Would George Washington call out the National Guard against the Tea Party?

Progressive Twitter gadfly and public employee union fan Brian Higgins seems to think so:

Brian T. Higgins

First, refresh your memory about the Whiskey Rebellion:

President George Washington issued a congressionally authorized proclamation ordering the rebels [resisting federal whiskey taxes in western Pennsylvania] to return home and calling for militia from four neighbouring states. After fruitless negotiations, Washington ordered some 13,000 troops into the area, but opposition melted away and no battle ensued. Troops occupied the region and some of the rebels were tried, but the two convicted of treason were later pardoned by the president.

Now ask yourself a few questions. Have the Tea Partiers burned down anybody’s home, as the Whiskey Rebellion did? Have the Tea Party activists committed any violent acts at all? Have they committed any crimes, period? Have they even left litter behind after their rallies? Do they deserve to be prosecuted for treason?

The answer to each question is obviously no.

20120612-084909.jpgSo why does Brian Higgins, who describes himself as a classified staffer for Ohio Attorney General Mike Dewine, think George Washington would call out the National Guard to suppress the Tea Party? The National Guard is the modern organized militia, after all. Could it be that Mr. Higgins simply despises his political opponents so intensely that he fantasizes about having them beaten into silence? A reasonable person could conclude as much from his statement.

Should he choose to retract, revise, or reiterate his opinion on the justification for suppressing the Tea Party through military force, I’ll update this post. If he drops his post down the memory hole, I’ll point that out too.

Your turn, Mr. Higgins.

Mona Del Hirst, cybercriminal?

Mona Del Hirst may claim she was just engaged in “performance art” at 2225 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah on March 22, 2012 when she hacked into Tea Party activist Anna Jones’ Facebook account and helped her “art loving” progressive friends impersonate Miss Jones. However, she was possibly engaged in a crime under Utah law.

Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 6
Section 703.   Computer crimes and penalties.

(1) A person who without authorization gains or attempts to gain access to and alters, damages, destroys, discloses, or modifies any computer, computer network, computer property, computer system, computer program, computer data or software, and thereby causes damage to another, or obtains money, property, information, or a benefit for any person without legal right, is guilty of:
(a) a class B misdemeanor when:
(i) the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is less than $500; or
(ii) the information obtained is not confidential;

(b) a class A misdemeanor when the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is or exceeds $500 but is less than $1,500;
(c) a third degree felony when the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is or exceeds $1,500 but is less than $5,000;
(d) a second degree felony when the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is or exceeds $5,000; or
(e) a third degree felony when:
(i) the property or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is a license or entitlement;
(ii) the damage is to the license or entitlement of another person; or
(iii) the information obtained is confidential; or
(iv) in gaining access the person breaches or breaks through a security system.

(2)
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), a person who intentionally or knowingly and without authorization gains or attempts to gain access to a computer, computer network, computer property, or computer system under circumstances not otherwise constituting an offense under this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (2)(a), a retailer that uses an electronic product identification or tracking system, or other technology to identify, track, or price goods is not guilty of a violation of Subsection (2)(a) if the equipment designed to read the electronic product identification or tracking system data and used by the retailer to identify, track, or price goods is located within the retailer’s location.

(3) A person who uses or knowingly allows another person to use any computer, computer network, computer property, or computer system, program, or software to devise or execute any artifice or scheme to defraud or to obtain money, property, services, or other things of value by false pretenses, promises, or representations, is guilty of an offense based on the value of the money, property, services, or things of value, in the degree set forth in Subsection 76-10-1801(1).
(4) A person who intentionally or knowingly and without authorization, interferes with or interrupts computer services to another authorized to receive the services is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(5) It is an affirmative defense to Subsections (1) and (2) that a person obtained access or attempted to obtain access in response to, and for the purpose of protecting against or investigating, a prior attempted or successful breach of security of a computer, computer network, computer property, computer system whose security the person is authorized or entitled to protect, and the access attempted or obtained was no greater than reasonably necessary for that purpose.

If Ms. Hirst is found guilty of a Class B misdemeanor, she can be jailed for up to six months. For a Class A misdemeanor, the jail term can be up to a year. For a third degree felony, she can be jailed for up to five years. I hope she earned enough from her little “performance” to cover her attorney’s fees.

The smug “patrons” who participated in her crime “art” had better hope they can’t be identified by prosecutors.