Free Speech Kill Switch

Late last year Congress introduced a bill to allow the President to turn off the Internet when there is a “significant cyber threat”.  The bill died in committee when Congress adjourned.  Lately, the bill has had a resurgence of support.

Interestingly enough, the legislation was resurrected the same day that Egypt killed the Internet in its country to quell protests against Mubarak’s government.  Also interestingly enough, the bill was reintroduced by a Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.  Republicans are the supposed Bastions of Liberty in the face of the raging incrementalism of Socialism that is overtaking our country.

Perhaps what Ross Perot (and others) have said about the mainstream Republicans and the Democrats not having “a dime’s worth of difference” between them is not so far off.  Senator Collins, of course, does not have the Tea Party to answer to as she was last elected in 2008 and won’t be up for re-election until 2014, two years after the Mayan Calendar recycles, so maybe the world will end by then.

According to Senator Collins, it allows “the government to work with the private sector” when the country is faced by cyber terrorism.  Now, let me ask, when has Big Brother ever “worked” with anyone?  In the face of a cyber terror attack will they call committee meetings or create some joint fact finding commission to determine the threat level?  Heavens, no!  It took the Gulf Oil Spill Commission six months to determine that BP (and others) screwed up.  On the contrary, some Internet Czar will have the power to mandate a “temporary” shut down of segments of the Internet on his or her command.

Why is this bad?  Would not our banking and power grid be at risk if there was a true cyber attack?  Probably yes.  However, giving the Government the power to kill electronic communication is not the answer.

If certain sectors need protecting, then they should put in their own protection.  If it’s in the interest of the banking community to have better electronic protection, they should spend some of the bailout money on protecting their systems and networks rather than giving millions of dollars of that money in bonuses to overpaid executives.

Put the banking community on its own subnet that can be segregated from the rest of the Internet.  You know the military is on its own subnet.  There’s no way we could execute any war if Obama or any other President hit the kill switch on the Internet.  Do the same with the power grid and any other segment that needs to be protected.

This is, however, what the bill’s proponents suggest will be the case.  But which human can determine if any part of the Internet is under attack and what to do about it quickly enough?  When computers can send thousands of messages each second, would a person notice before it’s too late?  Would a human know which sectors to shut down or would it be just “safer” to shut down everything while a committee figured out what the problem was?  Put the software to detect attacks where the systems are that might be attacked.

The danger, as I see it, is yet one more step at eroding our Constitutional rights.  Giving anyone the ability to shut down parts of the Internet is, in my opinion an unconstitutional attack on the First Amendment that prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Shut down the Internet and you cannot send an e-mail to your Congressperson or Senator.  Shut down the Internet and you cannot electronically assemble with your friends or colleagues.   Shut down the Internet and bloggers (I admit this entry is somewhat self-serving) cannot criticize the ability of the Government to shut down the Internet.

Giving anyone in Government the ability to shut down any kind of communications is just “one small step for eroding freedoms, one giant leap for totalitarianism.”

Oh, it will be for our own good.  Simply ignore the fact that there is a technological solution to this technological problem.  Like all good Socialists, the bill’s supporters believe that only the Government can solve this or any other problem.

This is yet one more proof that we’ll never conquer artificial intelligence until we first overcome natural stupidity.

A Time for …?

Today’s USA Today had a headline that read, “Now what?  Obama, Republicans face choices of compromise or conflict.”  That may be true for Obama but sadly, each time that Republicans have gotten any kind of power in recent times, they took another choice: Cave.

Mainline Republicans want so much to be loved by Democrats and the main stream media that they have been willing to sacrifice values and their political careers to get on their good side.

When will the learn that some people live to hate them?

This new crop of Republicans in congress seem to have heard the message that this election was not an embracing of Republicans but a repudiation of the Obama plan.  The Republicans seem to have heard this but I doubt the President has.

For once the people have had a chance to speak where Obama and Congress were forced to listen, and for many of them, the message was, “Good bye!”

President Obama in his address yesterday essentially said that he lost track of the voters but that we were not smart enough to understand his policies so he should have explained better.  Which pieces of his policies did the voters not understand?

Was it Cap and Trade, which promised to raise energy prices and put coal miners out of work?  This in a time when unemployment is still very high and most families don’t have a lot of extra money to spend on higher energy bills?

Was it treating the Christmas underwear bomber as a criminal which allowed him to “lawyer up” in place of treating him as the terrorist he is?

Was it the give away programs to the labor unions (Harry Reid owes them big time for his re-election)?

Was it the rising debt that will bankrupt our children and grandchildren as it races to $14 Trillion?

Was it the growing government?  During this time of unemployment, the federal payroll continued to grow.

Was it ObamaCare, the unprecedented takeover of the health system?  I don’t think it was just an unfortunate coincidence that the last big Republican take over of the House happened after HillaryCare was soundly rejected by society.

Every one of the problems that these “fixes” were designed to address have  fixes.  Many of the fixes don’t require rampant socialism.

It is doubtful that the new Congress can repeal ObamaCare outright.  Obama still has the veto pen.  They can, however, deny funding for the federal programs and enact legislation that address the real problems without sacrificing liberty and our futures.  If necessary, we can address some of the more rational fixes.

I sincerely hope the new Congress will follow the mandate given to them in this election.  Let’s break with tradition.  It will take some compromise and a lot of conflict.  Let’s not cave this time.  Maybe the Democrats and media won’t like them but “We the People” will.

October Surprises

It’s October and just a couple of days from the mid-term elections.  It’s time for the pre-election surprises that attempt to sway the undecided voters, and this year is no different.  Recently a few suspicious packages were found that reportedly had explosives bound for two Jewish community centers in Chicago.

I’m not a conspiracy expert nor am I a conspiracy advocate.  I just question the logic involved.  I have to ask, “What were they thinking?”  What could it have been?  Whom does this action benefit more?  The incumbants or the challengers?  I’d like to explore a few options.

Option 1: The various governments knew what was going on but only revealed the plot now.  The news was released at this time to bolster the argument of why change horses in the middle of the stream?  New people couldn’t know what to do better than the folks already there so let’s keep them in power.

Option 2: The various governments outside our own knew it was coming but delayed telling ours until now.  They did this because they want change and feel a different mix in our country’s leadership would be beneficial.  They don’t believe the current set couldn’t act if there was an actual problem.

Option 3: The perpetrators, allegedly Al-Qaida, wanted the same outcome as Option 1 above but felt the government officials were too inept to uncover the packages so they blew the whistle on themselves.

Option 4: The “perps” were doing a dry run and did not hope to be caught.  They don’t care about the election.  They just wanted to see if this was a good way to blow up a plane or a Jewish center from Yemen.

Option 5: These bad guys actually wanted to blow something up but messed up.

Option 6: Their printer was really broken.  They couldn’t get technical support so they wanted to make a statement.

Regardless, it’s good that the packages were found.  Yemeni officials said that even though they’d find the shipping manifests, it might be difficult to determine who really sent the packages.  Maybe the parcel carriers will put in new requirements for identification in places like these.

In any event, in typical knee-jerk reaction, anyone taking a printer onboard a plane will be subject to a full cavity search.  Oh, and the printer will be examined, too.

I speculate; you decide.

Veiled in Secrecy

USA Today has an interesting opinion article discussing the controversy in Europe over whether or not to allow women to wear burqas or other veils over their faces. The controversy is not about the veil per se, but rather over the potential security exposure the veil might pose. Several European countries have passes laws or are in the act of passing them.

The US is not immune to this controversy.  In 2002, a Florida woman sued the state because she wanted to wear a veil in her driver’s license photo. The state, correctly in my opinion, held that a driver’s license is a privilege and not a right so. Besides, if one woman gets a license and the photo is a veil, how would the police know if the person they pull over was the woman in the photo?

The license is for identification. The veil did not need to be identified; the person did.

So besides not knowing which burqa to arrest, what are some exposures? A man could cross dress, wear a veil, and try to hold up a bank. I can’t begin to count the number of Islamic laws and rules that might break, but I’m not an expert in Sharia Law, nor do I play one on television. Besides, in this case, what’s the difference between a veil, a ski mask, and a stocking?

Some say it can hide terrorists and their explosives, but so can back packs, strollers, and cars.

Some object to the veil (and I’m using this term generically to mean all veils and head coverings that disguise the face) on the grounds that it promotes “gender inequality”. My take is, “So what?” If the woman chooses to mark herself as a lesser being, that’s her choice. No secular law in the country in which she resides requires her to wear it. If she chooses to do so out of modesty, let her.

If she chooses to do so to hide the bruises from the brutality of her husband, what can we do about that, too? She chooses to stay in that relationship. I’m not her nanny and neither are you. If she wants to get out, there is ample help that must be made available to her.

I can see in places where proper identification is paramount that veils could be prohibited. If you refuse to show your face, then you can be refused service.

I live in a state with “shared responsibility”. If you cross the street and don’t look but you get hit by a car, you share some of the responsibility. Therefore, if you wear a veil that prevents you from seeing what’s coming, you bear much of the fault. You pay for your damages and the driver for his/her damages to the car. I think in the long run, the veil-wearer would lose, but you take your chances.

If a woman wants to wear a veil and it causes no danger to public safety, then let her. However, she has no right to complain if the person handling her transaction needs some positive identification.

Wearing a burqa is Constitutional a form of religious expression. I wonder why the ACLU fought to let the burqa-toting woman wear one? Banning it would certainly go along with their policy promoting of “freedom from religion”.

Because We Can!

If President Obama needs a campaign slogan for his assumed 2012 bid for re-election, let me suggest, “Because We Can!“

Why do I suggest this?  Do you really have to ask? This president, more than any other, has pushed more combined regulations, requirements, taxes, and debt on the American people.  Why?  Because We Can!

In an unprecedented move, President Obama appointed Dr. Donald Berwick as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  He did this in a recess appointment.  Now, recess appointments are not uncommon.  I believe every president in recent history has made them.  The unprecedented part here is that Berwick’s nomination wasn’t even discussed or debated while the Senate was in session.  Nobody there had a chance to voice either support or objection to this man who is a lover of the British rationed health care system.  Why did Obama do it (obviously with Democrat Senate support)? Because We Can!

While we’re on health care, let’s talk about controlling yours.  The NY Times reports that there are new rules (read that “requirements”) for physicians and hospitals to keep and eventually share your records electronically.  The government will pay them up to $27 Billion to convert.  If it’s such a good idea and will reduce health care costs all around why have they not already converted on their own initiative?  However, more important, why impose these rules at all? Because We Can!

I will write a separate article on why this is dangerous at another time.   This blog entry is just an overview.

In my opinion BP has acted very irresponsible with regard to our oil and our environment.  They recklessly drilled without the proper safety procedures and inspections such as those imposed by Great Britain after their North Sea Piper Alpha disaster back in 1988 where 167 people died.  On an economic level, I can’t blame BP for taking the shortcuts; on the human and environmental level, however, I can and do.  The US government doesn’t require these enhanced procedures, regardless of how much they protect life and the environment.  Why does BP (and others, to be fair to BP) ignore them?  They take a cue from President Obama.  Because We Can!

The Gulf disaster struck.  Lives were lost.  The environment is being crippled.  Oil is being lost.  Yet Obama waited two months to talk to BP execs.  This president who criticized you-know-who for delaying after Katrina wasted no time hitting the golf course while tons of oil gushed from an out of control hole in the sea bottom, thus wasting potential energy, and polluting fishing beds and the environment in general.  Why?  Because We Can!

Obama’s “untiring” leadership on this actual crisis consisted of three vacations and untold numbers of golf outings while the fishing industry was being devastated, tourism virtually halted in most Gulf Shore areas, and oil production stopped.  He’d rather pick on Arizona who wants to stop terrorists from crossing its border (more on this below).  Why?  Because We Can!

Obama’s big achievement?  Put a failed moratorium on all drilling because of one bad player.  That’s like grounding all cargo transportation because one ship sinks.  There are players playing by the rules.  Why penalize everyone?  Because We Can!

One player has already pulled out of the Gulf and is on its way to Egypt due to this moratorium.  I do give Obama credit for his tenacity.  If at first you don’t succeed (or even if at second, when the moratorium is struck down on appeal), try, try again with another moratorium.  Obama’s actions will kill our quest for energy independence.  Why?  Because We Can!

I find it interesting, if not ironic, that this liberal president bucked liberals by declaring that he was opening up areas for oil exploration and drilling only to then declare a moratorium on drilling.  That’s just a side observation.

Arizona passed a law giving its law enforcement officers the authority to assist the US government agents in enforcing federal immigration laws.  It’s not racial profiling which the US Attorney General implies it might be.  It’s not supplanting the US government’s responsibility.  Arizona says that if the US government can’t supply the manpower to enforce the laws, the state will help nab illegals.  Obama wants to stop them from stopping illegal aliens, not just the illegal landscapers but the smuggled terrorists as well.  Why? Because We Can!

Obama plans new financial regulation that is already working its way through Congress.  This is on top of the reforms that Congress already passed in the past year or so.  There is even talk of more bailouts for failed friends of the Democrat-controlled Congress and President.  Why? Because We Can!

Bailouts don’t work.  All they do is reward stupidity and failure.  If some company is “too big to fail”, then split it up so it can divest itself of the failing parts.  Don’t give the leaders money to award themselves bonuses.

Obama won’t secure our border from terrorists.  Obama won’t take reasonable measures to make health care affordable short of taking over the entire industry.  He won’t implement and enforce reasonable safety measures but instead he will stop the oil industry in its tracks.  He won’t stop spending but rather supports even more giveaway programs.

How far down the road to economic destruction will he take us before he turns around (if he’ll turn around at all)?  Why does he do this?  Because he can.