How long will it be before the government tries to shut this blog down in the name of an emergency?

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet by Declan McCullagh at the following link:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

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.

Awesome Reagan Audio Remix

Sittin' on the Front Lawn of Zack Space... watching the Tide of National Health Care Roll Away

Now heres' a guy showing initiative!

From our Email Bag...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:
Coach Dave Daubenmire 740 507 3211
Zack Space 740 452 6338

Local football coach vows to continue round the clock vigil, granted permission to stay by Zanesville City Hall

Zanesville - With the summer sun beating down on Fourth Street, Coach Dave Daubenmire is still smiling his wry smile.

Sitting beneath Democrat Representative Zack Space's Congressional plaque outside the Congressman's office, "Coach" said he won't quit until Zack Space hosts a town hall. And twelve hours into his pledged round-the-clock vigil, the Fairfield Christian Academy football coach remains vigilant.

"I'm doing this for my kids and grandkids," says Coach Dave. "And I don't even have any grandkids yet."

"This is taxation without representation. My unborn grandkids are already being shackled with a debt inflicted by Congressmen like Zack Space who won't even meet with their constituents," insists Daubenmire."

Answering his cell phone from a collapsable chair, Daubenmire is only leaving his post when he breaks for practice between 2 and 6 PM.

The football coach has already garnered media attention from country station T-100, WHIZ TV, WCLT News and the Zanesville Times Recorder.

"I'm more interested in the people passing by," says Coach. "Almost everyone of them has been supportive."

Zanesville City Hall has also supported Daubenmire's right to protest.

"As long as he's peaceful and just sitting in a chair, he has a right to be there," said Robert Brandford, Zanesville Public Safety Director.

Brandford conferred with Chief of Police Eric Lambes on Daubenmire's protest and determined that Coach can stay. "Americans have the right to free speech, the right to protest and the right to assemble peacefully," said Brandford.

Initially concerned that he might be forced to move, Daubenmire can sleep comfortably (or at least legally) tonight on Fourth Street.

Good for Coach Dave. I know we have spoken with several aides for Zack Space and they have confirmed he will not having any public Town Halls and will NOT be meeting with constituents. We have left at least a minimum of 10 messages for Space's Chief of Staff to contact us -- none have been returned.

Gear up Patriots... when the congressional clowns go back in session -- Space must be a target and he can be influenced. If Space understands the make up of his district and wants to stay in office... he will vote no on nationalized Hellth Care.

College kids recruited to join Obama's 'army' Earn credit for pushing 'change,' working on president's 'agenda'

If you have a student who is going off to college this fall, either for the first time or a returning student, then please read this and pass it along to them. Also, contact your student's college/university and ask them if they are participating in this program to give college credit for student participation.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107357

God Bless and Help America! We need it now more than ever!

Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care by Newt Gingrich 08/26/2009

We found this article and feel it's worthy of your time.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=33275

As they say on TV, we report, you decide.

God Bless America!

Tea Party Talk Show Interviews Ann Coulter

Hello Patriots

We found this in our email box today and wanted to share it. There is a Tea Party Talk Show being hosted tomorrow

Tea Party Talk Show .com interviews Ann Coulter -

FREE STREAMING SHOW for Tea Party listeners.

10:00PM Eastern - 9:00PM Thursday Central - 7:00PM Pacific

Listen to FREE STREAMING SHOW here: www.teapartytalkshow.com

MIKE and SPIKE, originally heard on the radio and internet in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma were the first talk show hosts to get FIRED from their station for asking "Where's Obama's Birth Certificate?"

Health Care Reform-Will it cover abortions?

We received this email alert today from Rep. John Boehner and thought it was worthy of passing along.


DETAILED ANALYSIS: HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE PLAN ALLOWS TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTIONS

DESPITE DEMOCRATS’ CLAIMS, THE “CAPPS COMPROMISE” WAS JUST FOR POLITICAL COVER
August 25, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink

Most Americans – about 70 percent, according to a recent Zogby poll – are opposed to allowing taxpayer funds to be used to pay for abortion. But the government takeover of health care proposed by Democratic leaders in Washington runs counter to the views most Americans have on the subject, and despite the claims of some prominent Democrats, the legislation would in fact allow abortions to be subsidized by taxpayer funds. House Democrats claim that an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) in the Energy & Commerce Committee will prevent taxpayer dollars from going to abortion, but a close reading of the legislation shows that is fiction.

In a letter to members of the House of Representatives, Cardinal Rigali, Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Pro-Life Activities, criticized this Capps “compromise” for delegating to the Health & Human Services Secretary “the power to make unlimited abortion a mandated benefit in the ‘public health insurance plan’ the government will manage nationwide.”

In addition, the Associated Press has reported that “Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions” and FactCheck.Org has stated that “House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.” House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made the following comment on this troubling development:

“When most Americans talk about the need for health care reform, they’re talking about the need to address rising health care costs, not taxpayers subsidizing abortion. The fact that this bill will actually increase the deficit and raise costs for middle-class families and small businesses while allowing their hard-earned money to be used to pay for destroying human life is unconscionable. Health care reform that fails to respect the dignity of all human life is not reform at all.”

A detailed analysis of the Democrats’ government-run plan shows how it allows taxpayer-subsidized abortions:

* Page 24; Section 115 – The bill requires that plans that use a provider network for health services must meet the standards set forth by the “Health Choices Commissioner” to assure the adequacy of the network for plan enrollees to receive covered services. If abortion becomes an essential benefit, as Section 122 leaves open as a possibility, provider networks would be required to ensure – including by establishing abortion clinics – that abortion services are available.

* Page 26; Section 122 – The bill defines what would be deemed an “essential benefits package,” or in other words what the government sets as benefits or services that must be covered by an insurance plan. This section, however, contains no explicit exclusion or prohibition from abortion being deemed part of an essential benefits package. Without such an exclusion, the bill leaves open the possibility of federally mandated coverage of abortion as an essential benefit.

The bottom line? H.R. 3200 does not contain any limitation on federal funds authorized or appropriated in the bill from being used to pay for elective abortion or to subsidize the purchase of insurance coverage of elective abortion.

When Democrats return to Washington next month, will they be willing to work with Republicans to ensure that taxpayer money isn’t used to end human life? Or will they continue to go it alone, trying to force a partisan government takeover of health care down the throats of the American people?

REPUBLICAN LEADER PRESS OFFICE
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH)
H-204, THE CAPITOL
(202) 225-4000 | GOPLEADER.GOV