Thought Crime Act of 2009

Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.
-- Nineteen Eighty-Four

It's amazing to see how far we've come since George Orwell published his sadly prescient, dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Sadly, we have yet another example of the United States' government enacting legislation which is designed to control not just the speech and actions of the citizenry, but their very thoughts. Of course, in today's politically correct version of Newspeak, such legislation is called "Hate Crimes."

Sadly, as socialist (both the economic and social varieties) gain more and more power in this country, such concepts gain greater and greater traction and acceptance.

But back on point, The Chosen One has recently signed a new law (the law was signed on 10/28/2009) which does two things: the first is add additional money to the fiasco in Afghanistan and the second is attack the very central concepts of free speech in this country.

It's amazing how Congress can design a law which is able to do two incredibly different things, both of which inherently destroy as many lives as possible.

Anyways, the Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, henceforth known as the CrimeThink Act of 2009, expands the 1969 Federal Hate-Crime Law to:

• include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability
• removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity (such as voting)
• gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in thought crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue
• provides $10,000,000 in funding for 2008 & 2009 to help state/local agencies pay for investigating thought crimes
• requires the FBI to track statistics on thought crimes against transgender people (other "protected" groups are already tracked)

Probably what amuses me the most about this rather un-Constitutional law is who it is named after. Sure, James Byrd, Jr. and Matthew Shephard were killed due to the thought crimes as described in the CrimeThink Act of 2009, additionally, those individuals responsible for killing the two in question were never charged under a thought-crime legislation.

Of course the simple fact that there was no thought crime legislation under which they could be flogged didn't stop their killers from being caught, tried and convicted.

But hey, what does that matter to those evil folks who push thought crime legislation through our governments? They care less about the fact that those responsible for killing someone were arrested, tried and convicted than they do that they weren't arrested, tried and convicted for saying things that they don't agree with.

Above all of this, heck, even above and beyond the concept of free speech, this is something which the United States Federal Government should have never brought to life. It is inherently un-Constitutional for reasons even above and beyond the free speech one.

First, there are serious repercussions regarding double jeopardy. The way this law is worded, Federal Prosecutors could charge, and convict, someone for a thought-crime, for which said person was acquitted of the actual crime.

Think about that: you could be charged and convicted because of THOUGHTS which lead to the beating/death of someone, for which you are legally (and possibly even actually) innocent of. Worse, you would receive a lengthier sentence than if you had been convicted of the actual crime of beating/killing someone.

Now think about this, our Constitution provides clear and concise limits on the power that Congress has. There are things Congress is allowed to do and things that it is not allowed to do. This concept was reaffirmed back in 1994 in United States v. Lopez. Of course, Congress has ignored the concept once again as it scrambles to draw more power to itself.

The thing is that back when the Constitution was actually relevant to our way of life, one knew that police powers were almost exclusively within the domain for the States. Additionally,it has long been understood (at least until Thought Crime legislation started making the rounds) that (and here I'm quoting the dissenting opinion of Justice Frankfurter for the case: W.Va. State Board of Educ. v. Barnette) "Law is concerned with external behavior and not with the inner life of man."

Why have we forgotten that?

Oh wait, we haven't--provided that the law in question is related to sexual deviancy, or what two consenting adults choose to do within the confines of their own home. Of course, simple things such as your thoughts and beliefs, well, you'd have better luck asking for a fire to not burn you than expect the government to not try and control what you think and believe.

And that has become a fundamental aspect of our rulers: they want to control every aspect of our lives. They expect us to bow and kowtow to their whims on everything to how we can improve our personal property to whether or not we have health care insurance.

Such tryanny used to be called such. It used to be understood in this country that totalitarian regimes were not a good thing.

Sadly, such wisdom has been lost in our leaders rush to provide us with such a thing.

A Clinton That Is Right?

Who knew that this day would come? Who could imagine that such a piece of Constitutionally CORRECT information would ever emerge from a politician's mouth, much less a Democrat.

What am I talking about you ask?

Well according to a News.Com.Au article, Hilary Clinton has gone on the record telling us all how bad anti-defamation legislation in regards to religion is. In fact, her exact quote said that freedom of speech and religion should be equally upheld.

Like I said, color me amazed.

Buy that digression aside, here's the quote from the news.com.au site:

"I strongly disagree. The United States will always ... stand against discrimination and persecution ... But an individual's ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others' freedom of speech," Clinton said.

"The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse," she added.

Imagine it, a politician actually interested in upholding Constitutional precepts.

Of course, I am left wondering if she got permission from the Exalted One before she spoke such specific terminology?

After all, it was only last month, that the UN Human Rights Council adopted a draft resolution submitted by Egypt and the United States which brought attention to "negative racial and religious stereotyping of religions and racial groups."

Basically, it was the United States endorsing anti-speech measures in order to stop criticism of religions based upon verifiable trends of that religion's population.

What that long sentence of dollar words means is thus: Egypt doesn't like people pointing out that Islam can't be a "religion of peace" if they refuse to condemn and try to stop suicide bombers, and the U.S. supported the concept.

Unfortunately, this is but a small step towards a more Constitutionally-correct government (opposing International "law" which erodes or outright attacks the fundamental concepts upon which our society is based), and I have no doubt that the thought of less legislation on the books attacking our freedoms left a bad taste in a host of Liberal's mouths.

In truth I'm not holding my breath hoping that Mrs. Clinton starts espousing such concepts as gun rights, small government and personal responsibility. After all, she has spent too many years as a big-government, Big-Brother advocate to see the proverbial light.

But any step is a good one...

Demeaning Institutions

You may or may not have heard about Representative Joe Wilson's little outburst during the recent Obama speech where he was hustling for yet more socialist attacks against our way of life Nationalized Health Care.

Basically, when Obama got to the part of his speech where he promised (and we all know what Obama's promises are worth) that Illegal Aliens (i.e. those who should not be on our soil anyways) would not receive any of his socialist kool-aid.

Wilson shouted out "You Lie" because the bill that Obama was hawking, while it did have a clause stating that those who were not supposed to be in the Nation were not to receive benefits (which is a first for the Democrats) there is nothing in the bill which enforces that clause.

And an unenforced clause is just pretty words to appease people.

But what gets me is that now those same Liberals who are up there, demanding that we expand government, balloon our debt (which is forced inflation or more simply, inflating the money supply to rob you of more wealth), and create yet another government program which the government does not Constitutionally have the right to create, are talking about how Wilson has "demeaned" the Congress and the institution of the President.

Funny how easily people forget that both Presidents Clinton and Bush (the Second) were routinely booed during their speeches, even the Constitutionally-required State of the Union.

But, that's not my point. My point is that we have this Congressional idiots up there, all up-in-arms over someone explicitly using his First Amendment rights to inform the President what he thinks, but so few of them seem to be up-in-arms on the attacks against our (the People's) rights.

Remember, the Constitution explicitly states that any right not expressly given the Government within the Constitution belongs to the People or the States.

By allowing Congress to create these socialist Big-Government programs, we're allowing Congress to over-step it's authorized, Constitutionally-defined bounds and we're throwing away our rights.

Sure, what Representative Wilson did probably wasn't the brightest, or most respectful, move to make. That said, we should be less worried over Mr. Wilson's outburst than we our at Pelosi's and companies attacks on our rights.




And for the record, notice that while I am against States creating these state-run health insurance programs, I do not decry them as un-Constitutional, as it would be within a State's rights to create such a program. Also note that I don't live in a state with one of these programs (those states with them, are already facing record deficits, rationed health care, and other abuses of their government run health care system), and I wouldn't want to live in one.

Obama Wants You To Report On Your Neighbors!

I've just read a disturbing blog entry on the White House's blog. It's an article on their proposed government take-over of the Health Care Industry, and anyone who has read any of my previous articles here, knows my take on government programs.

I think it's evil, and a massive waste of taxpayer money, and 100% un-Constitutional.

But, that's not at issue here. What's at issue here, is this content:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Yes, that is our government, asking you to turn in those people who dissent with their socialist programs.

Yes, that is our government--telling you that it's okay to believe in Big Government, despite the fact that time and again, it has been shown that Big Government is hopelessly against the individual.

This terrifies me.

After all, it's a VERY short trip from a request for individuals to snitch on dissent to requiring people to report dissent, to it being blatantly illegal.

Isn't this the type of stuff that those liberal Hypocrites just spent the past 8 years decrying about the Bush Administration? And now they want a free pass on performing the same actions?

It's like that--quite funny--image of Obama as the Joker. When the Liberal press drew Bush as the Joker, it was high political satire. But now that it's the Chosen One's image, it's racist and evviiillll.

I'm sorry you silly Liberals, but you can't have it both ways.

"We the people are coming."

Republishing this letter from The Smallest Minority, just because it rocks.

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Now for some blatant emotionalism!

I despise emotionalism. I hate it in church. I hate it at work. And above all things, I hate it in my politicians. To me, there is nothing more cowardly, and despicable than a politician who takes someones tragedy, and then tries to create an unconstitutional law in order to score political favor-points off of it.

What am I talking about? Why the recent Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act which was introduced into the House by Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK.

Well, there's a nice list of those despicable, cowardly politicians I was talking about.

Of course, now you're probably wondering just what it is about this law which has earned it, and its writer, such harsh and severe descriptions? Well, frankly, what this law is trying to do is make me a felon. The thing is that the way I wrote this blog post alone, is enough to get me sentenced to no less than 2 years in a federal penitentiary according to this law. Here's the meat and potatoes of this law:

`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

`(b) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `communication' means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and

`(2) the term `electronic means' means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.'.

What this translates into is that anyone who tries to coerce someone through aggressive words (which the entire point of this blog is to coerce folks to my line of reasoning, and I'm not above using aggressive and severe words to do so) can be charged and sentenced under this proposed law.

My only guess is that list of despicable, cowardly politicians above just did not get that whole First Amendment thing.

I also have to question if they truly understood their Oath of Office where they swore to protect and uphold the Constitution. Of course being politicians, I guess they figured that they were above such petty things as the Law of the Land.

I'm sorry that Megan Meier lacked the moral fortitude, and the thick skin generated by traditional play yard play, that she felt the need to kill herself for what someone wrote on the internet. Yet that is no excuse for what these despicable, and cowardly politicians are trying to do in her name.

Continuing the Fine Tradition of Home Grown Terrorism

Since my government has decided, once again, that I am an extremist, and/or a "radicalized" home-grown terrorist, I figured I should do everything in my power to ensure that I maintain that particular label.

The primary aspect of that is to ensure that I talk about what I view as the demonization of Constitutionalists, and the Constitution in general. I also must talk about how taxes and government are bad for you--because let's face it they are.

Here's the list of articles that have caught my fancy over the past few hours or so, and are things which I think everyone should get around to reading.

• Pro Libertate: Revenge of the "Waco Gene"
• Michelle Malkin: You Might Be a "Radicalized Right-Wing Extremist" If...
• Walter E. Williams: Democracy and Majority Rule
• Robert A. Wicks: Anarchy and Chaos
• The Raw Story: Cybersecurity Act would give President power to "shut down" internet

I'm heartened to notice in those articles that I'm not alone in fearing and decrying the government annexation of more and more of our rights. From what we are allowed to do with our property to what we're allowed to do with ourselves.

Let us remember and remind ourselves of just what and how we are supposed to be as a country.

Above all, let us remember that those heroes of our nation, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Locke, would all be considered violent, radicalized, home-grown terrorists in this statist nation which we now found ourselves within.

This is not a nation that Jefferson or Locke would be proud of. This is not the nation that Washington fought and bled for.

And I will say that as often, and as loudly as needed. After all, we still have the First Amendment.

At least for a little while longer.

Here, There Be Slavery

Ah, the sweet joys of Freedom. America is a bountiful land, where laws which force our children into mandatory "service" programs, removing their ability to speak out against potential legislation and their ability to practice their religion would never pass.

...

Oh wait, that was BEFORE the Obama Administration. Apparently, I've been dreaming about the standards which our Founding Fathers placed into our Constitution. After all, H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act managed to get passed.

Now, despite the wonderful wording, this act has NOTHING to do with volunteers. Volunteers still have their rights, and volunteers are not forced to perform a service in order to gather the needed high-school credits to graduate or to get financial aid for college.

This is what Rahm Emanuel describes as the Obama Administration's "vision" for this plan:

We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.

"Universal civilian service" is not volunteerism, it's a draft. Yet because this is not for the military, and worse, it's enforced across the board, the Liberal Left is not up in arms over it. Because it's for organizations approved by the Left they're quiet and inattentive.

But if the scope and vile of the act itself is not enough to turn one's stomach, then one can just look forward to the amendments. Here's my personal favorite:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
…

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Yes, you read that correctly. An individual who "volunteers" for this mandatory, universal service (i.e. this enforced slavery at the hands of the State) must give up their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

And people wonder why I get so irked when they claim that the Bill of Rights "gives" us our rights instead of the more accurate description that the Bill of Rights enumerates certain of our God-given rights as a reminder to the State.

This is a firm step that the government believes that it can legislate itself out of the Bill of Rights.

Sadly, both of the Senators for Mississippi (Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker) voted YES for this act. Even worse, 3 out of 4 Mississippi Representatives voted Yes for this bill (Travis Childers, Bennie Thompson, and Gene Taylor). That means out of all of Mississippi representation to Congress, only Gregg Harper stood up for personal rights, and against this monstrosity of a draft into indentured servitude of our children.

The purpose of this bill is to create a body of individuals who place their full faith in the Government and do not question their orders. Additionally, it is to be structured as a paramilitary system, for "civil defense" that is as "well-funded as the real military."

Compare this concept with how the Encyclipedia Britanica describes the values of a Fascist dictatorship:

Fascists favoured military values such as courage, unquestioning obedience to authority, discipline, and physical strength. They also adapted the outward trappings of military organizations, such as paramilitary uniforms and Roman salutes.

This is what our nation is becoming. This is the horror that our Congressmen have voted to force onto us. This is the change that Obama promised.

And people wonder why I voted for Ron Paul.



To see how your state fared, look here for the House, and here for the Senate.

Expanding Thought Crimes Since '09

It has been 6 days since The One was elected and already politics is an utter, and rather unsurprising mess. Three, interrelated things, jump out at me to begin with though.

The first is the highly racist inauguration prayer by Rev. Joseph Lowery, in which it was claimed that my views just are not "right" merely because I am white. Of course, our esteemed proponent for tolerance, virtue, change and hope (i.e. the President) responded to this, at least what I viewed as a, direct attack against my race with merely a smile.

This from the man who no longer wishes to divide us!

Still hopeful?

But, as in most things government, it just gets BETTER!

The second thing that has been brought to light is that one Robert Reich, the 22^nd Secretary of Labor and an Obama adviser, has gone before Congress stating that "professionals and white, male construction workers" are not the focus of the upcoming "stimulus" package which Obama is putting together.

Additionally, he states that those companies that do use funds from the stimulus package must hire those people either unwilling or unable to effectively work, therefore they are considered long-term unemployed, minorities or women.

Forget the concept of hiring the best person for a job, no, it's more important that someone of the "right" skin tone has the position; and as evidenced by the Reverend Lowery's prayer we all know that "white" isn't right.

It seems to never fail, the more the government gives, the happier people are to take. Why Liberals believe this is good for people, the government or the economy is beyond me. Our nation was founded on the back of those willing to work, and to work hard; that drive, that sense of doing has gone--and government funded stimulus packages are not going to recover it. It has to come from outside the public realm. It has to come from the private, as people generate new ways to devise and move income. It cannot come from the government stealing my money to give to others; additionally, I should not be forced to subsidize others for the same reasons.


Finally, while viewing the new, and "improved" WhiteHouse.gov (I still so want to go to WhiteHouse.com), I find this lovely tidbit of tantalizing stupidity:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.

What this means is that your INTENT in doing, pretty much anything, will garner you much, much worse punishments than what you actually do or did.

This criminalizing of intent scares me to no ends. We've already established that the government doesn't want any type of speech out there that could make one scared of government precepts (read this rant).

Thoughtcrimes, facecrimes, hatecrimes. These are all just tools used by our Government in an effort to force us to do its will, as opposed to the government doing the will of the people as it is supposed to.

September 25, Disbarment Day

Sept. 25^th is a day that gamers will long hold in a special place in their hearts. Especially if the lawyer in question fails to win his appeal.

The twenty-fifth of September is the day that Florida disbarred Jack Thompson, and did it so that once finalized he can never become a lawyer with the Florida Bar again (and one can only hope that that would translate to the other states in the union as well).

What's so annoying about this Jack Thompson? Well, he's one of those idiotic reactionists who want to blame everything bad that happens on the evils of video games.

In my estimation, the only folks stupider than that, are those who blame gun violence on guns.

While I firmly believe that Mr. Thompson has the right to badmouth games all he wants, suing businesses to keep games from being released is a step outside of the lines. All video games come with ratings, much like movies. It's not like someone is going to buy a M rated game for their toddlers. Well, I wouldn't actually put that past people, but that's because people can be dumb.

No, my only hope now is that this will more or less shut him up, and we won't have to listen to his rantings concerning how destructive and evil video games are.

And in that hope, let's celebrate a new holiday for gamers! From now on, September won't just host "Talk like a Pirate Day" but will also be home to Disbarment Day!

Newsgroups and N.Y. Attorney General

Before I begin this let me state unequivocally that I have no interest in child pornography, I don't search for it, I don't peruse it and I do not advocate it.

So, with that disclaimer out of the way, I have to say that what New York's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo , is doing is evil. Fox News has an article on Cuomo and his decision against Comcast news in that:

New York's attorney general notified Comcast Corp. on Monday that the state will take legal action if the company — the nation's second-largest Internet service provider — doesn't agree to eliminate access to child pornography.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo wants major Internet access providers to agree on steps to remove certain newsgroups that contain child pornography and purge their servers of Web sites that contain child porn.

I'm a bit flabbergasted at the sheer idiocy of the New York Attorney General's office. How exactly does he plan on Comcast (or any other ISP) on eliminating access to child pornography.

After all, the only sure-fired way is to eliminate internet access except to very specific websites. Which as we all know, Comcast wants, and encourages, but as a Net Neutrality advocate I can't agree with.

What this does is merely creates a precedent where Comcast and others are able to filter access to the internet based on the possibility that child pornography exists on that particular service.

Don't like BitTorrent? Hey, there's Child Porn, so we've gotta block it.

Don't like AIM? Hey! There's Child Porn, so we've gotta block it.

Don't like GOPHER? Guess what's out there? Child Porn! Gotta block it.

Don't like all those pesky Blogs on LiveJournal or WordPress? Hey look! Child Porn! Time to block it.

Amazon.com is hurting your business? Hey look! It sells Lolita! That's Child Porn masquerading as classic literature! And *gasp* even worse, they sell Pretty Baby! That's a movie! It lacks even that pesky classic literature tag! Ban them from the 'NET!

If this type of activity continues, and the ISPs become controllers of what their end users see or don't see, then the concepts which the internet were built upon are in fundamental danger. The thought that all traffic is the same, that every packet that passes through an ISP's hands should be as anonymous and as important as any other packet is in danger.

The Internet was hailed as a great tool of democracy and free speech.

These types of rules endanger that concept. They in effect struggle to turn this tool of free speech into something twisted and dangerous. These rules try to actively stifle free speech.

These rules try to actively control what you see and do.

Frankly, that's not a power that I want in Comcast's or any other ISPs hands.

And it's definitely not a power that I want in the government's hands.

Fear in a book

It's not often that a book can scare me. It's not. Consider, I was reading Stephen King in the fourth grade.

I found his books mildly amusing.

Horror movies were a staple growing up. It's just not in me to be scared of the things most folks are. Oh, sure, I can be shocked or startled by sudden onslaught of sound and light, but scared? That's hard for me. I don't get that rush of adrenaline, that understated fear that I've felt in the past when I have been scared.

For the record, the last time I had felt that was when my first son was being born and the doctors discovered that he had had his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck three times.

Tonight, I finished a SF novel that scared me. It left me feeling paranoid and suffering under that intense fight-or-flight syndrome one gets when confronted by things that scare you.

Which book might that be?

Cory Doctorow's Little Brother.

This is a novel that combines technology with common, daily events, and then shove them out until you reach their ultimate conclusion. The fact that Big Brother is watching you. Using everything from wifi sniffing to Bayesian statistics, Mr. Doctorow spins a story about the DHS and its crackdown on the civil rights, all in the name of security, in the setting of San Fransisco.

What is sad, is that I can so see this happening.

Maybe it's because that I knew all the technology he discussed, and the small bits he created I could see how they are logical extensions of existing tech. Maybe it's because a large part of my job is sorting through datasets, and creating algorithms to help people do tasks. In fact one project I worked in the past on required that I track where every login came from, passing authentication information back and forth transparently to the user.

I must be afraid because I can see it happening today.

The closest I've ever come to this feeling before was after reading the novel Dark Rivers of the Heart (0-553-58289-5). That particular novel teaches much the same story, with a focus on how our Congress has taken a liking to writing laws which they are exempt from. For example the drug search and seizure laws, and of course the various perks they give themselves such as free tax filings (for more, see this fun Time article).

Regardless, read the book. Become scared with me.

And remember these two quotes:

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

That was from the Declaration of Independence. This one is from Ben Franklin:

He who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will lose both and deserve neither.

What is in a Name?

I'm involved in quite a few social networks. MySpace and Facebook among them. Well, back in the early days of the Internet, I did everything under a pseudonym. Originally, it was Blade, but as registrations became more predominate, I switched over to Kidan. In fact, the first iteration of the KrashPAD that ever existed was entitled "Kidan's KrashPAD." Hence, why it's spelt with a 'K.'

Yet, recently, I invited an old friend from those early days to join my Facebook group, and he basically stumbled about the approval because he didn't recognize my full name.

When he questioned me about it on IM later, I replied that as I got older, I found the need and desire to work under a pseudonym to be less and less. And in fact, I tend to display my Real Name even in situations where pseudonyms are common. For example, the forums at TheForce.Net I am still registered there as Kidan, yet attached to that is my real name, and my real name accompanies all postings on the main portion of the site.

Well, that got me to wondering. Why am I now so easily disseminating my ideas, thoughts and theories under my own name? In this world where Google Searches can cost you a job, why would I do that?

The answer, can be summed up in a quote by Milton Acorda:

Without freedom, no one really has a name.

By pushing my ideas out there, regardless of how out-of-sync with political correctness, I am protecting my freedom. For example, it's not someone hidden in the shadows denouncing hate speech laws, it is me, Stephen Wrighton, doing it.

By attaching my real name to these things, I am putting a power behind it. I am claiming my freedom, and my right of speech. While catchphrases and quotes from anonymous sources exist, it is those that we can accredit to a specific person, be that Franklin, Roosevelt or Paine, that we hold most dear.

We respect what you're saying - so shut up!

I've often mocked the so-called religion of peace in here. Too often, these peaceniks want to kill and maim for the grievous sin of not being just like them.

Case in point, a recent attack against Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen. On August 9, 2007, she was attacked during the launch of her latest book. What it amounted to, was a group of Muslim men got together and decided to pelt her with bouquets, flower pots, shoes, chairs and pretty much anything else that wasn't tied down. Luckily for her, she wasn't family to these men, because then they would be 'honor-bound' to have actually killed her.

Of more interest is that three of her attackers where Members of Legislative Assembly of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, which is a Muslim political party over in India. One of these three is quoted as saying, "We are not bothered about our MLA status. We are Muslims first. And its our responsibility to test those who have said anything against Islam in which ever way possible."

Yeah, that's reasonable behavior for you. We don't like what she says, so forget the fact that we're supposed to be leaders in our country, let's go lynch this girl!

Sadly, that alone wouldn't have gotten me ranting. After all, Muslim treatment of women as chattel is well documented. Muslim violence against non-Muslims is well documented. No, what got me ranting this morning, was this statement by Delhi Minorities Commission chairperson Kamal Farooqui:

The government should immediately cancel her visa and make her go out of the country, she should realise that this is not Bangladesh or Pakistan, but India where the sentiments of all communities are respected.

Does Kamal Farooqui even realize the utter stupidity, and non-logic of that statement? In two sentences, he totally contradicts himself. First he says that she needs to get out of India because of what she writes, and in the very next breath he says that the reason for this is because, hey, this is India, we respect the sentiments of all communities here.

Apparently, all communities doesn't include Taslima Nasreen.