Best-Selling Authors Cause of Budget Crisis!

At least, that’s what President Obama thinks/wants us to think. No, really, I’m not making this up:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/11/obama_warns_best-selling_authors_youre_not_off_the_hook.html

“We weren’t balancing the budget off of middle-class families and working-class families. And we weren’t letting hedge fund managers or authors of best-selling books off the hook. That is a reasonable proposition.”

You gotta be kidding me. What fantasy world is this guy living in? Actually, I know the answer: the same one I was when I first got the bright idea of wanting to be a writer. Most authors, even the best-selling ones, make roughly the equivalent of minimum wage off of each book they write. The millionaires like Clancy and J. K. Rowling are the very rare exception to the rule. And how’s this for hypocracy: Obama is also a NYT Best Selling Author. I wonder if he paid his fair share, of if he’s part of the problem too? [/sarcasm]

IMO, this proves it: Obama’s lost it. He’s taken a swan dive off the high dive into the very deep end of the pool.

For a real best-selling author’s opinion on the matter: check out this post by NYT Best Selling Author Larry Correia. It’s very entertaining and an excellent read, but then again, Larry’s stuff always is. That’s why he’s an NYT Best Selling Author after all.

….Our Sacred Honor

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

 

Ding, Dong, Bin Laden’s Dead!

I’m sure you’ve already seen it all over the news, Facebook, the Blogosphere, etc., but I just have to say it.

Osama bin Laden is dead.

I’m not sure exactly where, when, or how he was killed. Most consistent report I’ve heard is that he was killed by some sort of special-forces or paramilitary team in a mansion outside of Islamabad, Pakistan. Personally, I don’t care where, when or how. All that matters to me is that he’s dead and gone. No more innocent people are going to die because of him, and for that, I celebrate this day.

I’m not the only one. CNN showed a crowd of I’d estimate upwards of 500 people outside the White House singing The Star Spangled Banner and God Bless America when the news finally broke. Images like that restore my faith in this country. We may disagree on politics, sometimes to the point of violence, but deep down, we are all still Americans.

However, not everyone feels as I do (and most of you probably do to) about this. A lot of my FB Friends are already chiming in that killing is wrong no matter what and who are we to rejoice in bin Laden’s death and we had no right to kill him, etc. ad-nauseum. Now, I disagree with those opinions (no duh), but I’m not going to debate them here. Not in a forum where they can’t defend themselves, and I’ll ask my readers to do the same.

That said, I hope the f***er’s just discovered that his 72 virgins are all wearing bacon bikinis, and that they only serve Pulled Pork in Hell.

Big Brother is Watching Me

No, seriously, I think he is!

I was checking on the nest’s hit counts over on SiteMeter (it was pathetic, as usual) and decided just for kicks to see where my visitors hail from. I recognize most of the usual servers, but there was a new one that I’d never seen before: blm.gov.

Wait a second… .gov?

So I clicked on the entry for more details, and this is what I saw:

Yep, I got a visit from the US Government’s Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. Could’ve just been a bored .gov bureaucrat randomly surfing the web, but note the exit page: I Still Remember, which was my 9/11 remembrance post. That strikes me as a little… I dunno… weird. What with all the controversy about the Ground Zero Mosque and everything (which reminds me, gotta do a post on that)… was just scoped out by the Feds? As a potential terrorist or whatever?

Oddly enough, I’m not frightened by that prospect. It’s actually kinda cool. It means I’m finally big enough in the blogosphere to get noticed!

Dr Seuss 2010

I do not like this Uncle Sam,
I do not like his health care scam.

I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books.

I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.

I do not like this speaker Nan,
I do not like this ‘YES WE CAN’.

I do not like this spending spree,
I’m smart, I know that nothing’s free,

I do not like your smug replies,
when I complain about your lies.

I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it. nope, nope, nope!

DISCLAIMER: I didn’t write this, it was forwarded to me via email from a friend.

FBI Goes After Wikipedia… Over It’s Seal?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/08/03/fbi.seal.wikipedia/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn#fbid=V89JO6jNgvY

FBI to Wikipedia: Remove our seal

By John D. Sutter, CNN

(CNN) — The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has threatened Wikipedia with legal action if the online encyclopedia doesn’t remove the FBI’s seal from its site.

The seal is featured in an encyclopedia entry about the FBI.

Wikipedia isn’t backing down, however. The online encyclopedia — which is run by a nonprofit group and is edited by the public — sent a chiding letter to the FBI, explaining why, in its view, the FBI is off its legal rocker.

“In short, then, we are compelled as a matter of law and principle to deny your demand for removal of the FBI Seal from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons,” the Wikimedia Foundation’s general counsel, Mike Godwin, wrote in a letter to the FBI, which was posted online by the New York Times.

“We are in contact with outside counsel in this matter, and we are prepared to argue our view in court.”

The whimsically written letter from Wikipedia says the FBI’s reading of relevant law is both “idiosyncratic” and “more importantly, incorrect.” It also notes that the FBI’s seal appears on other websites, including in an online entry from Encyclopedia Britannica.

In a letter dated July 22, and also posted online by the Times, the FBI told Wikipedia it must remove the bureau’s seal because the FBI had not approved use of the image.

“The FBI has not authorized use of the FBI seal on Wikipedia,” the letter says. “The inclusion of a high quality graphic of the FBI seal on Wikipedia is particularly problematic, because it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting” copying and reprinting of the seal’s image.

The FBI’s deputy general counsel, David Larson, cities a particular law that says duplicating an official “insignia” is illegal without permission.

But Wikipedia strikes back on that point, saying the FBI redacted the most important part of that U.S. code, which defines an insignia as “any badge, identification card, or other insignia.”

“Badges and identification cards are physical manifestations that may be used by a possessor to invoke the authority of the federal government. An encyclopedia article is not,” Wikipedia’s letter says. “The use of the image on Wikipedia is not for the purpose of deception or falsely to represent anyone as an agent of the federal government.”

The Wikipedia letter also adds:

“Even if it could be proved that someone, somewhere, found a way to use a Wikipedia article illustration to facilitate a fraudulent representation, that would not render the illustration itself unlawful under the statute.”

It’s unclear if this tussle — which has already made its way into a Wikipedia entry on the FBI’s seal — will be taken to court. For now, the tech press is weighing in, often with amazement.

On the blog BoingBoing, Rob Beschizza writes that this is a no-win situation for the FBI.

“The part that’s hard to understand is why the FBI would seek to abuse the law in such petulant fashion,” he writes, “knowing that it will be subject to public ridicule for its actions.”

The magazine Vanity Fair posted the FBI’s seal on its website in a symbol of jest. And, as the blog Geekosystem says, an editor on the site aggregator Reddit jokes that maybe the FBI got Wikipedia confused with WikiLeaks — the site that’s been causing a stir lately over leaked war documents.

Cindy Cohn, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the New York Times, which first reported this story, that she found the whole ordeal to be “silly” and “troubling.”

What the frell? No, seriously, what the frell? We’ve got drug cartels operating with impunity on US soil and putting contracts out on public officials, two Senators being investigated on “ethics violations” (i.e. corruption), and foreign nationals conducting law-enforcement operations on US soil against US citizens, and this is what the FBI decides to devote its resources to? Are you fraking kidding me?!?!?

Not only is this a gross misappropriation of resources (not to mention taxpayers’ dollars), but it’s completely pointless! Wikipedia’s in the right here; the Feds don’t have a leg to stand on. The law only applies to individuals or organizations who attempt to impersonate the FBI… and somehow I don’t think Wikipedia’s gonna be knocking on doors and interrogating people any time soon.

Whatever moron in Washington decided that this was even worth more than a laughing-and-pointing episode should be smacked upside the head and then fired from the Agency, preferably immediately if not sooner.

*sigh* Your tax dollars at work, people.

Annoyed Yet?

Came across this on the Internet just now and would have LOL’d, except it’s pretty much true.

I mean, really, what has the government done to combat the oil slick and prevent it from reaching land. The answer: pretty much nothing. It’s been nearly 60 days, but aside from yelling at BP and forcing them to make reparitions for the accident, Washington has done virtually nothing to combat the spill. Actually, they seem to be going out of their way to stop action from being taken. Obama has refused to waive the Jones Act, has told other countries (that have much more experience in dealing with this type of situation) that we do not want their help, and Washington has refused to let Louisiana take action on its own. I kid you not, Governor Jindal had ordered 16 barges be put in place to block of the slick, but the Coast Guard stopped them from moving into position. This was supposedly because the barges weren’t equipped with life rafts, but no one at the Coast Guard can say for sure that’s why the barges were stopped.

I know that I say this a lot, but once again President Obama is really frightening me. In this crisis, he’s actually reminding me quite a lot of a character from a Vince Flynn novel. Sherman Baxter, the Vice President from Transfer of Power. When faced with a monumental crisis, Baxter had no idea how to respond, , and turned to his own political cronies for advice instead of the experts, refused to let any action be taken without his express approval, and actively undermined independent efforts to resolve the crisis. As a result, the crisis nearly ends in disaster.

Am I the only one who thinks reality has begun, at least in some ways, to mirror fiction?

US Land Off-Limits Part II

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/17/portion-arizona-wildlife-refuge-closed-safety-concerns/

Four years after federal officials quietly surrendered thousands of acres of America’s border to Mexican drug gangs and illegals, there still are “no plans to reopen” the taxpayer-owned national park lands.

Roughly 3,500 acres of taxpayer-funded government land in Arizona have been closed to U.S. citizens since 2006 due to safety concerns fueled by drug and human smuggling along the Mexican border, according to a statement posted on the website for the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.

The section of land — about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre refuge — has been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when “there was a marked increase in violence along the border due to human and drug trafficking,” according to the statement released Wednesday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The closed area extends north from the international border for roughly three-quarters of a mile; a notice of the area’s closure has been posted on the refuge’s website since 2006. The remainder of the refuge remains open to the public for recreational activities.

“At this time there are no plans to reopen this southernmost 3/4-mile portion of the Refuge,” the statement continued. “However, since 2006 the Refuge has experienced a significant decline in violent activity in the area thanks to ongoing cooperation between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.”

In a statement to FoxNews.com on Thursday, the director of law enforcement for the Bureau of Land Management said the agency takes visitor and employee safety very seriously.

“We have posted these signs to inform visitors to this part of Southern Arizona of the ongoing public safety issues in this area,” William Woody said in a statement. “We are committed to working with everyone engaged with public land management to ensure that all visitors and users have a safe experience on our public lands.”

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News on Wednesday that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, further underscoring the need to keep the area off-limits to Americans.

“It’s literally out of control,” Babeu said. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have warned visitors in the area to beware of heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers. In a statement posted at the time of the closure, Mitch Ellis, manager of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, said conditions in the zone reached a point where public use of the area was not prudent.

“The [refuge] has been adversely affected by border-related activities,” Ellis’ statement read. “The international border with Mexico has also become increasingly violent. Assaults on law enforcement officers and violence against migrants have escalated. Violence on the Refuge associated with smugglers and border bandits has been well-documented.”

Security is also a top concern in other parcels of public land in Arizona.

Dennis Godfrey, a spokesman for the Bureau of Land Management’s Arizona office, said roughly a dozen signs were posted earlier this month along the Sonoran Desert National Monument advising that travel in the area is not recommended due to “active drug and human” smuggling.

“It is a corridor for smugglers of all types,” Godfrey said on Thursday.

The monument, which contains more than 487,000 acres of desert landscape, is roughly 35 miles southwest of Phoenix. Bureau of Land Management officials are encouraging travelers to use public lands north of Interstate 8, which runs from San Diego to Casa Grande, Ariz.

“Visitors may encounter armed criminals and smuggling vehicles travelling at a high rate of speed,” the signs read. “Stay away from trash, clothing, backpacks and abandoned vehicles.”

So not only has this area been de-facto surrendered to the cartels, but it turns out that said area was surrendered almost four years ago, and the government has no intentions of reclaiming it! Instead of securing our borders, which is their job, our politicians are too busy trying to bankrupt a private corporation as punishment for an industrial accident!

And here’s the money quote: the government is calling the situation a “public safety issue.” What a joke. This situation is way beyond public safety: this situation is a direct threat to the national security of the United States of America. We have armed foreign criminals violating our borders with impunity, killing and kidnapping American citizens at will. And our government has turned a blind eye to the situation, writing it off as a “public safety issue.” That is, when they’re not blaming its own citizens for causing the problem (see Obama’s an Calderone’s accusations that gun nuts like me are supplying the cartels with arms.)

When is Washington going to finally realize just how serious the situation in the Southwest is? What is it going to take? How many more people are going to have to be murdered by cartel enforcers? How much more land is going to be written off?

How many more Americans are going to have to die?

US Territory Closed Off… To American Citizens!!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/16/closes-park-land-mexico-border-americans/

About 3,500 acres of southern Arizona have been closed off to U.S. citizens due to increased violence at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The closed off area includes part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge that stretches along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, forcing officers on an 80 mile stretch of Arizona land north of the Mexico border off-limits to Americans.

The refuge had been adversely affected by the increase in drug smugglers, illegal activity and surveillance, which made it dangerous for Americans to visit.

“The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent,” said refuge manager Mitch Ellis.

“It’s literally out of control,” said Babeu. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico. “

U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have warned visitors in Arizona to beware of heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers.

“We need support from the federal government. It’s their job to secure the border and they haven’t done it,” said Babeu. “In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence and it’s just simply outrageous.”

Signs have been posted warning Americans not to cross into the closed off territory south of Interstate 8. Babeu said the signs are not enough – he said Arizona needs more resources to help scale back the violence caused by the drug cartels.

“We need action. It’s shameful that we, as the most powerful nation on Earth, … can’t even secure our own border and protect our own families.”

What the hell? US territory is too dangerous for US citizens to enter, so instead of securing said territory, the government is instead forbidding US citizens from entering it? It is the responsibility of the United States Government to secure our borders from invasion by foreigners. But instead, the government has essentially ceded this territory to Mexico and to the criminals who are taking it over. What kind of precedent does this set? Are we just going to continue to abandon our territory to the cartels as they expand further and further north. What will happen to Phoenix? It’s already the kidnapping capital of the country thanks to the cartels. If things get worse there, are we just going to write it off too?

This is unacceptable. No, this is beyond unacceptable.

Our government has failed us. There is no other way to put it. Washington has failed to protect this nation from a grave external threat, and we the people are now paying the price for it. I strongly encourage all of you to write to your elected representatives in Washington – all of them – and demand that they take action, serious action, to secure our southern border. I’m already in the process of writing my own letter; I’ll post that as soon as it’s finished.

God Help America.

New Bill Will Give Obama an Internet Kill Switch

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418-38.html

Senators propose granting president emergency Internet power

A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.

The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

That emergency authority would allow the federal government to “preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people,” Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who caucuses with the Democrats.

Because there are few limits on the president’s emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.

TechAmerica, probably the largest U.S. technology lobby group, said it was concerned about “unintended consequences that would result from the legislation’s regulatory approach” and “the potential for absolute power.” And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit Internet traffic on private systems.”

The idea of an Internet “kill switch” that the president could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to “order the disconnection” of certain networks or Web sites.

On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman’s bill, which is formally titled the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said “I commend” the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that “we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber resources.”

Under PCNAA, the federal government’s power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also “relies on” the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. “information infrastructure” would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.

The only obvious limitation on the NCCC’s emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over warrantless wiretapping. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to “conduct surveillance” of Americans unless it’s otherwise legally authorized.

Lieberman said Thursday that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. “For all of its ‘user-friendly’ allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,” he said. “Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies–cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals.”

So, basically, this new law would give the US Government the power to shut down the Internet in the event of an “emergency.” Problem is, the bill gives such a loose definition said “emergency” that the government could censor the Internet for virtually any reason – including political campaigning or blogging (Not lying, read section 103 of the bill).

Furthermore, the new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications has virtually no limitations on its power, only that it isn’t aloud to conduct surveillance on individuals… unless it’s already legally authorized to do so. And how hard is it right now for the Government to get legal authorization to conduct surveillance on an individual?

This is genuinely frightening. Obama, Pelosi, Holder, and their fellow Socialists have been decrying people like me as domestic terrorists, and have been trying to shut down bloggers who have been critical of their leadership. This bill, if it is signed into law, will give them the power to do just that. This bill is pure, unadulterated censorship, a clear and undeniable violation of the First Amendment.