Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

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."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

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.)

"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."

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

[1g2j]

This is a bill I actually agree with...It makes sense to give the Commander in Chief direct authority to protect the Internet. Now what the president should do is move Cybersecurity under the supervision of the Defense Department.....Just my opinion.

[ballmerisanape]

Protect? If this was under the Bush administration..... would your comment be different?

[Perry_Clease]

I think that there is a danger the power could be use politically such as against an opponent from a different party. Besides, should there be a national emergency involving it he probably already has some authority to do something to protect the internet.

[jaguar717]

Autos, banks, energy, medicine, the airwaves, the census, the internet, the paycheck of anyone trying to work for an honest living...
There is nothing the Chicago thugocracy won't seize control of.

Omnipotent government is the common thread here, and instead of fearing it like the Founders, people are sprinting toward it hoping for handouts.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ 1g2j, you are nuts.

Commander in Chief huh?

0bama couldn't command a rag tag army of ******* guerillas of his life depended upon it.

This has nothing to do with "prorecting" the internet.

It has everything to do with the power drunk, dicatorial 0bama engaging in an unprecedendted, unconstitutional power grab, orchestrated by his psychotic. lunatic fringe "czars" like Van Jones.

After siezing the auto companies, siezing the banks, setting up a snitch line at [e-mail] for Americans to report anyone who doesn't agree with 0bama's evil health care bill, , ahile ammasing a fedrel deficits of a staggering $1.6 trillion, and sending "stimulus" money to murderers in US jails, this communist wants to grab control of the internet too does he?

It's time for the American people to stop this mad man, before he ruins this country for good.

[protagonistic]

Oh what a difference a president makes. If this had been under Bush you would have seen a tremendous outcry. Name me one power the government has grabbed that it has not eventually misused. It would seem to be politics as usual. So much for change we can believe in.

[amadensor]

Minor correction:
Bush took control of the banks by starting TARP., Obama took the auto companies. Like The Who said, "New boss, same as the old boss" in the song "Won't Get Fooled Again."

[ccamp_fx]

Oh no, what is President Bush up to now?

Oh, wait . . . . .

[Support_Liberty_Now]

Protect the internet? It's not a building on Federal land. If a company was physically attacked through corporate espionage or protestors the government wouldn't "temporarily" seize the company until they investigated the crime. This is a gross overreach of government power, its socialism at best and quite frankly they're crapping all over the constitution. It's downright sickening.

[johnso5]

*** are you kidding? We're moving closer and closer to IRANIAN Type Control...geesh

[bultacom135]

When you make this statement, giving centralized power to control the internet... just think Hugo Chavez!

[RickMK]

Critical infrastructure should not be on the Internet. Problem solved.

[mooreoftom]

I agree. All critical infrastructures should be on an intranet just like the DoD's critical information is on an intranet only (not at all connected to the public internet).

I would rather the government get good at what they were created to do in the first place, any one know what that was? One of the reasons the government was created was to protect its citizens from foreign invaders. One way (among many ways) to protect on this front is to secure our borders.

"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

Again, as RickMK stated, get the critical infrastructures of the internet. Why does access to our water, electricity, traffic lights, need to be on a global world wide web at all? They don't! The obvious answer is to put them on their own intranet with no outside (foreign, oversees) access.

The real problem here is that our lawmakers are really pushing to weaken America's infrastructure with proposed bills such as this, thereby creating a socialistic (or worse fascist) global economy.

[man_w_balls]

US Gov't already has several high-security private intranets, not exposed to Internet risk. The infrastructure already exists to protect the "critical infrastructure" that this bill pretends to aim to protect. Add the proposed critical stuff to the secure intranets, just as RickMK says above. Therefore, this bill is a useless power grab and should be squashed.
Why are there so many new laws being proposed or enacted to give more authority to the gov't or executive branch in particular? Like they don't already tread on anything/one they want...

[ghostsouls]

Instead of taking yet more freedoms from the people it would be easier and better serve the whitehouse, if they put their system on a separate connection only connected to each other, and can then lock out the internet, but still be able to communicate within itself. What obama has in store for us, he does not want to get out to the rest of the world in minutes. This will just create an underground, then people will b e getting arrested for getting out on the internet. Wasn't it China recently that was stopping their people from using the internet, and Americans said, whew glad I live here and still have the internet? Well guess what .........The instillation of people like Van Jones, with radical and communist ties, in our federal government, radical and fraudulent groups like ACORN, SEIU, instilling themselves within our government, obama wanting to create a National Civilian Security Force, that is as well trained as the military and has just as much power, the dismantling of our constitution piece by piece, the attempts to stifle freedom of speech.........YOU don't see a pattern here? This is something out of a science fiction novel. One man and one idiotic party so blinded by the messiah, they cannot see that they are being used as pawns in the bigger picture, the dismantling of the United States.

[gggg sssss]

Yet California is going to use Google apps to run the place. Curious indeed

[guy-on-web]

RickMK - I wish our nation's critical infrastructure was not on the internet. But, the internet is the critical infrastructure for nearly any business, hospital, bank, etc.. The only way not be connect is the internet is go caveman or spend another two or three trillion dollars to re-wire the US.

[sargebx]

i agree with RickMK why on earth is the power grid or any of these other services accessible through the internet even if it is only back door access. seems like we are giving the power to completely shut down entire regions at the click of the button. when it should take a large group of utility workers... so the likely hood of some sort of attack less likely RIGHT????

[amadensor]

We already have an internet threat that must be neutralized. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the tea baggers must all have their connections cut off, as they are a threat to the re-election of the president.

[jaguar717]

Agreed. Dissent must be squashed.

All those who dare question government control, Dear Leader, or The Party must be silenced!
Anyone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker is a racist terrorist extremist!

[ballmerisanape]

Your right. We should eliminate free speech all together. It's such a nuisance...

[John_Villanueva]

And that 4th amendment thing... privacy... kiss my arse... you deserve no privacy. What are you trying to hide, anyway?

[juangalt]

agree - but we should locate and confiscate all the guns before we severe their internet connect.
that whole 'constitution and bill of rights' thing is highly over-rated.

[mooreoftom]

Why is it that every single liberal I've ever heard say anything, always gets off topic, changes the subject, and uses flawed reciprocal reasoning such as amadensor.

But, since you brought up the topic, I'll briefly comment...

No conservative, or republican for that matter, has ever said anything about "neutralizing" liberal media outlets, whether its online blogs, abc, cbs, nbc, msnbc, or cnn. Why is it that when liberals are disagreed with, the first thing they do is attack the person whom disagrees with their ideology. For example, Joe the plumber, they said he didn't have a liscense to be contracted plumber. Okay, that just means he couldn't own his own plumbing company, that didn't invalidate his plumbing skills for working for a plumbing company.

I believe that the republicans including some centrists, and undecided voters are waking up to liberal scare tactics, and the 2010 elections are going to be proof of this great awakening.

[bryanr12]

This kinda reminds me of the movie Valkrie (excuse spelling) when Tom Cruise went to Hitler to adjust the plans if Marshall law was required. Just a thought?

[anvil2010]

Have some more kool-aid. What if we had problems like Iran ??? you want no one to know about ???
There goes our right of free speech if someone decides to only cut off the ones you don't want to hear .What if what they are saying is the truth ?? I don't like everything I hear but I want the freedom to hear it.

[minhdle_2000]

How about my VoIP phone? I get cut off too? I'm not a tea bagger or right-wing extremist.

[alaskareport]

Touche....! Or shall I say... 'Megadittos'

[Tkkz]

Nazi much?

Once again the modern left proves that they haven't moved away from their "great" role models: Mao, Stalin and yes... Hitler.

[fafafooey]

Demokooks like McCullagh and "civil liberties groups" would be going ape sh*t if this were being proposed a year or two ago when Bush was president. But now their 0bamassiah is president and they are just "alarmed"....

Maybe the limousine libs like Rockefeller will try to pull something like the Massachusetts Democrat party - they passed a law so the governor could not appoint a replacement senator (when they thought Kerry might win and Republican Mitt Romney would appoint his replacement). Now Ted "The First OJ" Kennedy died and they are trying to undo the law so the now-Democrat governor can appoint someone - hypocrites.

Rockefeller and his comrades will probably try to put something in the bill so the government can take emergency control of the Internet, but only if the president is a liberal Democrat.

Hypocrites.

[odubtaig]

Read the first sentence of the article. What does it say? What does it specifically say about Civil Liberties Groups? That's right, they're going apesh*t now as well.

If you're going post a comment, at least try to hide that it's a 100% unthinking, brain-dead reaction pumped into your brain by Fox without even bothering to read two words. I guarantee if this were proposed by a Repubilcan you'd be defending it to the hilt without even knowing what you were defending.

[odubtaig]

PS The ACLU described the PATRIOT act as 'alarming'. That is them going 'apesh*t'.

[em417]

@Odubtaig. Are you serious? here is the quote from the first line that you reference.

"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."

Fafafooey's comment was that they are just alarmed, not going ape ****. But, then again, you must know that because you're not brain dead. Right?

[rayzoredge]

Agreed as to wondering why "critical infrastructures" are on the Internet in the first place.

Place them on private networks/Intranets, limit access, and have people GO to the sites to work on those grids.

I don't have a clue as to how all this smart grid stuff was implemented, but just the idea of all this stuff being available on the Interwebz is scary. I'm just waiting for internal attacks from bored hackers just to screw with others.

Sheesh.

[inachu1]

Ok everyone outside of the USA you must fly to the USA and turn in your routers and switches and computers if the president gets upset.

[likes2comment]

Our multinational company has data centers/internet access thru various countries throughout the world. Shutting down the two US datacenters would not cripple the company since everything (DB Servers\Internet Servers\App Servers) is redundant. All that would happen is that some people in the US locations would be furloughed until they were able to work again without government interference. btw, everytime there are reports of nasty viruses, etc taking down goverment computers and such, due to proper infrastructure architecture and multi-lawyered defense, our networks run just fine. No way (well maybe 50 caliber guns) would we let the government IT clowns get their hands our our computing infrastrucure and mess it up.

[Random_Walk]

Good luck with that... the Internet isn't quite built that way.

[i-arman]

Maybe not in the US, not now... but how about China? Their government has a pretty good stranglehold on the Internet there... given time, the US could end up with the same sort of controls in place.

Never say never...

[Random_Walk]

Nah - too many privately-owned wires and sat signals, going to too many places. The old saw "The Internet sees censorship as damage, and routes around it" is as true today as it was when the networks were only 1/10th their size 10 years ago.

You are right in that China has somewhat of a stranglehold, but only due to the relatively small number of international connections.

OTOH, they have little control internally - at least not as much as most folks think they do.

[tornato7]

China Has a good stranglehold over the internet, but there are hundreds of programs out there to get past even government internet censorship. The only way to completely block a website is to remove the server itself

[biffhenerson]

More induced fear to distract people from important issues. Not unlike a magician drawing focus to his left hand while doing something sneaky with his right. This administration is sneaky.

Turning the internet OFF would cause more harm than good. I can't wait until they test it for fun and destroy the economy lol.

The real problem is corporations, people, and government hooked to the internet without adequate security. In many cases, they should not be hooked to the internet at all. They don?t want to spend the money to do it right or they have no clue that they are exposed. Security. It?s easy to do it wrong. It?s difficult to do it right. This needs to change.

[Sprice962]

If you are too stupid to wake up.... you will die the death of a common sheep.

[MsUnderestimated]

My thoughts exactly.

[krosafcheg]

Most are already dead. So that makes them more like zombies, less like sheep. Unless there are zombie sheep.
but then, you know what I mean...

[crysstaafur]

There are more tools here than you could put in a Craftsman toolchest!!

why this is fail, politically speaking:
The president hasn't even seen this bill yet.
This bill hasn't even been seen by the majority of congress yet.
It hasn't even been voted on.

why this is fail, technologically speaking:
There is no hard wire to cut. There are too many hard wires to cut.
There are hard wires that aren't wires to cut.
ISP's, media companies, network technology companies, and even users have all
contributed into making the internet as redundant as humanly possible, connection wise.

why this is fail, software wise:
Well what about shutting off or preventing network protocols.
Turn off http/https, shut down ftp/ftps, knock out all forms of rss.
not happening. Even if there was a way to *mass* port-unforward/block every
port on everyone's tcp/ip stack(yeah right.. lol), there are still other ways to communicate,
irc, archie, gopher, bbs, homebrew darknets, sneakernets, hell even other protocols such as ipx/spx
There is packet-radio using a modified HAM radio station. Even packet-radio over CB is possible..

The people who wrote this bill, are simply out of touch with reality, just like most of the people who posted above this message...

[pentest]

Funny how you idiots cheered the misnamed patriot act, renditions, torture, war profiteering, and wiretapping everyone without a warrant.

Now that a black man is in office, you racists who let Bush burn the constitution and bill of rights are frothing at the mouth.

[Lerianis3]

by pentest August 30, 2009 11:45 AM PDT
Funny how you idiots cheered the misnamed patriot act, renditions, torture, war profiteering, and wiretapping everyone without a warrant.

Now that a black man is in office, you racists who let Bush burn the constitution and bill of rights are frothing at the mouth.
_________________________________

You sir have won the internet! Your statement is exactly right. People like Sprice962, MsUnderestimated, etc. are idiots who were very happy to allow Bush to **** all over the Constitution, yet now are pissed that the Democrats are thinking of doing something like this.
Personally, it's a bunch of HYPOCRICY!

[Jrivz]

pentest : " Now that a black man is in office, you racists who let Bush burn the constitution and bill of rights are frothing at the mouth."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U idiot it doesn't matter whos in that office, they are all puppets, the illusion of them being "different" is a way to distract the lay man from whats really happening, so we the people waste our time discussing whos the best candidate. they all are puppets with different tactics but still getting the same result. NWO is comming , its just a matter of time, and us doing nothing to prevent it.

[darklumina]

Good luck with that.. internet isn't exactly US property.

[gggg sssss]

but much of it relies on US name servers.

[Random_Walk]

Not really... and look up OpenDNS while you're at it. ;)

[gggg sssss]

@Random_whatever - we only really care abot teh us, amd last I looked. teh .com root servers are still in the US.

[nutnik]

Exactly. Also, what constitutes a "national threat" to where the government feels the need to seize control? The article states "natural disaster", but how does that affect the entire nation? Earthquakes don't affect people on the East coast, hurricanes don't affect the West coast, and tornadoes don't affect either coast. So every time a "natural disaster" happens, the government has the right to take over? Further, cyberthreat??? The Internet is REAL-TIME. The companies that are posed to threat are exposed 24-7, and they DEAL WITH IT. They create the methods to counteract and subvert subsequent attacks. Like darklumina said, "Good luck with that.. internet isn't exactly US property." If this were realized, then maybe nations would stop trying to CONTROL it. It cannot be controlled - only watched and regulated to a degree.

[juangalt]

I, for one, welcome our new jackbooted overlords.

all hail the supreme leader - all hail Obama !!!!!!

[likes2comment]

Wrong, it's All hail Darth Obama !!!!!!

[usmcaf]

More like, "All hail his majesty, the first King of the United States, Darth Obama!"

[joejohnson043]

Remember what happened in Iran during their elections? Remember how everyone says: "Ohhhh the Internet is here, so now they can never control our information"?!?! Well... they can, and THEY WILL, AND IT IS ALREADY IN A FRIKIN BILL!!!!!!!!!! THink about it, he has the mainstream media, he will take down the internet, except for approved sites probably, and talk radio will be knocked off the air..... When all information sources become subject to any government... we have a problem, and there is certainly a dark reason why this is happening.

[cmdprompt]

Absolute madness. 1g2j, you are a lemming. I wouldn't have stood for this out of Bush, heck I wouldn't put up with this out of any president. THIS IS AMERICA for God's sake!

[Zoobie]

I don't know who originally said it, but it's turned out to be true:
American's will never knowingly vote for socialism (or, might I add, totalitarianism). They will, however, slowly accept it through the liberal agenda of adding one socialist program at a time.

[Dimorius]

Yes Zoobie, a totalitarian dictatorship like Sweden.

You people don't know what the heck Socialism is. It's an economic system, not a giant power grab. Obama is not a Marxist, only a weak willed centrist corporate puppet. He keeps trying to please the right and utterly fails at it because the right will never accept him and then he just pisses off anyone who would support him except he most drone like people because he's going insanely right-wing passing out half-hearted limp gestures and failing to do what's correct.

The state should butt out of personal matters, save for illegal transgressions (You know the ones.) And only concern itself with providing a fair playing field for all people and ensuring their rights rather than letting corporations trample over everyone. I'd much rather trust the state than a corporation that cares nothing about people, but only making a quick buck in its very definition.

Also, no 'emergency control of the internet' is not a power that should be had. It does nothing to further the people and only seeks to suppress intellectual advancement and creates more disparity in classes. That's not Marxist at all to create class disparity.

[Lerianis3]

by Dimorius August 29, 2009 12:57 PM PDT
The state should butt out of personal matters, save for illegal transgressions (You know the ones.)
______________________________________________

Most of those 'illegal transgressions' the state shouldn't be getting involved in anyway. Not children and adults sexual choices, even if they are making the choice to have sex together. Not people's personal choices on birth control. Not people's personal choices of what they eat. Etc. etc. etc.

Too many of our laws today are not meant to protect people, but are meant to control people and force people's likes and dislikes on others.

[phillysmart]

You folks better start tuning in to Beck because he is right on with this current cancer effecting our country...the left wing nut jobs want control of everything ...totalitarian regime...we need eradicate the cancer that has infected a once nobel party (D) and make it American again...resist the socialist

[ejevo]

China thanks you for resisting efforts to put forth any semblance of a credible defense against their continued plans of infiltrating the critical infrastructure of the US.

And don't forget, kids, keep buying at Wal-mart. China needs those dollars to keep funding all their espionage against your country.

[Lerianis3]

Like the right wing 'nutjobs' are any better? They were heading towards a totalitarian regime as well, and really.... the left is not heading that way. They are heading towards socialism, which contrary to the right's heart attacks, is NOT a bad thing unless it start meddling in people's personal choices.

[eeldrawoh]

Anyone that can't see the framework being put into place is a blind fool. Lock and load.

[bultacom135]

There are a lot of blind fools out there. Liberalism is like a religion to these people. They've been indoctrinated and cannot see past that. If you don't think totalitarianism can't come to Amerika, you're wrong. Russia wasn't always Communist and Germany was a free country before Hitler. It can happen here, too. What scares me most is the Media is there to sound the alarm, but they are not only silent, but walking in lockstep with the dear leader.

[Noah_Whey]

Locked and Loaded! Waiting patiently.

[olegunny]

Are you ready on the right and ready on the left.

[Virginia_Slim]

Fired a classic .45 M1911 semiautomatic for the first time at the range last night. What a fantastic pistol. Locked and loaded, indeed.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

[Youssarian]

"...........................All ready on the firing line............! "...............Hold 'em and squeeze 'em...."

Virginia_Slim, I refer to my .45 M191A1 as my "hand cannon". Carried one in Vietnam (along with other assorted weapons:-) and always felt a little safer with it along.

Hiya "olegunny" Semper Fi // USMC 1963-1974. 2533/5949/5979

[gggg sssss]

but they want to take your guns away too.

[Bayne123]

Stocking up on guns and ammo. Just waiting......

[sandyma5]

Keep in mind, the great Bozo is just looking for any excuse to crack down...please be careful, but stand up and as Glenn says, question boldly...we will not be silenced...

[Lerianis3]

by sandyma5 August 29, 2009 8:07 AM PDT
Keep in mind, the great Bozo is just looking for any excuse to crack down...please be careful, but stand up and as Glenn says, question boldly...we will not be silenced...
________________________________________

Funny, I have yet to see Obama doing ANYTHING that would be called 'looking for an excuse to crack down'. In fact, he really should have cracked down already on the nuts who are calling for him to be KILLED, but he hasn't! Those people should be ROTTING in a prison cell by now, yet Obama won't do anything because he doesn't want to justify the far rights fear-mongering about him.

[MsUnderestimated]

This is BEYOND out of control! When will Americans wake up and tell this Administration STOP IT! Unbelievable!!!!

[Solaris_User]

In order to stop it we need to start saying no.. and sometimes saying no means risking jail. Just ask Rosa Parks.

[jersey_prophet]

I wouldn't trust this president with my pet gerbil.

[TheAntiLib]

You have more faith in him than I do

[Bogeyy]

That Snake might eat him.

[artemis13399]

Yea, God only knows what he'd do with him, especially with the gay rumors and all.

[cm12343]

So true Jersey_prophet!

[DiogenesofSC]

Our privacy and civil liberties are under assault. Democrats should be just as upset about this as Republicans. If you are upset with the Patriot Act and opposed to sections 431(a), 245(b)(2)(A), and 1801(a) of HR3200, then you should be against this bill.

STAND UP FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

[GBrains]

Okay, so I read sections 431, 245, and 1801 of HR3200. Whats the problem with the goverment determining my eligibilty for subsidies on healthcare by checking with another government agency?

[Bogeyy]

Hey Gbrain, are you really that dense?

[Patty Nottoli]

What a crazy idea from crazy Rockefeller. If we're in an emergency we want every bit of access to the Internet! We would NEVER let a radical Chicago politician take it over. Joe Biden's already told us there's going to be an "orchestrated" disaster during which we're not supposed to think too badly of how they handle it. If you've been watching Glenn Beck this week you know this is part of the left's long-incubated and now ready-to-hatch plot to take over America. If you haven't been watching Glenn Back this week, watch it today - he'll be outlining the plan for what we need to do to stop Obama and his marxist, communist, socialist, anti-capitalist, you name it, czars and community organizer thugs.

[unknown unknown]

I am skeptical of Obama's motive and outraged by some of his policies, but Glenn Beck is the last person I'd turn to for information. For example, Mr.Beck has gone from excoriating the healthcare system in the U.S to calling it one of the best in world in order to criticize Obama health care reform.

you are right on.

[cm12343]

Glenn Beck has it right. Obama has surrounded himself with the most anti-American types there are. He is not to be trusted with two tin cans and a string must less control of the internet.

[darlena1956]

So the US government cannot secure the borders but they can control the internet. I see what the bigger threat to this president is. It's the citizens.

[redbaron1952]

One can only hope that Obama's plans can be slowed down enough that we can survive four years without completely losing our freedom! We've made a good start, but we must not relent. Then, I hope he is voted out in a landslide, but the Republicans cannot afford to pick another weak candidate.

Power to the people!