I guess we live in China, after all. Cyber security proposal doesn't look good to me.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

New Cybersecurity Bill Gives Obama ‘Power To Shut Down Companies’

Saw on Drudgereport. Thought you might be interested. I'd say it has a chilling

possible effect on commerce with excessive federal police powers.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

This is counter-intuitive. Communication is the last thing you want "shut down" in an emergency. Otherwise why are Hams considered an "emergency service"?

[Glenn]

It's not about security or even communication. It's all about consolidating power in one person. I am amazed that Congress is allowing themselves to be made irrelevant while the country slides towards a dictatorship.

Glenn

[TGO David]

I have a fundamental problem with these journalists who insist on assigning these evils to Obama for the sake of sensationalism. Sure, he's the sitting POTUS, but this law would give that power to the Presidency... not to Obama specifically. If this had passed three years ago the article would have read:

In other words, President Bush can issue an emergency declaration that lasts 30 days and he can renew it for a further 60 days before congress can step in to oversee the powers.

The new powers would give Bush a free hand to not only shut down entire areas of the Internet and block all Internet traffic from certain countries, but under the amalgamated bill he would also have the power to completely shut down industries that don’t follow government orders, according to a Reuters summary of the new bill.

At any rate... yes it's a crap law. Yes it scares me. Yes it would be bad if this happens. The people to be pissed at, however, are Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller. Not Obama. I don't really think he had anything to do with this one, but I could be wrong.

[Guest oldsmobile98]

Wow. The .gov continues its war on business.

I guess companies could try to back up their communications stuff somehow, but I'm guessing many (most?) depend on the Internet for day-to-day stuff. You IT/telecom guys know a lot more about this than I do.

As far as shutting companies or parts of companies down? Unconstitutional, draconian, and unacceptable. A threatened large business could simply pay off the right people, but a small firm would have either have to fold or literally fight back.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-William Pitt the Younger

“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee (1886) 118 U.S. 425

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I have a fundamental problem with these journalists who insist on assigning these evils to Obama for the sake of sensationalism. Sure, he's the sitting POTUS, but this law would give that power to the Presidency... not to Obama specifically. If this had passed three years ago the article would have read:

At any rate... yes it's a crap law. Yes it scares me. Yes it would be bad if this happens. The people to be pissed at, however, are Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller. Not Obama. I don't really think he had anything to do with this one, but I could be wrong.

Dave, your example is right, however it becomes more important to squash this type of

legislation with a President that is destroying our country. I agree with you totally if you

are referring to the damage that the Patriot Act did, and coming from a Republican

administration, it is a shame.

It's the continual creep towards marxism that bothers me, not necessarily who does it.

[TGO David]

Dave, your example is right, however it becomes more important to squash this type of

legislation with a President that is destroying our country. I agree with you totally if you

are referring to the damage that the Patriot Act did, and coming from a Republican

administration, it is a shame.

It's the continual creep towards marxism that bothers me, not necessarily who does it.

Agreed. I guess what bothers me about this type of journalism is that it just gives ammo to the other side and allows them to refute conservative values the same way they do when attacking those rabid, extremist tea partiers [--their generalizations, not mine]. If we as conservatives / libertarians / constitutionalists would just keep an even keel and not resort to painting our opponents with such broad brushes, but rather exercise the scalpel of fact, we might stand a better chance of both being heard by and believed by the middle-of-the-road agnostics.

Oh well. I digress.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I concur. It's hard get people to accept the truth sometimes, and the amount of

mainstream media raping the news doesn't help. I think this is a symptom of

what happens when the media overdoes and becomes a mouthpiece for one and

quits reporting the news. Our media has been so leftist for years, and the opposition

media is going to emulate some of their tactics. When you have odds like one against

fifty, this kind of thing will happen. Some of that "fight fire with fire" stuff is going on.

[Raoul]

Agreed. I guess what bothers me about this type of journalism is that it just gives ammo to the other side and allows them to refute conservative values the same way they do when attacking those rabid, extremist tea partiers [--their generalizations, not mine]. If we as conservatives / libertarians / constitutionalists would just keep an even keel and not resort to painting our opponents with such broad brushes, but rather exercise the scalpel of fact, we might stand a better chance of both being heard by and believed by the middle-of-the-road agnostics.

Oh well. I digress.

Well said.