A friend of mine said he didn’t know if BHussein was more like Hitler or Stalin.
I replied: He’s a
healthy combination of both. Let’s call him Shitler.
He’s hiding out, folks. He sees the numbers. He knows support is dropping. Why else would he need to take another vacation (starting next Wednesday) after the vacation he and his family are currently on?
“Man… all of this vacationing is making me need a vacation”.
Yeah, well in the REAL world, BarryO, one usually work a full YEAR before they’re eligible for paid vacation. I’m tired of footing the bill so you and your neanderthal of a mate and your little “accident” Malia, and Sasha the “punishment” can tour the world – go shop in Europe, eat onion rings in Marxists Vineyard, waterboard in Hawai’i, and all that jazz.
Here’s a thought: Why don’t you fucking ACCOMPLISH something, and actually DO SOME WORK before you decide you deserve a vacation.
Oh, and for the record, this was the deadliest month in the war. Because our “leader” is seen as weak – and he is. WEAK. A big sopping wet vagina – occupying the White House – greasing that shit up – leaving their stink all over the place.
Now that I got that off my chest, onto the article:
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
Source: CNS News
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.”
[Note: “Cyber Threat” – or “a cybersecurity emergency” translates to: ANYTHING THAT OPPOSES BHUSSEIN AND HIS TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT. ANYTHING THAT SPREADS NEWS AND INFORMATION THAT DOESN’T SUPPORT AND BUILD UP OUR VAGINA-IN-CHIEF. Think any “right wing” or even “unbiased” sources. ANYTHING they think might hurt their own image – and spread the truth.]
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.
I don’t see how comparing GROUNDING ALL AIRCRAFT ON THE VERY DAY WE EXPERIENCED THE MOST HORRIFIC ATTACK on AMERICA – WHERE OVER THREE THOUSAND of our fellow citizens LOST THEIR LIVES can be compared to CENSORING PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET. THAT is the most idiotic argument that I’ve heard come from this sack of shit administration. WHAT if President Bush tried to pull a stunt like this? Do you know how many pissed off little teenagers we’d have when they realize they couldn’t get online and complain about President Bush? WHEN they couldn’t upload their photoshopped Bush-Hitler images?! THERE would have been MASSIVE outrage. Protests. Can you imagine? But, no, that would never have happened, because President Bush actually KNOWS what the constitution says – what it means – and he supported it.
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.
(Just to piss off the Obamatrons)
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 security perspective.”