now these Senators are trying to insert themselves into the laws of Iraq, with disastrous results, but then look at what they do over here. At this rate, they should be able to completely undo all we have accomplished in Iraq in record time, nullifying everything that might contribute to Iraq’s independence. What- do they then dare blame the failure they brought about on Bush? I bet they do- it’s an infantile thing, like a baby screaming the only word it knows- “Mine, mine, mine–” .
Nor is it entirely clear what the senators’ motivations were. Their release (available along with their letter to Secretary Rice at the New York Observer quoted Senator McCaskill as follows: “‘It’s bad enough that we have no-bid contracts being awarded for work in Iraq. It’s bad enough that the big oil companies continue to receive government handouts while they post record breaking profits. But now the most profitable companies in the universe–America’s biggest oil companies–stand to reap the rewards of this no-bid contract on top of it all,’ McCaskill said. ‘It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect these dots–big oil is running Washington and now they’re running Baghdad. There is no reason under the sun not to halt these agreements until we get revenue sharing in place,’ McCaskill said.” So was this about what’s best for Iraq and American interests there or about nailing “big oil” in an election year?
weeklystandard.com
Yep, let’s all cut off our nose to spite our face- these dumb-a$$ politicians wold rather the Chinese get this oil instead of the “big, bad, oil companies” that are United States based, and who would get the profits that would be taxed by our country- no that would be too logical, doing something that actually benefits our country. Well, we just can’t have that, can we? Might set a bad liberal precedent, and that just can’t be.
Sometimes, what these liberal politicians do just has me at a loss for words.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]