The rationale for LOST is that it supposedly brings order to the world’s oceans, defines the rights and responsibilities of nations as they navigate and conduct business across the seas, protects the marine environment, and allows for the development of natural resources of the deep seabed. On the surface, these all sound like worthwhile goals. The thing is, the United States doesn’t need to join another United Nations treaty to make it happen.

For more than 200 years before LOST was adopted in 1982 and for 30 years since then, the U.S. Navy has successfully protected America’s maritime interests regardless of the fact that the United States has not signed on to the treaty. The United States’ navigational rights and freedoms have been secure, and they are best guaranteed by a strong Navy.

LOST is not without consequences, either. One of the more nefarious and insidious of its provisions is Article 82, which requires the United States to forfeit royalties generated from oil and gas development on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles – an area known as the “extended continental shelf.” That money, which one estimate says could be worth many billions, if not trillions of dollars, would go to the International Seabed Authority, a new international bureaucracy created by the treaty and based in Jamaica. Heritage’s Steven Groves explains that from there, America’s money could be shipped to the Middle East, Africa, China, and even state sponsors of terror:

LOST directs that the revenue be distributed to “developing States” (such as Somalia, Burma … you get the picture) and “peoples who have not attained full independence” (such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization … hey, don’t they sponsor terrorism?). The assembly – the “supreme organ” of the International Seabed Authority in which the United States has a single vote to cast – has the final say regarding the distribution of America’s transmogrified “international” royalties.

The assembly may vote to distribute royalties to undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, China or Zimbabwe – all members of LOST. Perhaps those dollars will go to regimes that are merely corrupt; 13 of the world’s 20 most corrupt nations, according to Transparency International, are parties to LOST. Even Cuba and Sudan, both considered state sponsors of terrorism, could receive dollars fresh from the U.S. Treasury.

In addition to shipping America’s money overseas to unsavory recipients, LOST could have other negative consequences, as well, by exposing U.S. industry and manufacturing to baseless international lawsuits. In fact, environmental activists and international legal academics are actively exploring the potential of using international litigation against the United States to advance their agendas. And for those who say LOST is a tool for mediating international disputes, take a look at the Philippines, which signed on to the treaty and yet today is finding itself browbeaten by China and its claims in the South China Sea.  (U.S. Navy Photo: Mass Communications Specialist Third Class Amanda Kilpatrick)

If America truly wants to preserve its rights on the sea, then it needs to bolster the one tool that has guaranteed those rights throughout history — a strong U.S. Navy. Unfortunately, under President Obama’s watch, the United States is seeing its fleet diminished in size and ability. A lone piece of paper will not defend America’s interests on the sea, and neither will transferring billions of dollars to an international authority in Jamaica for redistribution the world over. LOST should not be ratified and signed, and instead Washington should turn its attention to ensuring that the U.S. Navy has the resources it needs to protect America’s interests on the high seas.

Mike Brownfield is Assistant Director of Strategic Communications at The Heritage Foundation. He serves as editor of The Foundry, Heritage's public policy news blog, as well as the "Morning Bell," one of Washington’s most widely read and influential e-newsletters. Mike hails from Southeast Michigan and practiced law in Chicago, Illinois.

While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it's difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day. It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings; each of those towns and every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860's tapped into the general human need to honor our dead, each contributed honorably to the growing movement that culminated in Gen Logan giving his official proclamation in 1868. It is not important who was the very first, what is important is that Memorial Day was established. Memorial Day is not about division. It is about reconciliation; it is about coming together to honor those who gave their all.  Read More...

Remember the fallen, from Normandy to Pearl and all the many wars and battles that have kept our country free.

The following prayer is offered by James Simpson:

This is the day we remember those who have fallen in battle, thereby making the supreme sacrifice in service to our great nation. Too many of us don't fully recognize what this day symbolizes. So I am offering a Memorial Day prayer, both to give my thanks and hopefully help us all be a little more appreciative. Here it is:

Dear God:

I pray for the fallen, those brave souls who gave their all for this country, never flinching from their duty, whatever they were called to do, and whether the leadership decisions that brought them to their last mission were well considered or not. They have given all they had, without question.

But I pray especially for the fathers and sons, mothers and daughters of these fallen princes, for they have to live on without, and doubtless would have taken their place without question, even if only to save themselves from such unbearable pain. Nothing can compare to the suffering endured by a mother who loses her child, or a child who loses his mother or father before their time. The fallen sacrifice their lives; the family sacrifices the rest of their lives. They will never see what their beloved’s life could have become, will no more share life’s trials and triumphs with them, never again see their smile or share their warmth on a cold winter’s night. They live in a sea of grief and will carry that wound for eternity. So, please God, bestow Your Tenderness and Grace especially on these families, whose loss can never be repaid.

But God, I pray also for the rest of us, for we lose too. We lose what could have been, from among the most selfless, principled, promising souls of our living generations. I would gladly exchange any ten Harvard graduates for one serviceman who willingly walks at the knifepoint. He has more guts, more integrity, more fortitude and likely more resourcefulness than the lot of them combined.

So, God, please let not their ultimate sacrifice be in vain. See to it that the objectives they were deployed to obtain are achieved. See to it that we have the satisfaction of realizing their missions successfully concluded. God, preserve this country for which they gave their lives, and give us all the wisdom, humility, and virtue to fully comprehend and gratefully acknowledge their sacrifices for what they are; for "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13).

Amen

Originally posted at Truth & Consequences on Memorial Day, 2008

As the Senate prepares for its debate over cybersecurity legislation, one of the most important questions it will have to address is whether the federal government, acting through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), should play a significant role in crafting cybersecurity regulations that will govern activities of the private sector as well as of government. Proponents of such a role, embodied in Title I of the Lieberman–Collins Cybersecurity Act of 2012, contend that the private sector has done an inadequate job of protecting itself and that market incentives have not developed appropriately to promote self-protection. Opponents of Title I argue that the government is ill equipped to develop effective cybersecurity regulations and that the regulatory process is too cumbersome for the development of rules and standards applicable to the dynamic cyberdomain.

One possible approach to resolving this dispute is to ask whether the federal government has done an effective job of protecting its own networks and cyberdata. To the extent that it has, it might be deemed an appropriate source of private-sector standards; to the extent it has not, a contrary opinion might be formed. It is, thus, worth considering the extent of cyber-attacks on, and breaches within, the federal government since 2004.[1] To be sure, the significance of certain attacks and breaches lies in the eye of the beholder—the compilerof any list necessarily exercises judgment in making the determination. And, without a doubt, a comparable list of significant attacks on, and breaches within, the private sector would be far more extensive. Nevertheless, the substantial number of significant, successful attacks on federal systems should play a role in determining whether to entrust DHS with a regulatory role in the private-sector cyberdomain. The list is alphabetical by agency.[2]

Central Intelligence Agency

1. CIA Official Website—June 2011. The CIA’shomepage was shut down by a cyber-attack by LulzSec, an anonymoushacker group believed to hack websites simply for fun.[3]

U.S. Congress

2. Senate—June 2011. The Sergeant at Arms confirmed that the Senate website had been hacked after files from the website were posted online, indicating that Lulz Sec had broken into the Senate’s computer network.[4]

3. Office of Senator Bill Nelson (D–FL)—March 2009. Senator Nelson confirmed that his personal office computers had been subject to three separate attacks byChina-based hackers.[5]

4. Offices of Representative Frank Wolf (R–VA) and the House Foreign Affairs Committee—August 2006. Representative Wolf announced that the computers at his personal office, a number of unnamed Representatives’ offices, and the office of the House Foreign Affairs Committee had been hacked by China-based hackers.[6]

U.S. Department of Agriculture

5. Washington, D.C., Headquarters—June 2006. The Department of Agriculture was subject to a cyber-attack by an unknown entity, during which the names, Social Security numbers, and photographs of 26,000 employees were stolen.[7]

U.S. Department of Commerce

6. Economic Development Administration—February 2012. The Department of Commerce had to disconnect its computers from the Internet because unknown intruders injected a virus into the Economic Development Administration’s computer network.[8]

7. Commerce Department Website—December 2009. The Commerce Department accidentally posted personally identifiable information and Social Security numbers on its website, and did not notify employees until seven weeks after the fact.[9]

8. Secretary of Commerce—December 2007. Spying software was found on the electronic devices of the Commerce Secretary following a trip to China with the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade.[10]

9. Bureau of Industry and Security—October 2006. The Department of Commerce had to take the Bureau of Industry and Security’s networks offline for several months and replace hundreds of computers because its networks were hacked by unknown foreign intruders. The bureau reviews confidential information on high-tech exports.[11]

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)

10. F-35 Fighter-Plane Development—February 2012. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security announced that delays and high costs for the development of the F-35 stemmed from addressing cybersecurity after China-based hackers stole classified information discussing the technology.[12]

11. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Afghanistan—December 2011. An RQ-170 stealth drone went missing and apparently crashed near the Iranian border. Iran claimed to have downed the drone through a cyber-attack.[13]

12. Defense Department Contractor—July 2011. In a speech unveiling the Defense Department’s cyberstrategy, the Deputy Secretary of Defense mentioned that a defense contractor’s computer was hacked, and 24,000 files relating to sensitive systems being developed were stolen by unidentified hackers.[14]

13. National Guard—December 2010. A computer containing the personal information on 650 soldiers was stolen from Santa Fe, New Mexico, headquarters by an unknown entity.[15] 

14. The Army—April 2010. The Army lost personal data of reservists through unknown means and has warned affected reservists to “check credit bureau reports and be aware of the possibilities of identity theft.”[16] 

15. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Feeds—December 2009. Downlinks from U.S. UAVs were hacked by Iraqi insurgents using inexpensive file-sharing software, allowing them to see what the UAVs had viewed.[17]

16. U.S. Central Command—November 2008. Classified networks at the Defense Department and Central Command relating to U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan were subject to a cyber-attack thought to have originated in Russia.[18]

17. Secretary of Defense’s E-Mail Account—June 2007. The Secretary of Defense’s unclassified e-mail account was hacked by unknown foreign intruders.[19]

18. National Defense University—May 2007. Spyware on the university’s computer system left the university’s e-mail vulnerable to attacks; the university ultimately had to take its systems offline due to intrusions by unknown foreign hackers.[20]

19. Naval War College—November 2006. The Naval War College in Rhode Island had to shut down its computer systems for two weeks following a cyber-attack. The Naval War College develops strategies for naval warfare, as well as for cybersecurity and cyberwarfare.[21]

20. Non-Classified Internet Provider Router Network—August 2006. A senior Air Force officer announced that “China has downloaded 10 to 20 terabytes of data from the NIPRNet.”[22]

U.S. Department of Education

21. Computer Theft—August 2006. Computers containing personal information of grant reviewers were stolen by unknown thieves.[23]

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

22. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)—October 2011. A report issued by the Energy Department disclosed that the NNSA had been hit by recent successful cyber-attacks perpetrated by unknown attackers.[24]

23. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)—July 2011. PNNL shut down access to its networks after learning it was subject to a highly sophisticated cyber-attack by an unknown entity.[25]

24. Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF)—July 2011. Thomas Jefferson National Laboratory shut down access to its networks after learning it was subject to a highly sophisticated cyber-attack by an unknown entity.[26]

25. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)—April 2011. ORNL, home to powerful supercomputers, shut down access to the Internet after employees received e-mails with a link that allowed the unknown attackers to siphon off data. ORNL reported that a “few megabytes” of data were stolen.[27]

26. Oak Ridge National Laboratory—October 2007. Over a thousand staffers at ORNL received an e-mail with an attachment that, when opened, provided unknown intruders with access to the lab’s databases.[28]

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

27. DHS Website—February 2012. The DHS website was taken down due to a cyber-attack, attributed to the hacker group Anonymous.[29]

28. Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN)—May 2009. HSIN was hacked by unknown intruders, who gained access to state and federal information. The HSIN is intended to be a secure portal for information sharing among federal, state, and industry partners.[30]

29. DHS Washington, D.C., Headquarters—September 2007. Dozens of DHS computers and servers were hacked—the cyber break-ins were traced to a Chinese-language website, through which an unknown amount of sensitive information was stolen. The contractor hired to protect DHS computers tried to hide the incident from DHS, citing the fact that DHS had stopped paying for security monitoring services.[31]

30. DHS Washington, D.C., Headquarters—June 2007. DHS officials acknowledged that two internal DHS servers were infected with computer malware designed to steal passwords and other sensitive data.[32]

31. DHS Washington, D.C., Headquarters—2005–2006. A 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office cited 884 cyber-attacks on DHS during 2005 and 2006.[33]

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)

32. National Business Center, Denver, CO—May 2010. The center reported that it had lost a computer disk containing the personal information of 7,500 employees.

33. DOI Audit—November 2009. The DOI failed a cybersecurity audit conducted by the DOI Inspector General, which stated that the agency falls short of security requirements.[34]

34. DOI Washington, D.C., Headquarters—February 2002. The DOI was forced, under court order, to disconnectall computers from the Internet until it could prove that it had fixed major security problems,which turned out to take two months.[35]

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

35. DOJ Websites—January 2012. The hacker group Anonymous claimed responsibility for taking down the DOJ websites usdoj.gov and justice.gov in a cyber-attack to protest the FBI shutting down Megaupload.com, one of the largest file-sharing websites in the world.[36]

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

36. FBI–Scotland Yard Conference Call Discussing the Hacker Group Anonymous—February 2012. Members of Anonymous intercepted and posted a recording of the conference call online.[37]

37. FBI Website—January 2012. Anonymous claimed credit for taking down the FBI website, FBI.gov, in a cyber-attack to protest the FBI shutting down Megaupload.com.[38]

38. FBI Phone Network—June 2011. The FBI’s phone network was taken down due to a cyber-attack by LulzSec.[39]

U.S. Department of State

39. Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs—June 2006. The State Department confirmed that its networks at its headquarters and offices dealing with Asia were subject to an attack that began at U.S. embassies in the East Asia–Pacific region. Unknown foreign intruders downloaded sensitive information and passwords.[40]

40. Washington, D.C., Headquarters—2005–2008. A State Department employee illegally accessed a State Department database that contained more than 60 passport application files.[41]

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

41. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)—June 2010.Canadian bloggers discovered that the NHTSA was inadvertently posting sensitive personal information on its website.[42]

42. DOT Website—July 2009. The DOT website was shut down by a cyber-attack perpetrated by unknown hackers that was part of a larger effort to shut down websites in the United States and South Korea.[43]

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

43. FAA Computer Networks—May 2009. A report released by the Department of Transportation acknowledged that the FAA administrative networks that manage air-traffic flow and electric power were subject to cyber-attacks by unknown hackers whogained access to data used to manage the network.[44]

U.S. Department of the Treasury

44. Treasury Department Website—July 2009. The Treasury website was shut down by the same cyber-attack that affected the DOT the same month, which was part of a larger effort to bring down websites in the United States and South Korea.[45]

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

45. VA Employee Robbed—May 2009. Thieves stole electronic records, containing information on 26.5 million people, from the residence of a VA employee who had not been authorized to take the electronic equipment home.[46]

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

46. FTC Online-Security Website—January 2012. The website run by the FTC dedicated to cybersecurity education, OnGuardOnline.gov, was taken down and defaced by a cyber-attack perpetrated by a hacker group known as AntiSec.[47]

47. FTC Main Website—July 2009. The FTC website was shut down by a cyber-attack that was part of a larger effort to bring down websites in the United States and South Korea.[48]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

48. Various NASA Servers—2010–2011. NASA was subject to 5,400 security incidents in 2010 and 2011, during which unknown hackers gained “full functional control” of important systems 13 times.[49]

49. NASA Satellite—November 2011. The U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission announced that suspected Chinese hackers, through malicious cyber-activity, took control of two NASA satellites for more than 11 minutes over the course of 2007 and 2008.[50]

50. Jet Propulsion Laboratory—May 2011. The laboratory’s website was compromised due to a cyber-attack by unknown hackers.[51]

51. Goddard Earth Observing System—May 2011. A Romanian hacker known as “Tinkode” gained access to information contained on servers for the satellite-based Earth-observation system.[52]

52. International Space Station—March 2011. A laptop containing the codes to control the International Space Station was stolen; 48 other NASA mobile computing devices were stolen or lost between April 2009 and April 2011 that contained sensitive information, including Social Security numbers.[53]

53. Jet Propulsion Laboratory—2009. The Office of the Inspector General reported that various hackers had compromised one of NASA’s key mission networks, making thousands of unauthorized connections to the network and stealing export-restricted data from NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory systems.[54]

54. NASA Washington, D.C., Headquarters—December 2006. NASA blocked all e-mails with attachments before shuttle launches for fear its network would be hacked by unknown foreign intruders.[55]

55. Various NASA Servers—2004. Suspected Chinese hackers, code-named Titan Rain by the FBI, stole a significant amount of information from sensitive networks at NASA and military labs.[56]

56. Ames Research Center—2004. A cyber-attack by an unknown hacker on the Ames Research Center forced the agency to disconnect its supercomputers from the Internet in order to limit the loss of secure data.[57]

57. X-Ray Satellite and Goddard Space Flight Center—September 1998. NASA investigators reported that the failure of an x-ray satellite was due to a cyber-attack on the Goddard Space Flight Center.[58]

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

58. NARA Washington, D.C., Headquarters—April 2009. A hard drive containing Social Security numbers of more than 100,000 people who had visited or worked in the White House during the Clinton Administration was lost.[59]

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

59. USAJOBS.gov—January 2009. The Office of Personnel Management website and database for USAJOBS.gov, the federal government’s employment website, allowed unknown perpetrators to gain access to private information on the site’s millions of users.[60]

U.S. Copyright Office

60. Main Website—January 2012. Hacker group Anonymous claimed credit for taking down the Copyright Office website, copyright.gov, in a cyber-attack to protest the FBI shutting down Megaupload.com.[61]

Unspecified Government Agencies

61. Six Federal Agencies—August 2011. A five-year hacker endeavor called Operation Shady RAT collected data from six unknown government agencies.[62]

62. State Department Cable—April–October 2008. A State Department cable published by WikiLeaks reported that hackers stole “50 megabytes of e-mail messages and attached documents, as well as a complete list of usernames and passwords from an unspecified [U.S. government] agency.”[63]

Government-Centric Approach Is Wrong

The list above is certainly grounds to be skeptical of a cybersecurity approach that gives government regulators a significant role in developing baseline security standards. The government and the private sector both have a great deal to contribute to the country’s cybersecurity, and a new, expansive regulatory burden would undermine, not enhance, public-private cooperation. Instead of adding regulations, Congress should:

• Promote Information Sharing. The government has a great deal of cybersecurity-threat information that could help the private sector prevent similar attacks and breaches. Many private-sector entities have cybersecurity information of their own that could help other private entities as well as the government. By implementing voluntary information sharing with adequate liability and privacy protections, cybersecurity can be improved.
• Reject Onerous Regulations. Though it is tempting to think that government officials can mandate cybersecurity improvements for the private sector, such efforts will likely impose massive costs on the private sector, while harming innovation as entities eschew potentially superior security for mere compliance with government regulations. Indeed, most standards that the government adopts will be rendered obsolete by constantly improving technology before they can even be implemented. Americans do not need a “Cyber SarbOx” approach to this multidimensional domain.
• Secure Government Data. Congress and the Administration should strengthen government’s cybersecurity systems. Migrating the computer networks of certain agencies to the cloud would help the government take advantage of private-sector security innovations, while also reducing costs. Other options, such as “air gapping,” unplugging critical networks from the Internet altogether, should be considered. Education efforts to stop phishing and other attacks directed at government personnel should also be expanded. Once again, improving information sharing could help improve cybersecurity across the government.

Enhancing U.S. Cybersecurity Through Cooperation

The federal government’s record on cybersecurity does not inspire confidence that it can provide a solution to the cybersecurity threats faced by the private sector. Cybersecurity should be a cooperative effort between the private sector and the government, with each contributing in its own way. The government is in a position to collect and share important cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information, while the private sector can innovate and share information as well.

Paul Rosenzweig is a Visiting Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

=================================

Using the app, you can show pictures of your kids and provide physical identifiers such as height and weight to security or police officers on the spot. You can also quickly and easily e-mail the information to authorities with a few clicks. The app also includes tips on keeping children safe as well as specific guidance on what to do in those first few crucial hours after a child goes missing.

To date, the iPhone version of the app has been downloaded more than 121,000 times.

- Download the Android app on Google Play
- Download the iPhone app on iTunes
- More on the Child ID App

The Top FBI Stories of the Week, Ending May 26th, 2012

1. Houston: Man Sentenced for Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Qaeda

   Barry Walter Bujol, Jr. was sentenced to serve 20 years in federal prison for attempting to deliver public access restricted military manuals, GPS receivers, and other items to al Qaeda. Full Story

2. San Antonio: AWOL Soldier Guilty in Connection with Bomb Plot

   Naser Jason Abdo was convicted of attempting to create and detonate a bomb to kill members of the U.S. military and to shoot survivors of the detonation. Full Story

3. Boston: Chinese National Charged with Illegal Export of Sensitive Technology
   
   Qiang Hu, aka Johnson Hu, allegedly caused millions of dollars worth of MKS pressure transducers, which are used to produce weapons-grade uranium, to be exported from the United States and delivered to unauthorized end-users in China. Full Story

4. Newark: West New York Mayor, Son Arrested for Hacking and Disabling Website
   

   Mayor Felix Roque and his son were charged in relation to a scheme to take down a website associated with a movement to recall the mayor. Full Story

5. San Diego: Lead Defendant in Operation Luz Verde Extradited from Mexico

   Armando Villareal Heredia, aka Gordo Villareal, was brought back to the United States to face federal racketeering and drug charges as part of a 43-defendant prosecution against the Fernando Sanchez-Arellano Organization. Full Story

6. New York: Yahoo Executive and Hedge Fund Portfolio Manager Plead Guilty to Insider Trading

   Robert Kwok provided non-public information concerning Yahoo!’s quarterly earnings and potential business transactions to Reema Shah Kwok, who then executed trades based on the inside information. Full Story

7. Charlotte: Ponzi Scheme Mastermind Sentenced

   Keith Franklin Simmons was sentenced to 50 years in prison in connection with a $40 million Ponzi scheme that victimized 400 people nationwide. Full Story

8. Buffalo: Former Teacher Sentenced for Production and Possession of Child Pornography

   Timothy Bek was sentenced to 30 years in prison for posing as a female teenager on a social networking website to make contact with underage victims, some of whom were students in the schools where he taught, and persuading them to take explicit photos and videos of themselves. Full Story

9. Philadelphia: Long Prison Terms for Convicted Drug Traffickers

   Tony Granado and Richard Moquete were sentenced to 30 and 27 years in prison, respectively, for their roles in an operation that brought at least 1,500 kilograms of cocaine to the streets of Philadelphia. Full Story

10. Cleveland: Eighteen People Indicted for Schemes Involving Seven IHOP Restaurants
    
    The defendants were charged in a series of criminal schemes, including money laundering, identity theft, alien harboring, and arson that resulted in losses of more than $3 million. Full Story

The latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act would overturn the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987.  Those two laws essentially make it illegal for propaganda that is used to influence public opinion overseas to be targeted at U.S. citizens back here at home.  If those two laws are struck down, there will be essentially very few limits to what the U.S. government can do to shape our opinions. 

The government would be able to bombard us with propaganda messages on television, on the radio, in our newspapers and on the Internet and there would not even be a requirement that those messages be true.  In fact, just as happens so often overseas, it would likely be inevitable that the government would purposely disseminate misinformation to the American public for the sake of "national security".  That is why it is imperative that this bill not become law.

As an article posted on LegalInsurrection.com correctly noted, this bill has already been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives....

Their bill was included as amendment 114 to the Defense Authorization Act and passed out of the House on Friday, May 18. It would amend two existing acts: the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (1987).

Fortunately, it looks like this amendment might run into some trouble in the U.S. Senate.  But during an election year, not many politicians want to appear "soft" when it comes to national security, so it is definitely not a sure thing that the Senate will reject this amendment.

This amendment has been kind of "flying under the radar", so now would be a good time to contact your U.S. Senators and let them know exactly how you feel about this.

So precisely what would this new amendment do?

A recent article by Michael Hastings of Buzzfeed.com did a good job of explaining how it would change things....

The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. “It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”

Do you want the Obama administration to use mass media in the United States to push a particular political or social agenda?

Do you want the State Department and the Pentagon to conduct psychological operations targeted at you, your family and your friends?

Do you want to see and hear government propaganda everywhere you go?

In a previous article I detailed 25 ways that America is becoming more like Nazi Germany, and I suppose I now have another item to add to the list.

Sadly, the government is already "pushing the envelope" when it comes to using the media.  In his recent article, Michael Hastings detailed some examples of how the Pentagon is already attempting to shape public opinion in the United States....

In December, the Pentagon used software to monitor the Twitter debate over Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing; another program being developed by the Pentagon would design software to create “sock puppets” on social media outlets; and, last year, General William Caldwell, deployed an information operations team under his command that had been trained in psychological operations to influence visiting American politicians to Kabul.

According to U.S. Representative Mac Thornberry, one of the sponsors of the bill, current law "ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way."

Apparently we cannot think for ourselves and we need the government to help us to see things more clearly.

But when it comes to "psychological operations", the people that run them do not always play nice.

Just check out what happened recently to two USA Today reporters....

A USA TODAY reporter and editor investigating Pentagon propaganda contractors have themselves been subjected to a propaganda campaign of sorts, waged on the Internet through a series of bogus websites.

Fake Twitter and Facebook accounts have been created in their names, along with a Wikipedia entry and dozens of message board postings and blog comments. Websites were registered in their names.

If this new bill becomes law, there will be very few limits on what the government can do.

And just like the two USA Today reporters, you could end up being a target.

If the government propaganda experts decide that they don't like you, it is quite likely that you could end up being the target of a massive misinformation campaign.

It could come down to the fact that they simply do not like your blog or what you are saying on Facebook.  They could decide that it is best to destroy your reputation for the sake of "national security".

These kinds of "Big Brother tactics" are absolutely disgusting, but they are becoming part of who we are as a nation.

According to one recent DHS report, if you revere "individual liberty" or if you "believe in conspiracy theories" you are a potential terrorist.  And if you are a potential terrorist, then it would only make sense to conduct psychological operations against you before you become an "active" threat.

Sadly, many Americans already act as if they have been brainwashed by propaganda.  Recently, ashocking video from North Carolina of a teacher yelling at a high school student and telling him that disrespect of Barack Obama is not permitted in the classroom went viral all over the Internet.

The teacher honestly seemed to believe that it was forbidden to "disrespect" Barack Obama.

That is frightening.

Our founders insisted on a limited federal government for a reason.

They greatly feared what might happen if the federal government became too large and too powerful.

At this point, not only is our freedom of speech under attack, but our freedom of thought is under assault as well.

If we are not very careful, America is going to be turned into a giant prison.

Those of us that still love freedom and liberty must be willing to speak out now before it is too late.

Once our freedoms and liberties are gone they will be incredibly hard to get back.