If you trust Obama to veto CISPA or similar legislation youre in for a rude awakeningMadison Ruppert, Contributor Back when the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 was being pushed through the House and Senate and making its way towards Obamas desk I attempted to make it clear that the Obama administrations supposed intention to veto the bill was nothing more than theater. Of course, he ended up signing the bill with a meaningless signing statement claiming that he signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Now it appears that some websites like Gizmodo have completely forgotten the Obama administrations track record and are actually giving even a shred of credence to the notion that he will definitely veto CISPA. That being said, Gizmodo is far from what I would consider a reliable or reputable source given that one of their editors, Sam Biddle, fails to understand even the most basic aspects of technology he writes about. Keep in mind, were talking about a technology blog publishing works by writers who clearly know nothing about technology. Im not intending to be antagonistic; its just that clearly Gizmodo doesnt have a very strict policy when it comes to researching or fact checking. They claim that Liebermans bill is not quite as dangerous although they fall far short of the mark in proving that this is the case. They also seem to be ignoring the entire concept of amendments, which actually made the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, better known as CISPA, much worse than it already was immediately before it was passed in the House. Liebermans bill is competing with Senator John McCains quite similar legislation, both of which put absurd power over the internet in the hands of government. Essentially, they are just bickering over if it should be the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the military and National Security Agency (NSA) who has the ultimate power. I reject both options as unnecessary, tyrannical and just a further unjust expansion of the federal government into our private lives. The unfortunate fact is that one of these bills will inevitably be signed into law. They can keep up all the theatrics they like, but it will not change the fact that the Obama administration has a disturbing presence of Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) lawyers in the Department of Justice. It is also quite silly at this point to believe that Obama will veto it over civil rights concerns after all our government has done to strip us of our right to free speech and due process, among other critical liberties. Even if Obama were to veto such legislation, if there was a large enough base of support in the House and Senate, as there was for the NDAA, his veto could be overridden. Essentially, I think it is quite foolish to look to Obama to save us now. It is far too little, far too late. Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a wider audience? Feel free to contact me at admin@EndtheLie.com with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just about anything that may strike your fancy. Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store. This article first appeared at End the Lie. 