The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, S.3480, unveiled in June, 2010 by Senators Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., Susan Collins, R-Me., and Tom Carper, D-De., is much more about ruling the internet with an iron fist than it is about protecting critical networks from cyber terrorists.

Senator Lieberman stated, "China can shut down the Internet, why can't we?" Apparently he believes that the Chinese model of policing the internet and shutting down sites that are critical of the government is one that the United States should follow.

Last year the Chinese government shut down Twitter and Facebook. This year the Chinese government shut down the country's top four microblog sites for "maintenance."

While China is actively restricting freedom of speech and censoring public dissent on the internet, other countries are making plans to do the same.

In Britain, UK businessman Paul Kane has been selected to form part of an elite "chain of trust" and has been put in control of an international version of an internet kill switch.

In 2010, Australia passed new laws to allow that country to regulate the content on the internet, telling companies such as Google that they must comply with the government’s demand that they censor content in accordance with broad “refused classification” (RC) content rules.

In response to much prodding from governments that feel threatened by freedom of speech, ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has recently created a system to shut the net down in an "emergency, world catastrophe, war, or terrorist incident."

If there is widespread disdain for government being posted on the internet, does that constitute an emergency? Should we really give the President an internet kill switch so that he can respond to this type of "emergency?"

In a very disturbing trend, “law enforcement officials,” made an urgent and extraordinary request to the owner of a free WordPress platform which hosts more than 73,000 blogs, demanding that he shut down the server and all 73,000 blogs with it.

The owner commented, "The server was terminated by request of law enforcement officials, due to material hosted on the server.
We are limited as to the details we can provide to you, but note that this was a critical matter and the only available option to us was to immediately deactivate the server."

Who were these unnamed "law enforcement officials," and since when should 72,999 individual blogs be terminated because 1 blog posted something illegal?

If 1 person is guilty of criminal speeding, do we take away everyone's driver's license? If 1 person is guilty of illegal immigration, do we take away everyone's passport?

Networks are under attack all the time. This is common occurrence. Is it really prudent to give one person (the President) an internet kill switch because one network might be hacked? Shut the entire internet down because of the offense of one?

The real goal is to regulate the internet, not protect it from cyber attacks. The true aim in creating an "Office of Cyberspace Policy," which the Lieberman bill will do, is not "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset" of free speech, but "Protecting Cyberspace" from becoming a threat to the ruling elite who fear not just the truth being told, but being widely exposed through the use of the internet.

We already have a cyber czar (not that we should have ANY czars. I thought that czars were Russian supreme rulers accountable to no one and the exact antithesis of our American Republic. did you know that Bush widely expanded the creation and appointment of czars and that we had 31 when he left office, but Obama has continued the trend and we now have 37 different czars, unelected and unable to be voted out of office?)

Apparently, a supreme cyber czar is not enough to oppose freedom of speech being exercised across the internet and we need to give the President an internet kill switch in case the truth about corruption become widely known.

In an age of lawlessness, we cannot allow the law to permit the citizens to expose the lawless deeds of their illicit leaders.

An internet kill switch is just what those leaders need to combat the first amendment.

Do you appreciate this story? If so, consider signing up for our daily email report. Help us expose the truth about the hidden corruption. If you want to help throw off the corporate shackles and regain our liberty, freedom, and autonomy, get informed and empowered. Help spread the word. Together we can make a difference and put an end to the corruption, exploitation, and atrocities that are ruining our world and threaten to enslave our children and grandchildren.

Knowledge is power - get informed. Click here to receive Inside Information Daily Email Report.

Additional internet kill switch information:

Internet kill switch

Internet kill switch bill

Internet kill switch news

US internet kill switch

Lieberman internet kill switch

President internet kill switch

Internet kill switch