It certainly sounds like that’s the situation, given the media reporting on the matter, but the decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (PDF) was quite a bit more specific than that. At issue was AZ’s attempt to require that persons using a federal elections form to register to vote had to provide proof of citizenship for that form to be accepted. SCOTUS ruled that AZ could not do so – and that’s all. The case was an attempt by people, largely on the Left, to preempt any state from attempting to validate voting eligibility at all and in any venue. In other words, these people want an individual’s voter application form to be a no-questions-asked ticket to the voting roles. They would also like to preempt the states from being able to validate ID and eligibility when actually voting but that is not what this case was ever about.

In short, very little of what they are attempting to achieve was granted to them in this ruling. All the ruling stated was that AZ could not ask for more documentation for a person to use the federal voting registration form than the federal law required. What it does not do is in any way affect the handling of the state voter registration process, which is what most – nearly all – voters use. It also does nothing to preempt states from validating ID’s at the polls on election day. In fact, the ruling explicitly affirms that states and states alone have the authority to determine the eligibility of voters in their states.

Many of those same people on the Left are quick to wave dismissively and sneer at anyone concerned with elections integrity by claiming that voter fraud just doesn’t happen. They’re wrong:

On Monday, there was some closure to the case, though, as the four defendants who were convicted or pleaded guilty in the state’s presidential petition fraud scandal were sentenced. Only one received prison time for the illegal scheme that touched the race for the White House.

…

The plot successfully faked names and signatures on both the Obama and Clinton presidential petitions that were used to place the candidates on the ballot. So many names were forged — an estimated 200 or more — that prosecutor Stanley Levco said that had the fraud been caught during the primary, "the worst that would have happened, is maybe Barack Obama wouldn’t have been on the ballot for the primary."

It’s naïve in the extreme to think that these people would engage in that level of voter fraud in a primary but not in the actual election. We clearly need authentication and validation systems in place. While the ruling from SCOTUS in this case appears, on its face, to undermine that effort, the fact of the matter is that it does not. It is actually a case where SCOTUS ruled as the law is written as opposed to how they might think it should be and it affirms the states’ authority to determine their own voter eligibility requirements. In the end, that’s a victory for our side and I’ll take it happily.

Walter Smith was thrilled when he learned he had been chosen to travel on Saturday’s Stars and Stripes Honor Flight to Washington.

The 91-year-old World War II veteran from Racine had been diagnosed with colon cancer four years ago and had been in and out of hospitals and nursing homes this year. But the honor flight motivated him to work hard on his rehabilitation.

In a cruel twist, Smith died Saturday morning shortly after his family arrived at Mitchell International Airport to drop him off.

Sergeant Smith served in Europe and in was in the 2nd wave of soldiers landing on the beaches at Normandy on D-Day. He was wounded in combat and was decorated with 2 Purple Hearts. The flag that was used to drape his coffin will be flown to DC on the next flight out of the Wisconsin area this September. I do plan on being there at the airport when they arrive. I’ll be sure to write about it again when it happens.

I my wanderings of the technological news I came across this article on a new application of a biological property found in nature: the manner in which certain butterfly wings take on vibrant, iridescent colors.

… Nanotech Security Corp. in Vancouver is using the natural structure of the wings of a Morpho butterfly, a South American insect famous for its bright, iridescent blue or green wings, to create a visual image that would be practically impossible to counterfeit. The technology was developed at British Columbia’s Simon Fraser University, and licensed to the company.

The phenomenon Nanotech employs is similar to the way some animals, including male peacocks, produce iridescent colors: instead of using proteins and other chemicals to produce a hue, the creature’s feathers or scales play with light, using very tiny holes that reflect different colors or wavelengths. The Morpho does this with complicated scales on its wing that produce shimmering blues and greens.

This process is “tunable,” meaning that you can actually get a very specific color by changing the size of the holes and the distance between them. And because the process uses no inks or other chemicals, it allows you to put a color on something without changing the chemical makeup of the material being colored. In the story, they mention using this as an authentication component on prescription drugs. You could put an identifying logo on a pill that shows it’s genuine without introducing something that someone might react badly to.

A very intriguing technology. I wonder if you apply that to, say, the paint on a car? Perhaps the next Ford Focus would come in an iridescent blue that changes to shimmering green as you pass by. (Of course, I also wonder if the same tech could be used to absorb or scatter, say, radar? Just asking…)

The fallacy this rides upon is the unspoken assertion that fear of being caught doing something you shouldn’t be is the  only reason you would have to not want just anyone to read your email or listen to your calls. There’s a reason the Founders wrote the 4th Amendment. Free citizens do not require any more compelling reason to restrict access to their “papers and effects” than that they consider them to be none of anyone else’s business. Under the 4th, it is the government that must prove their overriding interest makes it their business. That’s why the “nothing to hide” comment is nothing more than an effort to blame the victim and lay the onus of defending one’s action on them. It’s the argument of a person who knows they’ve got no explanation for their intrusion. We, as a nation, should not accept this behavior.

Is it soda or pop? PEE-can or pick-AHN? Coo-pon or cyu-pon? You likely have opinions on each of these questions — very strong opinions, opinions you would fight to the death to defend!

Joshua Katz, a Ph.D student in the Department of Statistics at NC State University, understands. He’s just published a fascinating set of maps that show the different ways Americans pronounce these much-debated words and phrases, taken from data collected by Bert Vaux of Cambridge University.

I found this one to be fascinating, largely because it turned out to be very true where I was concerned. Looking at where I was growing up, these maps accurately predict how I’ll pronounce these things and what terms I use. One example: here in northern Virginia, that sugary carbonated beverage is a “soda.” Being from the Ohio/Indiana area, though, I can’t stop thinking “pop” when I see one!

All of this was made possible under the Patriot Act where a secret court was empowered to issue secret orders mandating that communications providers turn over such data without any advisement made to the participants of the call. When the Bush Administration was granted this power under the Patriot Act, widespread alarm was raised in the media and elsewhere about it because of the opportunity for abuse of that power. The public was assured that this power would only be applied to US citizens if they were engaged in a phone call with an international destination or with someone under current investigation for terrorist activity. Assurances were made that US citizens would not be subject to random or widespread data collection under the Patriot Act. Not, mind you, that the Act explicitly prohibited such activity on the part of the government, just that the government would never do such a thing. And, to all knowledge available, the Bush administration never did. The Obama administration, on the other had, has.

On the virtual heels of that little announcement comes the discovery that the NSA has also been collecting virtually every e-mail being sent by Americans regardless of whether they’re under an investigation or not. The program, called PRISM, supposedly connected the NSA’s systems with those of 9 major Internet service providers to allow the government to scan through and record e-mails, pictures, and other documents.

The U.S. director of national intelligence confirmed the existence of a secret program in which the government has tapped into the central servers of nine leading Internet companies to search for data potentially linked to terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation.

Under the 6-year-old program, code-named PRISM, the FBI and National Security Agency have searched for emails, videos, photographs and other documents.

The program’s participants, the Washington Post reported, include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley: Microsoft Corp, Yahoo Inc, Google Inc, Facebook Inc, PalTalk, AOL Inc, Skype, YouTube and Apple Inc.

This is a very different circumstance from the phone metadata I referenced above. In PRISM, the content of the communication is explicitly included in what’s being collected and scanned. So, in the example case of your call to your Mom that I mentioned above, the NSA wasn’t recording your conversation for future use and review. Under PRISM, the e-mail you sent to your Mom most assuredly is. Those tech companies mentioned in the story did everything they could to get out there and deny involvement.

Last night’s chilling Washington Post report on the National Security Agency’s Internet surveillance program, known as PRISM, said the NSA was collecting information by “directly tapping into the central servers” of nine big U.S. tech companies. It also said that the cooperation of those companies is “essential to PRISM operations."

But several of big companies in question have pushed back on reports of their involvement. “We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers,” the social network’s chief security officer told The Post.

Google released a similar statement denying participation in PRISM earlier today. “We have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.” The statement, which you can read in full on the company’s blog, goes on to say that “we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law.”

Yahoo also released a statement saying it does not “provide the government with direct access” to its servers. And Microsoft said: “We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis….If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.”

See? Denied involvement… or did they? I’m an information technology professional and have been for years. I took immediate note of the terminology used in the WaPo report and that used in the “denials” of Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and the like. The WaPo report states that PRISM collects the information by “directly tapping into the central servers” of the companies in question. Note Facebook’s response that they “do not provide any government organization with direct access” to their servers. Google: they haven’t “joined” any effort that “would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers.” Yahoo: they do not “provide the government with direct access” to their servers. That’s very specific and it means something very specific in my industry. “Direct access” to a server means that you are in direct, one-on-one communication with that asset. If, however, you are in direct communication with a clone of that asset – in our industry language that would be a “replicated server” – they you are not being granted direct access.

Replication is a process by which data stored on 1 server is copied in near-real-time to another one. It’s used for failover purposes, mostly. But what it essentially does is take a single data stream and copy it so as to send that data onward to another location. Note that splitting a beam of light in 2 is one of the functions of a prism. So, can the companies say, truthfully, that they are not providing direct access to their central servers if what they’re doing is providing direct access to a replication server? Sure. Technically, it’s completely accurate. Does it also serve the function WaPo described? Absolutely.

I understand completely the legalese involved that says sending e-mail over what amounts to a public system technically removes the expectation of privacy. I think, however, that this violates the spirit of privacy laws in favor of splitting hairs, legally. I said years ago that the act was too prone to abuse and even if we believed that the administration it was passed under was completely trustworthy, coming administrations would not be. That view has been borne out. This administration has proven itself to be anything but trustworthy and the ability of the federal government to simply set aside the rights of American citizens so that agencies can do whatever makes their job easier should be seriously curtailed. I only hope there’s still time left to do so.

I don’t really want to tear down Joe May. By all accounts he’s a nice guy and I have a deep appreciation for people at this level of government who step up and run to serve in office. Mr. May is no exception in my appreciation, at least as far as that goes. But there has been a remarkable string of positions taken, votes made, and general advocacy expressed by Joe May regarding matters that I, as a Republican, find at the least puzzling and at the worst outrageous. Honestly, this is becoming a case of “with friends like this, who needs enemies?”

Most recently and most disappointingly for people calling for more fiscal responsibility and less expansive government, Joe May joined in with other northern Virginia Delegates to vote in support of a massive tax hike. His positions regarding the gun rights of Virginians are, frankly, appalling. When faced with a bill offered to support efforts to mitigate Lyme disease – something that has affected us here in northern Virginia very specifically, he not only couldn’t muster the will to co-sponsor it like the other Loudoun Delegates did (and thank YOU to Barbara Comstock, my own Delegate, for your key efforts in that bill!), he actually voted against it! So, I have to ask my fellow Republicans over in the 33rd: if the man looking for your support is advocating higher taxes as opposed to restraining government excesses and seeking to curtail your exercise of your right to keep and bear arms, why are you considering him as someone supporting your views? Again, by all accounts he’s a nice guy, but is that really the defining factor of sending someone to the General Assembly to vote in your stead? Let’s just call this situation for what it is – Mr. May has overstayed his welcome in that seat and now, when faced with a truly serious contender, he’s starting show that he’s grown to feel entitled to it. It’s time to thank Mr. May for his service and release him to pursue other endeavors.

Dave LaRock is running for the HOD-33 seat and he offers representation that truly supports the Republican stances on the important issues of the day. I know it’s the conservative nature to consider any course correction very, very carefully. But corrections are necessary to stay true to your goals and not drift into places you don’t want to be. Dave LaRock will support the 33rd well in the General Assembly and he needs the support of the 33rd in return. The primary is Tuesday the 11th and, I believe, early/absentee voting is still available today, Saturday the 8th. Make the effort for Dave LaRock and he’ll return that effort for you.

Dave LaRock for Delegate, Virginia’s 33rd House of Delegates district!

A pregnant Texas actress who first told the FBI that her husband sent ricin-tainted letters to President Barack Obama and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, then allegedly said she sent them because her husband "made her" do it, was charged Friday with threatening the president.

Shannon Guess Richardson, 35, appeared in a Texarkana courtroom after being charged with mailing a threatening communication to the president. The federal charge carries up to 10 years in prison, U.S. attorney’s office spokeswoman Davilyn Walston said.

The woman was investigated as part of the FBI’s ongoing efforts and has reportedly failed a polygraph, which is leading law enforcement to believe that she’s the one who made and sent the letters. So, in the end, politics may have had nothing whatsoever to do with this. It might just be a matter of a nasty divorce.

Dear Lord Jesus and Mary, Mother of God,

Hold all these brave souls in the palm of your hand, comfort them and their families.

Send angels of protection, love, and comfort to all the service men and women still at war,
bring them home safely and comfort their families.

We ask all our prayers in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Gun owners could carry concealed weapons in Illinois, the last state in the nation to prohibit it, under legislation that swept through the House Friday with the backing of the powerful Democratic speaker from Chicago, a city torn by violence despite what critics claim are the nation’s toughest firearms restrictions.

The historic 85-30 vote would allow the carrying of concealed guns, a legislative task compelled by a federal appeals court ruling and precipitated by House Speaker Michael Madigan’s turnabout.

IL’s citizens are finally going to have the liberty possessed by the rest of the states in that they’ll be able to carry concealed. They’ll have the added bonus of being able to get a permit unless someone can show a good reason they shouldn’t, as opposed to having some sheriff be able to demand they convince him to allow it. Of course, there are those in opposition:

But its obliteration of all local gun laws, including Chicago’s ban on assault-style weapons, drew immediate resistance from Gov. Pat Quinn, a Chicago Democrat like Madigan. Quinn said the proposal endangers the public by pre-empting local gun laws, which have nothing to do with concealed carry, the only subject covered by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decree.

"We need strong gun-safety laws that protect the people of our state. Instead, this measure puts public safety at risk," Quinn said in a prepared statement.

Senate President John Cullerton, another Democrat from Chicago, called the pre-emption provision "offensive." Cullerton said he would meet privately with his majority caucus Monday to decide how to proceed. A Senate concealed-carry plan, which overrules local control only by requiring a statewide carry program, is on the Senate floor awaiting a vote.

“Obliteration of al local gun laws” is called “pre-emption” and what it means is that the state’s residents can expect to be treated uniformly by the law everywhere they go in the state, rather than have to navigate a minefield of local ordinances they would have no real way of understanding. Quinn’s bleating about putting “public safety at risk” is the same old, tired canard that gets pulled out every time gun-banners run into the force of law that says they can’t restrict someone’s rights protected by the 2nd Amendment. Dire predictions of how people are going to be gunned down over arguments about parking spaces have not – ever – been borne out and make no mistake: that’s precisely the image Quinn and his kind are trying to paint.

Chicago’s laws, particularly, have been literally the most restrictive in the nation since DC got smacked around in the Heller decision and the public’s safety has been worse there than just about anywhere in the country. As I have said repeatedly and as the FBI’s studies have proven, you might be able to argue that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens doesn’t necessarily mean less crime, but you can absolutely not argue that more guns in their hands mean more crime. It doesn’t, period. And if it doesn’t, then there’s no compelling reason or state interest in restricting citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms.

IL’s Senate could even consider this concealed carry measure to be a blessing. If you have to allow citizens to keep and bear arms – and you do, if you truly claim to support the Constitution – then allowing them to do so concealed keeps all those offensive-looking guns out of your view.

I’m glad to see this kind of movement in IL and hope the Senate there will do the right thing. Pass this legislation and let IL’s citizens exercise their constitutional rights.