You don't need criminal intent to be persecuted (er prosecuted)

Two quotes:
"Under the English common law we inherited, a crime requires intent. This protection is disappearing in the U.S."
"being emotionally distressed is just part of living in a free society."
Congress would serve us well by spending one year out of four removing old, redundant and ineffective laws. Of course, that won't be happening.

L. Gordon Crovitz: You Commit Three Felonies a Day - WSJ.com:
"Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book 'Three Felonies a Day,' referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws. New technology adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.

Mr. Silverglate describes several cases in which prosecutors didn't understand or didn't want to understand technology. This problem is compounded by a trend that has accelerated since the 1980s for prosecutors to abandon the principle that there can't be a crime without criminal intent."

"The Angry White Liberal"

For quite a while, we've had this extreme political tension where one side seems incapable of seeing that another side might have a point - or at least might not be insanely evil. This author captures some of the problem very well:

The Angry White Liberal:
"We've spent the month of August talking about alleged right-wing rage, but it's really time we started discussing the Angry White Liberal. When things aren't going his way, the Angry White Liberal wails and gnashes his teeth, rends his garments, and hurls invective at the opposition. His rhetoric and prose is so heated, it's gotten to the point where you need to put on oven mitts before opening the paper. He is so convinced of the righteousness of his positions that he lashes out uncontrollably at anybody who disagrees with him. For the Angry White Liberal, dissent is anathema. Antagonism is illegitimate. Only conformity to prevailing liberal opinion is enough to still his rage.

. . . even though "health care" is not the top voter priority, even though the budget deficit stands at more than a trillion dollars, President Obama decided that this was the moment to remake one-sixth of the American economy.

The more Obama talked about health care reform, the further his numbers dropped. The country seemed caught in a time-warp. We'd been catapulted back to 2005, when another president attempted a major overhaul of the American welfare state. Then, too, the president deferred to Congress to come up with a plan. Then, too, as the president crisscrossed the nation, warning of the dangers of out-of-control entitlement spending, the public increasingly tuned him out. The innate conservatism of the American people--an instinctual resistance to sudden changes in existing social arrangements--came to the fore.

. . . Protest, which a few years ago was the highest form of patriotism, is now considered artificial, dishonest, misinformed, cynical, and mean-spirited. "An ugly campaign is underway," Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer wrote in USA Today on August 10, "not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. . . . Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

Meanwhile, Harry Reid referred to the town hall protestors as "evil-mongers." Senate finance committee chairman Max Baucus preferred "agitators." Congressman Eric Massa, Democrat of New York, accused Iowa Republican senator Charles Grassley of "treason" for criticizing the health care plan.

. . .

Times columnist Frank Rich warned that the current debates surrounding health care resemble the "walk up to the Kennedy assassination."

. . .

The Angry White Liberal finds it simply incomprehensible that somebody might honestly and in good faith disagree with the Democrats' efforts. On August 14, blogger Steve Benen wrote on the Huffington Post that the "far-tight apoplexy is counter-intuitive." After all, "Why would people who stand to benefit from health care reform literally take to the streets and threaten violence in opposition to legislation that would help them and their families?"

Forget Benen's exaggerated claim of threatened violence. Note, instead, that Benen cannot conceive that someone might actually think the costs to the Democrats' program outweigh the unrealized and perhaps unachievable benefits. Hence he divides Obama's critics into five camps: the "partisans," the "tin-foil hats," the "greedy," the "dupes," and the "wonks." The "wonks," we are told, compose the "smallest of the groups." In Benen's view, then, millions of opponents of health care reform have no reasonable grounds for their opinion."

Iran needs Twitter - #IranElection #gr88

The odds are stacked heavily in favor of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs - they control the military, the power, the food supply, etc. If it comes, revolution will carry a terrible price regardless of who wins. If the government compromises and backs down a little, some incremental progress towards freedom might result.

It is frustrating to just watch - we can share our thoughts with our representatives, but I doubt they have much influence right now.

With Iran Protests in Mind, State Department Blocks Twitter's Maintenance Outage | Popular Science:
"So all that importance-of-social-media business you keep hearing about Iran? This should tell you something about the underlying truth, no matter how numbing the barrage from the media can be: When the U.S. State Department heard of Twitter's plans for an hour-long regularly-scheduled maintenance outage that would have denied daytime Twitter service to Iran, they stepped in and 'urged' them to reschedule.

The outage was supposed to happen late last night--downtime for most of North America, but prime daytime in Iran, where it has continued to be used as an important communication and organization tool for the protests there."

NSA Doesn't Want to Do Cyber Security Alone

Putting an intelligence (spy) agency in sole charge of all government computer and network security would be a lousy idea. Each agency head needs to run their own program and be held accountable to it by outside audits.

NSA Chief Doesn't Want to Do Cyber Security Solo - PC World | Technology News and Updates
"The National Security Agency doesn't want sole responsibility for running U.S. cyber security, the agency's director said Tuesday.

Speaking at the RSA security conference in San Francisco, NSA Director Lieutenant General Keith Alexander said that any effort to keep U.S. and government networks safe would be a group effort, rather than a centrally managed operation.
. . .
The NSA director said that security guru Bruce Schneier was right, when just minutes earlier he had told the audience that "nobody" should be in charge of cyber security. "A top-down somebody's-in-charge model is not the right model," Schneier said.

In an interview Tuesday, Beckstrom said that he was happy to hear the NSA saying it didn't want to run U.S. cyber security, and was encouraged to see a discussion of the question of how much power the NSA actually wields. He said that agencies like the FBI and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, even the U.S. Department of Commerce, need to get more funds in order to take an active role in cyber security. "There needs to be a balance of power," he said. "I think the budgets are lopsided.""

Computer and network security needs to become part of the fabric of public and private business, just like proper accounting and personnel are. Policy should be set at the top levels, but it needs to be executed from the bottom up.

Global Warming Alarmism

Before we destroy our economy by sending all our industry to China (where they will pollute far more than we do to produce the same goods) we need to examine the Global Warming paranoia. Turning America into a 3rd world nation will do nothing to improve life for others on the globe, and it will make life far worse for us.

Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism - JoNova:













The big temperature picture. Graph and insight from Dr Syun Akasofu (2009 International Conference on Climate Change, New York, March 2009).

"The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s (when the Thames River would freeze over every winter). On top of the trend are oscillations that last about thirty years in each direction:
1882 – 1910 Cooling
1910 – 1944 Warming
1944 – 1975 Cooling
1975 – 2001 Warming

In 2009 we are where the green arrow points, with temperature leveling off. The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of slight cooling until about 2030.

There was a cooling scare in the early 1970s at the end of the last cooling phase. The current global warming alarm is based on the last warming oscillation, from 1975 to 2001. The IPCC predictions simply extrapolated the last warming as if it would last forever, a textbook case of alarmism. However the last warming period ended after the usual thirty years or so, and the global temperature is now definitely tracking below the IPCC predictions."

Homeland Security warns of radicals on right

So now if we have a differing opinion regarding how our country should be run, we may be labelled as a threat and persecuted by the government. If successful, this may mean the end of peaceful and civil political debate - it will not mean the end of opposition to the government.

As noted elsewhere, the reference to immigration most likely means opponents of illegal immigration. See also this link.

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." ~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907–1988)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1755

“Politics gets pretty messy, but it’s a better alternative than violence.” Dick Gephardt, 2009

Ecclesiastes 3: 1-15

Federal agency warns of radicals on right - Washington Times:
". . .
A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines 'rightwing extremism in the United States' as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

'It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,' the warning says.
. . .
The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff's departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

It says the federal government "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States."

The joint federal-state activities will have "a particular emphasis" on the causes of "rightwing extremist radicalization.""

Our government has an obligation to try to prevent domestic terror attacks (like Oklahoma City), but their agents need to remember that a bumper sticker is not the equivalent of a bomb. When we can no longer have open debate on things like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, unions, and illegal immigration, then we are no longer free.

UPDATE: - of course Homeland Security might have been more careful in their wording (or publishing policy) if they kept up with the news:

State drops warnings over 'militia' members:
"The chief of the Missouri highway patrol is blasting a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism, assuring that such reports no longer will be issued.

The report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

It further warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with 'radical' ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes."

the Stimulus Plan Viewed With Suspicion

There are lots of criticisms of the Stimulus Bill floating around - this suggestion that it is intended to destroy our political & economic systems goes further than most. What do you think?

American Thinker: The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery:
"The assumption that Obama will need the nation to prosper in order to protect the 2010 mid-term election incorrectly assumes that he esteems free market capitalism. He does not. Rather than win through superior ideas and policies, the Democrat plan for success in the mid-term elections is to win by destroying political opposition.

Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left's war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, 'You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.'

The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.

. . .
Making an already weak economy even worse is the intent of the Cloward/Piven Strategy. It is imperative that we view the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan's spending on items like food stamps, jobless benefits, and health care through this end goal. This strategy explains why the Democrat plan to "stimulate" the economy involves massive deficit spending projects. It includes billions for ACORN and its subgroups such as SHOP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Expanding the S-Chip Program through deficit spending in a supposed effort to "save the children" only makes a faltering economy worse.

If Congress were to allow a robust economy, parents would be able to provide for their children themselves by earning and keeping more of their own money. Democrats, quick to not waste a crisis, would consider that a lost opportunity.

. . . .
Because these programs are financed with deficit spending, the effect of the Cloward/Piven Strategy becomes doubly destructive. Talk about a perfect storm! The Democrat stimulus plan is a mechanism whose goal is the destruction of the traditional American way of life. It is bitter irony that the American taxpayer will actually fund the destruction of his own ability to live according to the values of our Founding Documents. It is not alarmist to identify this situation as a coup d'etat."

In these discussions, we need to be thankful that Congressional Representatives get re-elected every two years. I think the Democrats will overreach, and end up getting replaced by conservatives in 2010 who will begin to withdraw us from this socialist experiment.

Our Problems Can't be Fixed by the Congress That Caused Them

This article by Harvey Golub is on Senator John Kyl's recommended reading list - I'm glad I found it.
Click the link to read the entire article.

I Vote No Confidence in Congress - WSJ.com:
"In recent months, Congress has displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of how our economy and our financial markets actually work. Members believe they can say a bank is likely to become insolvent and that will not lead to a run on the bank, or say a major insurance company is in trouble and not have insurance stocks tank. They believe they can extend a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) beyond its charter and not have every institution under the sun try to get what they believe is cheap capital.

Most significantly, although Congress is a large cause of the collapse of the home-mortgage market (witness the folly of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), members believe the markets are too stupid to recognize Congress's culpability and will maintain confidence in Congress's ability to resolve the financial crisis."

A Civilian National Security Force?

I have friend who is worried that Barack Obama will succeed in one of his campaign promises - the creation of a Civilian National Security Force. Here is my response to his concerns:

"There's been a buzz on what the President had said on 2 Jul 08 about a "civilian security force" which would be "as large and well funded as the military."

I've seen clips of Mr. Obama actually saying this in his speech."

Right now I think the Democrat's plans to politicize the Census may be a bigger threat - the Census is used to determine how voting districts are laid out, and can have a big effect on which party gets control of a district.

Regarding the topic of a Civilian National Security Force:

My initial thoughts were -
1. Is was just campaign rhetoric & he won't try to implement it

2. Fortunately we didn't elect an emperor, so he can't implement it on his own

3. The Democrats are so busy spending our great-grandchildren's money that they won't have time to implement this

4. If they try to implement this, the public will boo them out of office (remember the amnesty for illegals bill a couple of years ago?)

5. The longer Democrats are in charge, the more likely it is that they'll implement this new force in tiny incremental steps (like the cigarette bans)

A national force like this, used internally, would inevitably be used to make the government stronger - at the expense of citizens rights & liberties. At some point government overreaches so far that we can't cure it with the ballot box, but I don't think we're there yet - in fact I think the Democrats will lose a lot of seats in the next congressional election. I do wish we had an alternative to big-government-Republicans that was actually electable.

On further discussion & reflection, I responded to my friend's points -

"Obama was addressing, among others, veterans. I think Obama is smart enough to try to keep the veterans in his back pocket in case there is an "emergency".

Let us suppose he intends to somehow invoke the law that makes veterans under 65 subject to recall.

Suppose he requires veteans to register with local law enforcement as potential recruits and /or police auxilaries.

Suppose he require civilian employees of law enforcement to become auxilaries.

Suppose he requires younger gunowners to join the National Guard and the others to become police auxilaries. Suppose he requires the younger vets to be in the Guard?

These developments would enforce and uphold the Second Amendment under the well regulated militia clause."

* Veterans are as politically diverse as the rest of the country - trying to keep them in Obama's back pocket is probably futile. Our life experiences let us know when we're being taken advantage of and/or being lied to by politicians.

* Invoking a law that makes veterans under 65 subject to recall would result in a blizzard of law-suits and in massive non-compliance, unless there is really serious problems like a world war (possibly another Crusade).

* Requiring veterans to register with local law enforcement for any purpose would likewise result in law-suits and massive non-compliance, along with people filing false paperwork - registering Bugs Bunny etc.

* A lot of veterans might agree to be police auxiliaries - however this cooperation is more likely if it is a local program (like we have in Phoenix) than a Federal one. Veterans have seen the Federal government up close - in service we learned lifetime lessons about "waste, fraud, & abuse" in government bureaucracies.

* Requiring civilian employees of law enforcement to become auxiliaries might be more successful, especially if they feared for their jobs if they didn't comply. Still, such a program couldn't be kept quiet, and lawsuits & voter protests would follow. We've shown in the last few years that voter protests can move Congress (although offensive legislation usually comes back after several months in stealthier forms).

* I know of no mechanism that could be used require younger gun owners to join the National Guard or anyone to become police auxiliaries. We don't currently have a Draft, but if we did, using it selectively to draft gun owners would almost certainly be tossed out by the Supreme Court, and an administration that tried it would be hard pressed to win the next election. "Rule of Law" may be inconvenient, but it usually works to our benefit.

* It might be possible to encourage or force younger veterans to join the National Guard, but if so, they still couldn't plan to act against the public without those plans becoming coming common knowledge, once again causing lawsuits, protests to Congress, and political difficulty for those seeking reelection.

* The Congress is always on a two-year leash - remember the huge political reversal in 1994 - this has the unfortunate effect that our congress-critters are always campaigning and always indebted to contributors, but it also means that the Federal Government can't turn us into a Soviet state - there isn't enough time to get it done before the next election. (For another view, see We're All Socialists Now)

* Creating a totalitarian society (my view of the threat caused by a Civilian National Security Force) without cooperation of Congress requires that the military take over. While this is easy in some countries, I don't think it can be accomplished in ours. Our military leaders (at all levels) have some lines they won't cross, and remaking their home in the image of what they've fought for generations is certainly one of them.

I know young people who thought some citizens would revolt before Obama was sworn in. In responding to such comments, I realized my life experience shows me that whatever our troubles, this too shall pass. Liberal or conservative, Presidential desires get blunted by the realities of getting legislation passed into law, and bad laws tend to be mellowed by court actions and subsequent legislative modifications.

I personally wish our government was smaller an less intrusive, but I'm comforted by the knowledge that flawed as it is, this is still best country on Earth to live in. (We survived Jimmie Carter, & we'll survive this administration too.)

The US Leads the World Despite Our Internal Critics

Weekly, sometimes daily, I hear how awful we are in the US in our treatment of people unlike ourselves. Having lived and worked a little in other countries, I'm quite certain that the US is the best place in the world to live. Even in Britain, an ally and the homeland for many Americans, society affords some people fewer opportunities than they would have as immigrants in the US.

Perhaps instead of always trying to push social frontiers further in the US, we should consider working to bring other countries up to our standards. It would give some people a rest, and enable many people to see how unique and valuable our country is.

BBC NEWS | Could Britain have a black PM?:
"When Barack Obama claimed that his story could only have happened in America, he might have been looking across the Atlantic for evidence.

The odds of a black or Asian person taking the keys to 10 Downing Street any time soon are slim.

Tony Blair acknowledged as much in 2001, when he suggested the US was ahead of the UK in having people from ethnic minorities occupying some of the top political posts.

Mr Blair was mindful of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice at the heart of the White House, but probably hadn't even heard of Obama.

. . . the UK can learn from the way Americans responded to their racist history.

"Since the civil rights movement of the Sixties they have had to put in laws and rules in place because racism was more overt. It's more subtle in this country but there is a sense there's a glass ceiling across most industries.

"In America it's more acknowledged and they've put in positive discrimination. There was much resistance at the beginning but they have the fruits of that, which is people being forced into certain positions."

Consequently the US has a large and powerful black middle class, he says. While the UK is arguably more integrated, he says, a black prime minister will only be closer when there are more black business leaders and commissioning editors, operating the levers of power and educating society about black and Asian experiences.

. . . "In the US they dare to dream the American dream, talking about hope. Using that kind of language is something Americans do naturally. Here, we are I think culturally much more understated. We tend to be more cynical generally.

"And while I don't think we are anti-aspirational, the aspiration of what we are and who we are comes without the language of America. Americans are proud that they have brought about change no-one thought possible in the time they have.

"The language of Barack Obama and Martin Luther King is very singular to America but we're not able to use that kind of language. So we need to find a way to get out of that cynicism." "