Tag Archives: they

Business Insider: CISPA “is absolutely ludicrous insanity. The minds behind this in Congress should be forced to resign, immediately — they are acting in the interests of weird lobbying groups and defense contractors.”

Total surveillance of the people is what Congress ultimately wants, so it is no surprise that this is apparently a top legislative priority for them — even at a time when 1 out of every 2 recent college graduates face unemployment. Even at a time when our total public debt is above $15 trillion.

How bad is CISPA in its current form? Here’s some analysis from Techdirt: “Up until this afternoon, the final vote on CISPA was supposed to be tomorrow. Then, abruptly, it was moved up today—and the House voted in favor of its passage with a vote of 248-168. But that’s not even the worst part. [...] Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for ‘cybersecurity’ or ‘national security’ purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.”

Let me put this into perspective for you:

- If the government suspects you are a genuine “bad guy,” like a cyberterrorist, human trafficker, drug kingpin, etc… they can already seize all of this online activity information about you. It’s called obtaining a warrant. CISPA does away with that. It supercedes ALL existing federal privacy laws. As Techdirt’s Leigh Beadon put it, “Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government’s power.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cispa-is-ridiculously

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

Rick Santorum wants to eliminate the seperation of church and state so we would then become more like Iran, which he wants to blow off the face of the planet because they are controlled by religious zealots HA!

Rick Santorum is playing the victim game: “Christians aren’t allowed to be involved in politics according to former President John F. Kenenedy.”

Here is a quote from Rick Santorum:

To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American…Now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.

Wow, I think that’s pretty harsh. I mean – the idea that people of public faith can’t participate in government? That sounds awful discriminatory. John Kennedy must have been a really awful person if he’d said that!

Only – he didn’t. He said:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.(emphasis added)

So Kennedy – who by the way took advice from Catholic leaders (Occupy Wall Street: And by this I mean he took advice from people who were people in religious leadership because he valued their advice, not because he wanted the policy of their religious institution) – simply said something obvious: that no religious group should be special benefits or harm from government because of their religion. Kennedy described the same attitude that, in my opinion. I’d like to think I’d curry: I might not agree with your religious beliefs, but if you’re a basically good person who’s trying to go good things, then I’d want you working with me.

Rick Santorum isn’t just wrong about separation of church and state, his entire argument against what Kennedy said is by warping Kennedy’s words to mean the exact opposite of what he actually said and meant.

Because Rick Santorum and his ilk can’t handle one simple thing: the truth. And it’s a sad statement on his religious beliefs when he rejects the truth so he can gain power. And that is why no one should vote for him.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

So they renamed SOPA/PIPA to make it more catchy and are trying to re-introduce it. Are you f’ing kidding me?

Cybersecurity Act of 2012 Introduced
On February 14, a bipartisan group of senators introduced to the U.S. Senate the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, under which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would assess the risks and vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure systems and develop security performance requirements for the systems and assets designated as covered critical infrastructure. The bill is sponsored by Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT), committee ranking member Susan Collins (R-ME), Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). As explained in the statement announcing the measure, “[t]he bill envisions a public-private partnership to secure those systems, which, if commandeered or destroyed by a cyber attack, could cause mass deaths, evacuations, disruptions to life-sustaining services, or catastrophic damage to the economy or national security.”

Read more: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/cybersecurity

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

Eight Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested at Iowa Democratic Party headquarters, they were there to demand that President Obama veto NDAA and the omnibus spending bill

Eight people affiliated with Occupy Des Moines were arrested this afternoon at the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters in Des Moines.

The eight, whose hands were zip-tied behind their backs, were placed in a police wagon and transported to the Des Moines police station, where they were cited and released.

Each was to be charged with criminal trespassing, which is a misdemeanor. They did not resist arrest and were escorted out of the headquarters at 5661 Fleur Drive without incident.

Twelve people had walked into the headquarters late this morning. They were there to demand that President Obama veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the omnibus spending bill. Police told the protesters that they could either leave the headquarters or be arrested.

By 2:15 p.m., all protesters had left the building.

Norm Sterzenbach, executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party, said the protesters are continuing to deliver the same message they were brought earlier today to the Obama campaign office north of downtown Des Moines.

Demonstrators had been at Obama’s campaign headquarters much of the weekend. However, the office was closed and protesters were not able to talk personally with anyone about their concerns. Demonstrators decided to move the Obama campaign office occupation at approximately 11 to the Democratic party headquarters.

“They don’t want to be hear to listen to us, we decided to go to the state headquarters and make them listen to us,” Occupy Wall Street member Daniel Bragg said.

Read more: http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/19/occupy

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email