Recent "Cyber Attacks" Set the Stage for Government to Scare the Public into Compliance

The widespread publicity of recent security breaches within the Federal Government is an obvious set up for easy passage of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009. If anything, our government would have wanted to cover up these security breaches – unless they had an ulterior motive... and that is where all of the puzzle pieces fit together.  All of these accidental leaks; all of these security breaches; all so soon and all so close together immediately turned into front page, fear-mongering news? Seems to be an all too familiar tactic in their quest to do as they wish.

by John Douglass
ExposingTyranny.com
April 23, 2009

According to FoxNews.com, "A proposed bill that would give the president widespread power to shut down the Internet in the event of a cyberattack could have sweeping implications on civil liberties."

The Bill, currently being considered by Congress, "proposes to give the U.S. government authority over all networks considered part of the nation's critical infrastructure. Under the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009, the president would have the authority to shut down Internet traffic to protect national security."

When George W. Bush's warantless wiretaps took place, the crowd that voted for Barack Obama in the recent presidential election were screaming bloody murder. What I'm wondering is why now, since Obama's goons are proposing legislation that would give him the authority to monitor all Internet traffic without a warrant – and additionally, completely shut down the back bone providers that make the internet possible – WHY are they not screaming bloody murder now?! This is a powergrab, more heinous in nature than ol' Dub-yah's warrantless wiretaps. This is about stopping the flow of information.

Well, they are using national security as a pretext... so gosh, Beaver, it must be for our own good and safety, right??? No however, in all fairness, let's take everything into consideration. There is a chance that all of the recent security breaches did occur.  One look at Conficker shows you how one generic exploit can infect and cause problems on so many computers.

But is this something that the government should legislate? Should there be a Cyber Czar?  No!  There are organizations like CERT who provide security recommendations and information as well as companies like Symantec and McAfee that provide defenses.   What is this Cyber Czar going to do? Shut down the means by which we network our computers to protect us from a virus?

All of this truly sounds absurd, doesn't it? That is because this proposed legislation has nothing to do computer viruses. The whole reason behind having an Cyber Czar is so that the government can shut down the whole Internet if they deem a threat to be worthy of such an Internet shutdown.  And who’s to say if any threat is real – only the federal government, which lies to the people time and time again. 

Do security breaches happen? Yes, they certainly do.  Are there any people/organizations trying to obtain data from the government intranet? Sure, and they are commonly called spies and/or spy agencies.  Does a government broadcast to the world that it's vulnerable to such activities? No.  That's where the story is a crock.  Here's why...

The public, since the inception of the FBI and CIA, has received the official "version" of "what happened."  This official version of the story given to us by the government we are supposed to trust turns out to be a fallacy devised with an ultimate intent - many times of pulling us into a conflict.  A prime example of this is December 7th, 1941, the day that Pearl Harbor became victim of a "surprise" attack, sparking outrage on the civilian level and thereby garnering more than enough public support for the U.S. to officially enter World War II.  Check out this book, called Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett, whom was in the Navy in World War II.  Here's an excellent article about this, as well as containing a short interview with Stinnett.

For years and years, children attending public schools with curriculum developed by our beloved Department of Education were taught that Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack on the United States perpetrated by Japan; that because of this attack, the U.S. then got involved in WWII, being the great hero and ridding the world of evil villains and foes know as the Axis.  Sounds awesome, if you're reading a comic book. I'm not saying that Hitler didn't need to be stopped; I'm just saying that they spin the story. 

We are not being told the truth and there's definitely a motive e.g. they want to be able to stop the flow of information that they can't otherwise control.  If this legislation gets passed, enabling Obama to shut down AT&T and Verizon's back-bone service for this network of millions of computers that we call the Internet... well, the real version of the story goes untold. This bill is essentially an attack move, to force us back into the realm of print at a moments notice, when getting info on demand and communicating openly is our only defense. 

The widespread publicity of recent security breaches within the Federal Government is an obvious set up for easy passage of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009. If anything, our government would have wanted to cover up these security breaches – unless they had an ulterior motive... and that is where all of the puzzle pieces fit together.  All of these accidental leaks; all of these security breaches; all so soon and all so close together immediately turned into front page, fear-mongering news? Seems to be an all too familiar tactic in their quest to do as they wish.