A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a “national cyberemergency,” and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year.

Internet companies should not be alarmed by the legislation, first introduced last summer by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Senate aide said last week. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“We’re not trying to mandate any requirements for the entire Internet, the entire Internet backbone,” said Brandon Milhorn, Republican staff director and counsel for the committee.
Instead, Milhorn said at a conference in Washington, D.C., the point of the proposal is to assert governmental control only over those “crucial components that form our nation’s critical infrastructure.”

The revised version includes new language saying that the federal government’s designation of vital Internet or other computer systems “shall not be subject to judicial review.” Another addition expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include “provider of information technology,” and a third authorized the submission of “classified” reports on security vulnerabilities.

“Declaration of a national cyber emergency”
The revised Lieberman-Collins bill, dubbed the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, works this way: Homeland Security will “establish and maintain a list of systems or assets that constitute covered critical infrastructure” and that will be subject to emergency decrees. (The term “kill switch” does not appear in the legislation.)

Under the revised legislation, the definition of critical infrastructure has been tightened. DHS is only supposed to place a computer system (including a server, Web site, router, and so on) on the list if it meets three requirements. First, the disruption of the system could cause “severe economic consequences” or worse. Second, that the system “is a component of the national information infrastructure.” Third, that the “national information infrastructure is essential to the reliable operation of the system.”

At last week’s event, Milhorn, the Senate aide, used the example of computers at a nuclear power plant or the Hoover Dam but acknowledged that “the legislation does not foreclose additional requirements, or additional additions to the list.”

A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But her decision is final and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.

President Obama would then have the power to “issue a declaration of a national cyberemergency.” What that entails is a little unclear, including whether DHS could pry user information out of Internet companies that it would not normally be entitled to obtain without a court order. One section says they can disclose certain types of noncommunications data if “specifically authorized by law,” but a presidential decree may suffice.

“No amount of tightening of what constitutes ‘critical infrastructure’ will prevent abuse without meaningful judicial review,” says Berin Szoka, an analyst at the free-market TechFreedom think tank and editor of The Next Digital Decade book. “Blocking judicial review of this key question essentially says that the rule of law goes out the window if and when a major crisis occurs.”

Read full article

Do you believe what has happened in Egypt with the internet being shut down, could happen in the United States?

If there was one complaint I had when visiting people in my get out the vote efforts in this past election cycle, it was “Yes, I know there’s an election. [Candidate #1] called me last night. [Candidate #2] called me the day before. [Group X] has called me twice already. How do these people get my number?!“. I saw a number of complaints on Facebook, even! My father got great amusement at these callers expense, especially the Democrat Voter Identification Survey he took when he informed them that he was voting a straight Republican ticket for the first time in his life (he’s a registered Democrat who has voted Republican in most elections for over 30 years). Not everyone was amused as my dad, though.

Thanks to Representative Virginia Foxx, next election cycle citizens might not have to deal with being bombarded by calls from candidates and groups. Issued on her website is the following press release:

… bill to allow citizens to opt-out of political robo-calls

WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Virginia Foxx today announced that she introduced legislation to crack down on abusive political robo-calls. Her bill, the Robo Calls Off Phones Act (H.R. 116), allows anyone who signs up for the federal government’s existing “Do Not Call” list to opt out of political robo-calls. Currently, political robo-calls are exempt from compliance with the federal “Do Not Call” list. Foxx does not do political robo-calls.

“Every campaign season, like clockwork, voters are bombarded with an endless stream of political robo-calls,” Foxx said. “There is little voters can do to stop this invasion of their homes, which often happens during dinner time or even late at night. My bill fixes this problem by allowing anyone to opt out of these calls by simply signing up for the federal government’s ‘Do Not Call’ list.”

Under Foxx’s legislation anyone who wishes do opt out political robo-calls need only sign up for the federal “Do Not Call” list, which currently applies to most telemarketing. Political robo-calls are exempt from the “Do Not Call” list and this bill closes that loophole.

“Americans hate it when politicians make special rules for themselves, and political robo-calls are a perfect example, Foxx said. “Citizens should be allowed to stop automated political calls from coming to them just as they can stop telemarketing calls. Closing this loophole is a matter of fairness and will help bring a much needed dose of peace and quiet to North Carolina homes during campaign season.”

Anyone who wishes to continue to receive automated political calls will still be able to receive them. Foxx’s legislation strictly applies to unsolicited, political robo-calls where a live person is not available to speak with the individual answering the phone.

———————————————————

Did you get bombarded with phone calls this past election cycle?

– Wendy
Find me on Facebook and Twitter

Representative David Price (D, NC4) spoke on the House floor January 19th . In his effort to oppose the repeal of the health care law, he claims the efforts of the Republican party to go forward with the repeal is putting its’ “TEA Party base ahead of everything else, including the health care needs of the American people.”.

Rep. Price claims it is fiscally irresponsible to repeal because it would cost $230B over the next ten years. Patriots, I’m not sure about you but I would rather have $230 Billion than $2.6 Trillion! However, I hope Representative Price is right on the idea that Republicans care enough about what those in the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement thinks, that they actually keep their campaign promises. That’s change I can get on board with!

Facts about the Health Care Law:

• Increases government spending by trillions. When fully implemented, this new law will increase federal government spending by $2.6 trillion, just over 10 years. To see a chart outlining federal spending as a result of this bill, click here.
• Increases the costs of health care. This law fails to deliver on the promise to lower health care costs.  In fact, the Actuary of the Medicare program has stated in a letterthat national health spending will increase by $311 billion over 10 years. For a person who buys a new insurance policy in the nongroup market, this means their average premium would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 than if we had done nothing.  This is an average premium increase of $2,100 for a family policy in the individual market.  Americans did not want reform that makes their premiums even more expensive. To read a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on the increase in premiums, click here.
• Massive expansion of government health care. The new law includes a massive expansion in the government’s health care program for the low-income (Medicaid).  Rather than making health insurance more affordable so that Americans could choose a policy that best meets their health care needs, 16 million more Americans will instead be forced into a government-run health care program in which 40 percent of physicians restrict access to patients. The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting story on this topic that you can read here.  
• About 14 million people will lose the health insurance they get through their job, resulting in more Americans enrolling into Medicaid. In addition, the new law will cut a total of nearly $145 billion from Medicare Advantage plans – popular insurance plans that deliver a range of health care options to millions of seniors. This law also places new restrictions on Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), Medical Savings Accounts, Flexible Spending Arrangements (FSAs), and Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs). The law’s new restrictions and tax increases will dramaticallychange for the worse the coverage and benefits millions of Americans currently enjoy.
• New penalties and fees. This new law includes an unconstitutional mandate that requires most Americans to obtain health insurance or be charged a fine simply for not being insured. This fine could be the greater of $695 or 2.5% of your household income in the coming years.
• Taking money from Medicare and seniors’ health care to create new government programs. This law cuts more than half a trillion dollars from Medicare beneficiaries in order to pay for the creation of new government programs. This includes cuts to hospitals, Medicare Advantage, home health, nursing homes, and hospice care. According to the Medicare Actuary, about “15 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection period” because of the health care law. The Actuary also found that the new law may result in doctors terminating their participation in Medicare entirely, “possibly jeopardizing access to care for Medicare beneficiaries.” 
• New tax on retirees. On top of the Medicare cuts that retirees will face, this law actually increases taxes on employers who offer prescription drug coverage to their retired workers. This $4.5 billion tax increase will result in employers dropping their retiree health coverage, the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
• Job-stifling tax. This health reform law imposes a new tax on jobs by forcing employers who do not provide “acceptable” coverage to pay a penalty tax of up to $2,000 per worker.  The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that such taxes “could reduce the hiring of low-wage workers.”

Washington, DC – I was pleased to hear the President talk about debt reduction in his state of the union speech tonight.  Make no mistake: Ending the burden of trillion dollar deficits and $14 trillion in national debt on our economy is the key to setting the private sector free to create jobs.

While I agreed – wholeheartedly – with the President’s call to cut spending, candidly, and with all respect, when I heard the President say one of the pillars of his economic plan is to redouble our efforts to spend more on ‘infrastructure,’ I had to wonder if we haven’t heard that before.  After all, last year, under the original ‘Stimulus Plan’ we borrowed and spent billions on ‘infrastructure’ – and lost 2 million jobs.

Today the federal government takes in $200 billion a month and spends $300 billion. That, as the President said, is “unsustainable.” For two years, we have been trying to spend and borrow our way to prosperity.  We cannot stay on the same course and expect different results.

LILLINGTON, N.C. — In the wake of a mass shooting that critically injured one of her fellow lawmakers, Republican 2nd District Congresswoman Renee Ellmers said Thursday that she plans to carry a gun when making public appearances.

“We have to protect ourselves. We know that. That is something we have always been cognizant of,” Ellmers said.  “There have been times in the past I have carried my weapon, and I will probably continue to do so. Some days I might have it. Some days I might not.”

She said the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson, Ariz., in which six people were killed and Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, steeled her resolve to be armed.

“I feel safe with it, and I think we should all be able to defend ourselves as we need to,” Ellmers said.

Democratic 11th District Congressman Heath Shuler also has said that he plans to carry a gun while in public. Republican 9th District Congresswoman Sue Myrick told The Charlotte Observer that she’s a good shot and likely would carry a gun when she felt the need to do so.

(read full article)

——————————————————————

Find us on Facebook and Twitter!