In early 2002, when the Homeland Security Agency was first proposed, I sounded a warning that its duties, responsibilities, and even its innocuous name indicated that it would inevitably become an instrument of oppression. If anyone paid attention, it was only to laugh and dismiss my paranoid fantasies.

Today, this story appeared on Fox News. Sometimes I hate being right.

I have never heard of a fusion center. I did not know the Department of Homeland Security was in the business of defining anyone who might think personal liberty is good as a terrorist. I did not know they were developing justifications for the idea that anyone who disagrees with current public policy, promotes a different public policy, or even supports a candidate from a different party than the one currently in power, as a terrorist. I am not, however, the least bit surprised.

In the words of Jane Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, "That's why we started this.... Now we know that it's not just the 9/11-type incidents but many, many other types of incidents that we can benefit from having fusion centers that share information and product and analysis upwards and horizontally." Be afraid.

I did not realize the extent of the secrecy enveloping the activities of the Department of Homeland Security. Once again, I am not the least bit surprised. Secret police organizations whose purpose is to suppress all opposition to the ruling regime through intimidation, kidnapping, torture and murder rarely wish their activities to be publicized.

It does not have to be this way. In cryptography, there is a rule that any code must follow to be taken seriously. The rule is, any good code algorithm must be public knowledge. It must be something that anyone can implement. At the same time, even with that knowledge, it must still be impossible to decode a message without the key in a useful amount of time.

The Department of Homeland Security could and should operate in much the same way. Their guiding principles, if not their actual methods, must be public knowledge. They need to be subject to the same laws that govern any other police organization in the country. They need to be subject to public scrutiny to keep them honest. Or, they need to be disbanded for our own safety and that of the Republic.

As things stand, a mere six years after its inception the Department of Homeland Security is showing undeniable signs that they are planning to crack down on dissenters. Any dissenters. That means you.

By the criteria outlined in "The Modern Militia Movement" I am a potential terrorist because I am writing this blog. You are a potential terrorist because you are reading it. Between us, we are conspirators in an underground militia.

I don't know what worries me more, the idea that I could be profiled as a potential threat to my own country, or the idea that people who actually make and use bombs, and who fly airplanes into crowded office buildings, are not.

Watch and listen to this video where White House Press Secretary Gibbs "explains" the difference between a "sound" economy and a "strong" one.

Having watched this display, I can not help wondering, do these people ever listen to anything they say?

He confirms that Candidate McCain (notice the diminutive title as he refuses to even call him Senator) was completely deluded to refer to any part of the national economy as "strong." I can only assume he intends us to understand that the economy is definitely and inarguably weak.

In the next breath, he asserts, "Nobody exceeds the United States in our production capacity, uh, in our untrapranool....entrepreneur'l (sic) capacity, in our capacity to innovate, in our research universities, in the depth and the breadth of our capital markets, umm...." Is it just me, or does that not sound pretty strong, as economies go? And am I the only one who heard how the man just could not choke out the word "entrepreneurial?"

Visibly nervous, he stumbles on, "But as the president, addressed in the debates later that fall, ah, he said that the strength of our fundamentals should be med-measured as to whether, um, the middle class is getting a fair shake." Dude! The guy you are talking about was only a candidate then, too! Also, would you mind defining the term "fair shake?" I'm middle class, and I go to work, get paid, and pay my bills. It doesn't get much more fair than that, does it?

Appearing to gain confidence with the ole campaign slogans, he continues,"Unh, are we taking steps to create jobs? Are we taking steps to prevent home foreclosures?" Son, one of these days somebody has got to explain to you where jobs come from, and why foreclosures happen.

He has to think hard again to make this next bit sound even a little acceptable. "Are we taking steps, ahh, to put money back in people's pockets who most deserve it, rather than to continue, unh, tax cuts that reward those that have done, just fine over eight years?" WHAT WAS THAT?

So, now you have it. A sound economy is one that has all the elements required for everyone who participates to succeed to one degree or another. A strong economy, however, seems to be one where the government "takes steps" to create jobs and prevent home foreclosures. Notice that these government "steps" need not succeed in their purpose. They need only be taken.

Above all, a strong economy, as opposed to a sound but weak one, seems to be an economy where the deserving, whoever they are, are given money by government fiat. At the same time, a strong economy ensures that those who have succeeded to any degree in a sound economy are "not rewarded." Lovely.

Let's just skip ahead to the next significant bit.

"The question was, are we going to, uhh, move forward in, uhh, a plan that would create jobs, a plan that would stem home foreclosures, a plan that would reward the middle class with tax cuts..." Hold it right there! Ten seconds ago you said rewarding the middle class with tax cuts had to be stopped to make the economy strong. You want to make up your mind, there, Sparky?

"...and a plan that would reregulate our financial industry, or were we not? I think that debate is largely over? I think that campaign was...won? Uh, by, a particular side...." Then he starts stumbling and mumbling even worse than before.

We need to get one thing straight, guys. What you "won," as you are so fond of saying, is nothing more than the award of a four year employment contract. That contract includes a termination clause, and you people seem to be doing everything in your power to invoke the conditions of that clause. Your objective is simple. It is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, so help you God. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nowhere in your terms of employment is there any reference to redistributing money to those of whom you approve, and nothing in those terms suggests that you are permitted to beggar the nation, punish the productive, cripple and alienate the military, or apologize to the implacable enemies of the very Constitution that you are sworn to defend.

Under no circumstances are you granted unlimited power over any part of the American nation, its people, its economy, or its relations with other nations. You are specifically required to work with the Congress of the United States of America in equal partnership to promote the freedom, prosperity, and general well being of those United States. So far, you do not seem to Play Well With Others, and you seem a bit unclear regarding the duties and responsibilities of the President of the United States.

Ladies and gentlemen of the White House, you have been hired to do one specific job. Would you care to share with us when you might be ready to get started?

For the benefit of any evil genii (plural of genius) reading this blog, I think it is time to explain the proper way to seize absolute power from a democratic republic such as is popular in the allegedly freedom-loving nations of the world.

The Problem

Democratic republics are designed specifically to prevent absolute power from being invested in any single individual. Of course, this limits the opportunities for total control within such a system. For example, the President of the United States is said to be the most powerful person in the world, and yet nearly every significant thing he does must be ratified by Congress before it can take effect. If one wishes to rule absolutely with an iron fist, one needs a political system that does not allow endless second-guessing of one's every utterance.

To maintain rule, one must acquire the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the people to be ruled. Support can be purchase through a "bread and circuses" approach, by creating the illusion that the leader is somehow superior to all others, by outright deceit, or as a last resort, by intimidation.

One difficulty in assuming total control in a republic is that the populace at large is generally satisfied with their governmental system. These governments usually permit a relatively free market economic strategy, which tends to promote prosperity. Satisfied, prosperous people do not hope for change, they are happy with the status quo. They will vigorously resist any attempt to significantly change that status quo because it is working.

Another problem is that republics tend to support quality education. From a young age, a vast majority of the people are instructed in language, history, arts, sciences and mathematics. They are treated to balanced and accurate descriptions and analyses of current and historical social systems, with advantages and disadvantages of each. They are, above all, taught and encouraged to think critically, logically, and productively about everything they experience, and to debate openly and fearlessly on any subject. People educated in this manner will tend to resist any effort to establish unlimited central control over their lives.

Finally, most allegedly "free" nations support, or at least fail to discourage, the free practice of religion. This allows the vast majority of the population to receive a firm grounding in ethical and moral principles that provides each individual with more or less uniform concepts of good and evil, justice and mercy, and other virtues and failings. These concepts form the basis for a certainty of word, thought and deed that effectively counteracts any attempt to establish control based on moral authority.

People who have become prosperous through their own autonomous control of their economic decisions will have no motivation to relinquish that control to a central authority. People who trust and believe in their system of government will resist attempts to change that system. People who are well educated and believe in their own judgement will not respond to bribes, demonstrations of superiority, or other deceptions because they possess the mental tools to immediately perceive the fallacies involved. Such people will also fail to respond appropriately to the application of direct force, unless it is ruthless and overwhelming. In today's world, such levels of force are generally impossible to achieve.

To Be Continued....

I hardly know where to start with this story. If I tried to address everything that is wrong with it, I would be writing a small book. For now, I will try to restrict myself to one or two points.

For example, America's B.O. wafted out, "I don't think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say." He actually used those very words. There is even video. I am sorry I can not seem to find the original, but here it is presented as part of Hannity's America.

OK, fine. Where was this attitude last October? Yes, the banking industry was hit with a series of paper liabilities that translated into real losses far out of proportion to their actual values. Yes, some banks teetered on the edge of bankruptcy, and a couple fell over that edge. A couple more probably would have followed suit. Resoundingly NO, the banking system was never in any danger at all.

We saw the exact same thing happen to the tech industries in 2001. Huge losses were realized as the "assets" of many companies were found to be without real value and entire corporations were discovered to be hollow shells. Thousands of companies closed, billions of investment dollars were lost, nearly every company that dealt with computers enjoyed massive layoffs, and unemployment skyrocketed. I was one of the unemployed for a while. It could have been said that our technological civilization was imperiled, in the same way that our banking system was imperiled last October.

Interestingly, there was never a suggestion that any of these technology companies should be bailed out by the government. The industry just took its lumps and carried on. Investors were generally skittish about technology stocks for about three years, then cautiously started dipping their toes, and their dollars, back into the technology pool. As, I might add, was fully expected by those of us in the industry.

Those of us who could, got new jobs with healthier companies in the same industry. Those of us who could not for whatever reason, found different career opportunities in other industries. The assets of the failed companies were sold off, the losses absorbed, and lessons were learned. We now have a more educated class of tech investor, and a more robustly profitable digital technologies industry.

I would also like to point out that through it all, even with a huge sector of the economy floundering, the overall economy grew steadily at a healthy pace between one-half and one-and-one-half points above inflation. You can check this yourself at the Federal government's own economic indicators website.

The banking "crisis," left to itself, would have played out in a similar way. Individual banks would have collapsed. Their assets and employees would have been redistributed among the remaining healthier banks. "Toxic assets" and liabilities would have been shunned or disposed of, and the related losses absorbed. The unemployed would, sooner or later, move on to other opportunities, not necessarily in the same industry. We would have ended up, after six months to two years, with a wiser class of lenders, and a less exuberant class of borrowers.

Instead, America's B.O. was one of the first and loudest to proclaim disaster to our very way of life if the government failed to Do Something Now. Even, or maybe especially, if it is wrong.

As a result of this panicked clamor to Do Something, even if it is wrong, we start with an economy battered by a sucker punch to the overrated derivatives, a $1 trillion deficit from last year, and a $10 trillion outstanding debt. We immediately hand out another $700 billion to our political supporters, letting the rest of the banks sink or swim on their own. As soon as the Shadow Presidency ends, we demand that another $787 billion be spent without time for discussion, debate or even full awareness, lest we face the End of Civilization as We Know It. We then pass a pork-bloated "regular" omnibus spending bill of $470 billion, this time with a sort of decent debate period consisting mostly of, "Shut up, you obstructionist Republicans, and vote as you are told!"

Oh, yes, and the nation's leading tax dodger, er, Secretary of the Treasury, is working on a plan to make another $1 trillion in government funds available as loans. OK, sure, why not? Thus, a nation whose primary problem is a temporary shortage of liquid cash assumes another $1.75 trillion dollars in debt within a six month period, with another trillion waiting in the wings. What will the next six months bring? Wow, indeed.

If this "plan" works, it will prove once and for all that, when faced with a cash shortfall, the correct solution is to start spending like a drunken sailor. Since I don't think anyone has any doubts about how that plan will work, I think we can extrapolate what our economy will look like by the end of the year.

So I wind down with another quote from the article that started this whole diatribe, where America's B.O. was addressing the Business Roundtable, a group of top business executives. The article reports that B.O. said his health and energy changes would build a foundation for lasting recovery, arguing that the current economic crisis was precipitated by an "illusion of prosperity."

Well, Mr. President, I think we can be sure that, unless somebody changes their spending habits in the next few weeks, there will be no illusions of prosperity during your term in office.

As I was perusing the comments on another blog, one unusually lucid commenter struck me as typical of the liberal mindset. This mindset needs to be addressed. And redressed.

In his somewhat wandering post, he took pains to declare that "I even name high-profile conservatives I think are intelligent." How generous of him. He went on to notice that conservative posters "never assume they ... are more intelligent than I am. Why is that?" Somehow, he derives from this that conservatives are opposed to higher education.

What an incredible load of pony poo! Can you believe this clown is actually trying to pay us a compliment? Even when making nice, liberals just can't seem to get over their self-righteousness long enough to take the sneer out of their tone. And this in a text-only message, even yet!

Forgive, if you can, the grammatical errors in the first and third paragraph. Having gradjyated Six Grade, and larned to cipher and all, I talk like that, but I don't always choose my words so carefully when speaking. Oh, dear. I fear I have lost my liberal audience to my failure to prove that the weight of my brain can sink a battleship. How sad.

OK, now that the ADD crowd is gone, let's look at why conservatives don't make a big deal out of who is more intelligent than whom. It's simple, really. We consider it a well known fact that the size of your diploma is not necessarily related to the size of your contribution.

Boy, that was simple! Maybe I should elaborate.

We conservatives do not need to feed our own egos at the expense of others. We are simply too caught up in making the best of ourselves, and encouraging the best in those around us. We know that the lady who never graduated from high school, yet raised a family, put her kids through college, and now owns a successful card shop may have something to teach us. We also know that the Nobel Prize winner physicist could, if he so desires, benefit from our skills or knowledge. We are, in short, emotionally and intellectually secure.

When I walk into a group of people, I do not worry about how I can prove I am more intelligent, or better educated, than another person in that group. I don't care. Further, anyone who is thinking that way is not worth my time. People like that are so busy trying to prove they are better than me that there is just no way to pass time with them pleasantly or constructively.

Long ago, when I still thought that "liberal" meant "in favor of liberty," I had already learned that anyone who declares himself the smartest person in the room is in fact a pompous, arrogant fool. If a third party declares him the smartest in the room, he is most probably still pompous and arrogant, but the fool part is not as certain. The third party making the declaration, however, is either a sycophantic fool, or going for a laugh. No, people who can be taken seriously just present their contributions, and those contributions are accepted on their own merits. They never, ever, try to use a diploma to make themselves seem superior.

Conservatives believe that education is a wonderful thing. In a sense, we never really leave school because we are constantly learning, both from the world around us and from our own experiences. At the same time, we are aware that not everyone needs a twelve year degree to achieve what they want in life. We are also very well aware of how difficult it is to get an actual education in a college or university. As a result, we generally have far more respect for a person's accomplishments than for their office wallpaper. We expect others to feel the same way.

That, my little-minded liberal mystery commentator, is why I do not automatically assume I am more intelligent than you. It is also why I expect you to show some intelligence, too. I emphatically expect you to show some respect for people who may someday have something you need. A diploma does not prove intelligence, and far too often, a useful education is not found in a school.