An Imperfect Citizen and a Better Human Being For It!

“The man who fears no truths has nothing to fear from lies.” Thomas Jefferson

What are you afraid of, Janet Napolitano? Who do you see it as your job to protect? From what are these people being protected? All of these questions need to be asked. Maybe, if we do our job as Conservatives this November, Congressman Darrel Issa can reprise the official role of The Summoner, from The Canterbury Tales, and make Uber-Janet give truthful answers to these vital questions.

This needs to happen because as Secretary of The Department of Homeland Security, Napolitano has increasingly dabbled in paranoid surveillance of domestic political opposition while doing nothing tangible to protect people from madmen screaming “Allahu Akhbar!” while they shoot up Fort Hood Administrative Centers. Her most recent salvo against people with “controversial”, non-Barack-Approved™ beliefs is the new Perfect Citizen program. Siobhan Gorman of The Wall Street Journal describes our Feckless, oops I mean Fearless Secretary’s latest effort to make the trains run on time below.

“The overall purpose of the [program] is our Government…feel[s] that they need to insure the Public Sector is doing all they can to secure Infrastructure critical to our National Security,” said one internal Raytheon email, the text of which was seen by The Wall Street Journal. “Perfect Citizen is Big Brother.”

Perfect Citizen has plausible justification. It claims to protect key infrastructure from being net-hacked by foreign enemies. However, it comes against the leafy, green backdrop of a series of steps taken by Big Sister Janet to restrict the 1st Amendment Rights of American Citizens in the name of security. It was just Tuesday of this week that the TSA had to rescind a policy aimed at blocking “Controversial Opinion” from any computer the TSA operated. The Washington Times details the effort to weasel this language into a more general “acceptable use” policy that was probably a fair and reasonable idea.

The ban on “controversial opinion” sites, issued late last week, was included as part of a more general TSA Internet-usage policy blocking employee access to gambling and chat sites, as well as sites that dealt with extreme violence or criminal activity.

The American Civil Liberties Union did something atypical and lived up to its name. They condignly lambasted this intrusion on the intellectual rights of TSA members.

“There’s always a danger that threats are used to justify over-broad restrictions on speech and other freedoms,” said Jay Stanley, an American Civil Liberties Union privacy expert, before the TSA announced it was dropping the idea. “But it’s disturbing to see the TSA get the balance all wrong on that.”

Well-spoken, Mr. Stanley. Conservative activists and bloggers also acted strangely. They agreed overwhelmingly with ACLU press release aimed at changing a political decision. An example of the blog traffic from 6 July follows below.

“We have known for years that the government has talked about the possibility of censoring the Internet to thwart opinion, but this is the biggest it has ever gotten,” said a posting Tuesday on the “Conservative for Change” blog site. “When will we be able to get back to when people actually had the freedom to make sound decisions for themselves and not have some government tell them how it should be?”

The issue is not as black-and-white as either the ACLU or Conservative for Change makes it sound. Good reasons exist to ban pornographic or exploitive websites. Decent, practical and logical reasons exist to protect critical infrastructure from Cyber-Hacking. TSA has a role here.

Unfortunately, Janet Napolitano has politicized this role and proven professionally untrustworthy. There’s a fine line between me being protected and me being censored and forced to accept Doublethink to ban the possibility of Thought Crime. This is difficult to describe, but like difference between pornography and fine art, I know the difference between benign protection and malignant censorship when I see it.

Napolitano achieved infamy for her report that disgruntled war veterans would join forces with Right Wing Extremists and perform violent actions. Government-Sponsored blood libel follows below.

“Right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning,” the assessment reads.

The report also suggests that returning veterans are attractive recruits for right-wing groups looking for “combat skills and experience” so as to boost their “violent capabilities.” It adds that new restrictions on gun ownership and the difficulty of veterans to reintegrate into their communities “could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

Heretofore, the only man-made disaster type of incident involving our military didn’t happen to occur at the hands of a Right-Wing extremist. They don’t yell “Allahu Akhbar.” Janet could have asked her party’s resident Exalted Cyclops about these things prior to his passing.

Janet doesn’t see these things because her ideological filter does not permit her to. What she sees are a series of “controversial opinions” that prevent her subjects from becoming “Perfect Citizens.” She is more loyal to her liberal ideology than she is patriotic towards our nation. She is more concerned with protecting her power base from adverse opinion than she is in protecting our soldiers from being butchered like chickens and a Ft. Hood Processing Center.

Of course that’s just another “controversial opinion” from another “imperfect citizen” and “Right-Wing extremist.” If we could just shut those Internet tubes down and protect ourselves from Thought Crime, we could all be truly secure in the homeland. We could all be secure like people are in North Korea and Yemen. Kfuc you very much, Madame Secretary.