President Signs Order Outlining Emergency Internet Control

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Personally, I'm just trying to imagine a scenario (that doesn't involve Bruce Willis) where the government will need this type of control. :eek:

Critics of the order are concerned with Section 5.2, which is a lengthy part outlining how telecommunications and the Internet are controlled. It states that the Secretary of Homeland Security will "oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment" of national security and emergency preparedness measures on all systems, including private "non-military communications networks." According to The Verge, critics say this gives Obama the on/off switch to the Web.
Click to expand...
 
Just another power-grab by the current admnistration. Watch for the UN small Arms treaty next.
 
Clearly this means the usurper-in-chief is about to send out his ACORN thugs to take our guns and deny us access to foxnews.com
 
The only scenario where this type of power would be necessary is a revolution. Just like in Egypt.

It looks like the federal gov't is taking steps to protect itself from an increasingly unhappy nation.

The "assault weapon" and "large caliber" bans will be coming next.

Good luck finding ammo for that .50 Steve.
 
not sure why the US should have control like that over something every country in the world is part of, who is next to get the switch since most countries don't trust the US... China? India? Canada?
 
Just one step closer to the US being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Peoples Republic Of China.
 
As an american, I feel the whole point is that the current US pretends to be a democracy. When the President can make sweeping proclimations like this involving utter control of an item or service, especially one the entire world is dependent upon, without consulting congress it's a problem. For the naysayers, look back through history at the sheer # of "Executive Orders" issued and what they were over the last 10 Presidents. Hopefully it opens your eyes.
 
This must be in preparation of a joint Chinese-Kenyan invasion force floating just over the horizon in the Atlantic...

To your Rascal Scooters brave patriots! They may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Clearly this means the usurper-in-chief is about to send out his ACORN thugs to take our guns and deny us access to foxnews.com
Click to expand...
Laugh all you want, but once you give the government a certain power, its almost impossible to remove it.

Even if you have no issues with Obama, and don't think he's personally abuse this, what about two presidents down the road?
 
WinSomeLoseNone said:
The "assault weapon" and "large caliber" bans will be coming next.

Good luck finding ammo for that .50 Steve.
Click to expand...
That is one thing the s in office don't seem to grasp. The constitutional right to bare arms is not so that Joe Smith can go hunting, its so that the people can use force of arms to overthrow the government should the need arise (which is perfectly logical considering they did JUST THAT with the existing government when creating a new one).

Yet they still want to "nerf" as much as they can to reduce the combat effectiveness of long-arms.
 
Ducman69 said:
That is one thing the s in office don't seem to grasp. The constitutional right to bare arms is not so that Joe Smith can go hunting, its so that the people can use force of arms to overthrow the government should the need arise (which is perfectly logical considering they did JUST THAT with the existing government when creating a new one).

Yet they still want to "nerf" as much as they can to reduce the combat effectiveness of long-arms.
Click to expand...


Exactly!

The media dances around the real reason why the US has the right to bear arms.

The government and the media do NOT want the American people to realize that the reason we have the right to bears arms is to defend the people from the government and if necessary to overthrow the corrupt government organization.

The fact that we cannot buy any weapons that fall within the NFA ban is a direct contradiction to our right to bear arms.
 
Nate7311 said:
As an american, I feel the whole point is that the current US pretends to be a democracy. When the President can make sweeping proclimations like this involving utter control of an item or service, especially one the entire world is dependent upon, without consulting congress it's a problem. For the naysayers, look back through history at the sheer # of "Executive Orders" issued and what they were over the last 10 Presidents. Hopefully it opens your eyes.
Click to expand...

The United States isn't a democracy but it's funny how we are trying to promote democracy around the world. Actually, the founders felt that democracy was dangerous (along with big government). We are set up as a republic where the majority votes for the minority, who in turns decided for the majority. This would not be an issue if we stayed in line with the founders vision of a limited federal government but this is what happens when you have a country full of uneducated voters and those in power playing politics.
 
Ducman69 said:
Laugh all you want, but once you give the government a certain power, its almost impossible to remove it.

Even if you have no issues with Obama, and don't think he's personally abuse this, what about two presidents down the road?
Click to expand...

Obama doesn't abuse power but we have drones killing citizens and flying over head in our own country?

Anyone president (or branch) who doesn't act according to the Constitution is abusing their power
 
Ducman69 said:
Laugh all you want, but once you give the government a certain power, its almost impossible to remove it.

Even if you have no issues with Obama, and don't think he's personally abuse this, what about two presidents down the road?
Click to expand...

Too many people have this mentality that it's OK to censor or take freedoms as long as it's their guy doing it to the people they don't like. They miss the larger picture that once a liberty of any sort is lost it's extremely difficult to get it back. A lot of people will go on and cite the Patriot Act and stuff like that, and it may have set the stage for a lot of this. It does not change the fact that the current administration has done nothing to roll back any intrusions into liberty the Patriot Act may have put in place. If anything, it's expanded those intrusions tenfold, and this is simply the latest example. That should alarm anyone with any shred of sense, regardless of their political leanings... unless of course they want to see a totalitarian dictatorship in America. Makes me wonder about Hamish there.
 
Nate7311 said:
As an american, I feel the whole point is that the current US pretends to be a democracy. When the President can make sweeping proclimations like this involving utter control of an item or service, especially one the entire world is dependent upon, without consulting congress it's a problem. For the naysayers, look back through history at the sheer # of "Executive Orders" issued and what they were over the last 10 Presidents. Hopefully it opens your eyes.
Click to expand...

I am glad you said last 10, as this is a bipartisan power grab. As much as the party not in power always would like to pretend like they "never" would do any sort of power grab like this it is evident both parties are doing it.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
I am glad you said last 10, as this is a bipartisan power grab. As much as the party not in power always would like to pretend like they "never" would do any sort of power grab like this it is evident both parties are doing it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, It's not a R vs. D thing. This is about the political elite granting themselves more authority as well as creating additional dependence on the government to maintain it.
 
Pure democracy is problematic, which is why our Founding Fathers decided to have democratic principles with protections against majoritarianism.

John Adams defined a republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."[2] Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[3] The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've always wondered about the whole claims of democratic, in a democracy anyone, anywhere at any time has the chance, ability, and with the popular vote to be running the show until the majority decides they want someone else. But the truth is, every 4 years your given 2 options, either go with A, or go with B reguardless if you like either one or what they stand for and joe down the street? he might make the best president in the history of the country, but he'll never get to be A or B because he only makes 25k a year selling gas instead of millions in oil.
 
Ducman69 said:
Laugh all you want, but once you give the government a certain power, its almost impossible to remove it.

Even if you have no issues with Obama, and don't think he's personally abuse this, what about two presidents down the road?
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

Nate7311 said:
As an american, I feel the whole point is that the current US pretends to be a democracy. When the President can make sweeping proclimations like this involving utter control of an item or service, especially one the entire world is dependent upon, without consulting congress it's a problem. For the naysayers, look back through history at the sheer # of "Executive Orders" issued and what they were over the last 10 Presidents. Hopefully it opens your eyes.
Click to expand...

This is an absolute problem. No one here ever learn of checks and balances??
 
If it keeps the Kardashians from TV and the Internet, I'm for it. Otherwise, it is yet another Freedom that has been taken away.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Too many people have this mentality that it's OK to censor or take freedoms as long as it's their guy doing it to the people they don't like.
Click to expand...

+1000

I find that people rarely think of issues by placing themselves in the position of the people laws effect. Same sex marriage issue is a perfect example.

If they were trying to ban straight marriage everyone would be up an arms about their rights.

Everyone is guilty of this, I think it's just natural. I constantly have to step back and try and change my view of an issue to gain perspective.
 
Nate7311 said:
Just another power-grab by the current admnistration. Watch for the UN small Arms treaty next.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Yeah because the Bush administration didn't create Homeland Security, the department of this government responsible for most of this kind of crap.

I do agree on the Small Arms treaty topic...that it needs to go and never be signed.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
They already have a mole inside the offices of [H]ard|ocp?! How could we have been so blind to this?!
Click to expand...

Yup, they have moles here in our offices. That's how we know you don't live in the U.S. and the majority of your posts are spent mocking us. Nice. Hmmm, I wonder what other details our moles might dig up...
 
I don't know why, but this article brought to mind the movie "Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith" when Supreme Chancellor Palpatine declared emergency powers and Padme said "So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause".

I'm not really a Star Wars freak. I just saw it on TV a couple days ago... LOL
 
I am also trying to understand what circumstances would require this sort of government control.
...to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience.
Click to expand...
If it's national security, the military should handle it, and they have their own comm network.
If there is an emergency that needs managing, like a fast-spreading plague, or killer asteroid hurtling towards us, wouldn't the privately-owned internet disseminate the relevant information quickly?
Is there a problem with the resiliency of the internet that would be solved by giving control over to the government bureaucracies?
 
jahsoul said:
The United States isn't a democracy but it's funny how we are trying to promote democracy around the world. Actually, the founders felt that democracy was dangerous (along with big government). We are set up as a republic where the majority votes for the minority, who in turns decided for the majority. This would not be an issue if we stayed in line with the founders vision of a limited federal government but this is what happens when you have a country full of uneducated voters and those in power playing politics.
Click to expand...

GD f'in this. I have been saying this every time someone mentions the U.S govt system as a democracy. It irks me no end. Has there ever been a true democracy other than in old Athens, Greece?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top