START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Cybersecurity Bill Gives Obama Dictatorial Power Over Internet


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: ethics, freedoms, government, interesting, internet, humans, news, politics, rights, ethics, government, media, lies, obama, propaganda, world )

Kat
- 2061 days ago - infowars.com
there are political forces are behind Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who declared last month that we would all be better off if the internet was never invented. Rockefeller meant the government would be better off if...



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

kat yazzie (400)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 4:21 am
HERE IS THE ARTICLE:

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
April 6, 2009
As we reported on March 22 when Jay Rockefeller was peddling nonsense about a pimple-faced kid in Latvia taking down the power grid in America with a laptop computer, the current wave of fear-mongering about cyber terrorism is just that — unsubstantiated fear-mongering. Critical networks are largely protected and “nightmarish tales of their vulnerability tend to be largely apocryphal,” according to Gabriel Weimann, author of Terror on the Internet. “Psychological, political, and economic forces have combined to promote the fear of cyberterrorism.”

Senator Rockefeller declares we’d be better off if the internet was never invented.

Indeed, there are political forces are behind Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who declared last month that we would all be better off if the internet was never invented. Rockefeller meant the government would be better off if the internet was never invented. If the internet was never invented, the corporate media would dominate news and information and alternative media restricted to print would have a far more difficult time counter balancing government propaganda. Government and the elite behind it are sincerely worried about the fact increasing numbers of people get their news from alternative media sources on the internet and corporate media newspapers are falling like dominoes.

“If we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina,” said fear-monger Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who is co-sponsoring the bill. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on,” added Rockefeller.

Rockefeller’s bills introduced in the Senate — known as the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 — would create yet another government bureaucracy, the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor. It would report directly to Obama. Rockefeller’s legislation would grant “the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation’s infrastructure “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access” (see a working draft of the legislation here).

In other words, Obama would have a Cyber Czar in the Commerce Department and the power to shut down the internet.

The cybersecurity fraud now in motion will grant the Department of Commerce oversight of “critical” networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure, Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Mother Jones.

“The whole thing smells bad to me,” writes Larry Seltzer for eWeek. “I don’t like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don’t like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president.”

Obama’s internet agenda is an extension of his effort to impose government control over the private sector. Republicans call this socialism. In a way it is socialism, but not the kind you were told about in high school — it is a socialism devised by the Trilateralists and Council on Foreign Relations. It is a system of control that will be imposed by the bankers and has nothing to do equality for all individuals or a fair or egalitarian method of compensation for workers. Banker socialism is about serfdom and poverty.

It should be obvious what is going on here. Not if but when the next false flag attack occurs here in America, the elite will turn off the internet in order to control the flow of information. They will tell us they were forced to do this in order to deny terrorists in caves or driving around with Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars the ability to sabotage the power grid and banks.

Senate bills No. 773 and 778 are about controlling information. The bills have nothing to do with mischievous kids with laptops in Latvia.
 

kat yazzie (400)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 4:27 am
Thank you David!
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 4:42 am
noted Thanks Kat!!
 

Ryan S. (32)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 5:35 am
NOTED! THANKS!!!
 

Rhonda Maness (583)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 6:13 am
noted and thanks, Kat
 

ivona P. (145)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 6:20 am
Noted.Thank you Kat.
 

Michael Owens (1647)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 6:35 am
Kat thanks thy will take the internet if thy chose. We know to much about them on the internet.
 

ROBERT FRY (209)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 7:56 am
THANKS KAT
 

Henry P. (171)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 8:17 am
Noted Thanks Kat
 

Justin G. (0)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 10:29 am
Fellow InfoWarrior, noted
 

Leigh B. (211)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 10:56 am
noted, thanks Kat!
 

Arielle S. (317)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 11:06 am
The internet has made it so easy to keep informed - and to send out emails, protests, letters and petitions. OF COURSE, certain powers want to stop it. Knowledge is power and we average people aren't supposed to have any (knowledge OR power). It's just a different version of "pregnant in the summer and barefoot in the winter".

 

Tere M. (76)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 1:51 pm
Thank you Kat! Please keep me posted if there is a letter to send to Congress. ~
 

BernadetteP P. (72)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 1:56 pm
noted Kat and read i t hard decison for sone people sicne some people need for work or sxhool .
 

Kathleen Cameron (2)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 2:55 pm
Its interesting to note, the internet isn't just in the US. Its across the world. By allowing the US government to do this, its like declaring war on the rest of the world - the US government would be taking control over every other country in the world via the internet. This is "BIG BROTHER" in the purest sense of the word. I do not give permission for my private information to be viewed by the US government or for my views to be destroyed or prevented from doing their action because of some perceived threat which the US government could,in actuality, stop in 2 seconds IF they needed to. To think that the US government doesn't have top people watching already for "real" security threats online is just plain nieve. This is a clear cut case where the US government couldn't get control of the world oil supply via the 9-11 incident (Bush Administration), so now they are trying to get control of the global communication system via 9-11's continued theoretical security threat of online terrorism (Obama Administration). To the US government - we're not stupid - we see through your true actions!!! Your military gained control of Canadian privacy information through our Census via Lockheed Martin conducting our census (even though many Canadians fought against this). The US government is looking more and more like a reincarnation of the Stalin regime or any of the other dictators that have tried to rule the world - its just more than one person now is all.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 3:31 pm
Noted.
 

. (0)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 6:11 pm
I don't like this at all, time will tell. My eyes are wide open and not blind. To much control of everything think about it. Thanks Kat
 

. (0)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 6:37 pm
noted thank you
 

JOSSIE ROSS (62)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 6:53 pm
NOTED
 

Charlie L. (29)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 7:58 pm
I suppose we regular guy citizens should have guessed that eventually powers on high would feel uncomfortable with the way the internet empowers us to communicate with each other, keep tabs on what politicians are doing and scrutinize world events more closely than older forms of media would have ever enabled us to do. It seems that even with a relatively decent man like Obama as our President we have for the most part become a police state in which Big Brother has access to nearly all of our most personal information. It's become apparent that politicians in both of the major parties have been planning this for decades. How can any of them claim to be patriots? For me this conflicts with all of the better values we have been taught to cherish as Americans.
 

sue M. (184)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 8:08 pm
Well, I guess we knew it was coming! He did say he wanted the internet regulated. But I swear I will dump the DSL if this happens! We can always find alternative ways to communicate freely until they find some other way to botch it up!
 

Faith M. (167)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 8:50 pm
They want you to dump the dsl and they are hoping to scare us away sorta speak. Nope not me I am staying.I bet they want it regulated look at all the things we can do with it like get the TRUTH out-they are upset with that I am sure.
 

Kit B. (276)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 8:51 pm
Wow!! So much for free speech. I will call my moron Senators and Congressman, all will ignore me. That however, will not stop me from writing letters to the newspapers and trying to let others know.
 

sue M. (184)
Tuesday April 7, 2009, 8:55 pm
Your are right on Faith. I bet they are madder than hell that we get to do and say all we do! But regulation means we will not be able to continue.
 

Marty H. (119)
Wednesday April 8, 2009, 3:53 am
Noted and thanks! Rockefellers should have been run out of this country when they helped funnel Nazi money into the Walker/Bush bank during world war 11. They have had too much money and power for too long and they are working hard to bring down our democracy! I also write to my senators and house rep about these things and can only hope it does not fall on owned deaf ears!
 

Monica Rega (96)
Wednesday April 8, 2009, 7:02 am
Thanks and Noted.. are they really serious about giving Obama dictoralship over the net???? How can that be?? Ahh..
 

John G. (21)
Wednesday April 8, 2009, 9:05 am
Control is the Name of the Game . . . it always has been.

Virtually ANYONE whom rises to the top in a political structure, be it POTUS or in your local town council, has a "thing" about being in control; this is pretty much universal - even if their motives are generally 'good', the feeling of being "in control" is intoxicating to most such individuals. Once you've gotten it, it's awful hard to relinquish it voluntarily.

There probably are aspects of this bill which are positive, but the potential negatives out-weigh them considerably (I try to see the 'good' in everything first . . . but then, reality usually takes over).

Isn't it ironic that "government regulation" of processes, institutions or organizations, can be a real blessing in some cases, while it can be a tyrannical nightmare in others ?
 

Teresa del Castillo (1519)
Wednesday April 8, 2009, 3:20 pm
OMG noted
 

Eva J. (0)
Wednesday April 8, 2009, 7:09 pm
I have a feeling this could be prediction (about Obama having fascist control over the internet) that has been made up by the white-red dragon controlled Republican Party so the Republican Party will get more votes in the next Election.

Favouring the Greens (including Democrats and Green Party) who are allies of the Kristos Aquari Silver-Aqua-Blue-Green-Heliotalic Azurites.

According to the Azurites the White-Red Dragon side is more on the side of the Anti-Kristos Fall agenda than the Green Dragon side.

Home website and reference: www.azuritepress.com

Ava James
 

Locan Sleeping-Squirrel (209)
Wednesday April 8, 2009, 8:11 pm
No Eva, that is Jay Rockefeller on CSPAN. You may remember him a few months back moaning and whining about the need to give blanket immunity to the telecoms, which then Senator Obama voted yes, and was passed.

Am I mistaken or wasn't one of Obama's nominees (for a position regarding cybersecurity) forced to withdraw his name when his firm was raided by the department of justice?
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday April 9, 2009, 3:30 am
Is jay Rockfeller one of David Rockfeller son? the NWO guy?
 

Judy H. (5)
Thursday April 9, 2009, 11:35 am
Do you have a link or documentation to back this up? I'm with Eva on this one. More republican propaganda.
 

Mary Neal (187)
Thursday April 9, 2009, 6:41 pm
There must be some mistake

I read before the presidential election that President Obama felt that some of the powers of the presidential office should be scaled back.

I am sure that when he knows about this, he will reject the additional power. He has been overseas, you know.

I think he will be angry about this.

Mary
 

Mick Gill (119)
Thursday April 9, 2009, 10:54 pm
The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing nothing has changed and power is still in the hands of the Hidden Power behind the Puppet Government.
 

Marty H. (119)
Friday April 10, 2009, 2:07 am
David. Jay is nephew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Rockefeller
 

Marty H. (119)
Friday April 10, 2009, 2:09 am
I'm also sure this article did not sit well with the Rockefellers!
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/281006_rockefeller_911.html
 

sue M. (184)
Friday April 10, 2009, 2:27 am
If the government was on the up and up, squeeky clean so's to speak. it would not be worried and have nothing to hide!
But we all know that ain't true.
 

Locan Sleeping-Squirrel (209)
Friday April 10, 2009, 2:55 pm
My apologies for lack of documentation. I do know that about three weeks ago main stream news was covering the troubled nominees that had withdrawn from consideration. The one I am refering to is not as high profile as everyone that "forgot" to pay taxes.

Found a link, can't vouch for the source but relays facts as I remembered them.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/12/obama-tech-appointee-office-raided/

If it doesn't work or you don't like the source, I Googled office raided Obama nominee, I see now I was mistaken, this guy was an appointee. With the topic being cybersecurity, I remembered this vaguely. Thanks for keeping me honest and helping me be more accurate. Grateful.
 

Locan Sleeping-Squirrel (209)
Friday April 10, 2009, 3:00 pm
As far as Jay Rockefeller, I watched him on CSPAN speaking from the Senate floor for two days while they debated immunity for the telecoms. It was as you all know passed and both then Presidential Candidates Obama and McCain, voted in favor of it.
 

Locan Sleeping-Squirrel (209)
Friday April 10, 2009, 3:07 pm
Better source

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-briefs13-2009mar13,0,1454573.story?track=rss
 

Mary Neal (187)
Saturday April 11, 2009, 12:13 am
Would he really take out all Interent sites, .edu and .com and .gov? What would that do to a normal workday at the office? Ludicrou idea! Rockefeller's bill is like the nuclear war button - it has been available for many years and never used, thank God. I just cannot see any RATIONAL president actually taking down the Internet and throwing the whole nation into communication tormoil, disrupting business and education and government operations. Of course, we have had irrational ones . . .
 

Blue Bunting (855)
Tuesday April 14, 2009, 9:06 am
It will certianly be interesting to "filter" all tho$e me$$age$ from RepubliCON$ ... the way they've been "doing it" to us for the last 8 years!
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday December 9, 2009, 3:13 am
Bright guy that you are, do what others have learned to do. Write it in "Word", save a copy of it OR compose it in the NowPublic space and make a copy of it before you post it. But for the love of God, get off your high-horse, stop complaining about garbage that it's counterproductive to complain about, in the absence of proof/corroboration. Anyone with even half a brain could see what you're doing, which is getting yourself and the rest of us absolutely nowhere. It's so clear that you have no interest in exposing and/or ending OS. You want targets/victims to be dismisses and marginalized.

jeux ps2
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.