![[Post to Twitter]](http://simon-jester.org/wp/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-micro3.png){kind=icon}
RIP, Scott
Posted by Prof | Filed under Uncategorized
Rest In Peace. Finally.
Enough Already, Dammit
Posted by Prof | Filed under Overstepping
From a friend of mine, who got the quote from her army officer brother:
This is all we need. Gun carrying soldiers on nicotine fits.
BTW :FDR smoked Cigarettes
Churchill smoked cigars (and drank like a man)
Hitler was a tee totaling anti-smoking vegetarian
I know who’s company I’d rather be in
The Pentagon really has to understand that young men (and old soldiers) who are on the sharp end really don’t care about years down the road…they just want to get through the next patrol.
NannyState, you are again over-reaching.
Posted Without Comment
Posted by Prof | Filed under Overstepping, Take A Stand
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_upside_down_flag
Email to Florida Governor Charlie Crist
Posted by Wyoh | Filed under Overstepping, Take A Stand
Subject: Veto SB 2600
Apparently emboldened by the mass thievery going on at the national level, I see our Florida legislature has taken the policies of our Dear Leader to heart and started grabbing for cash with both greedy little hands. I am referring, of course, to SB 2600 in which $6 million dollars from the Division of Licensing Concealed Weapons and Firearm Trust Fund has been raided in a move that would make Vikings, Mongols and Tuskens quite proud.
I am the kind of voter who insists on research, and ordinarily I would quadruple-check anything disseminated by the NRA, however, I am most irritatingly required to rely on the their report of this misappropriation due to the myfloridahouse.gov website’s pitiful coding, which prompts me to download the ASP file that should instead be displaying the full text of the bill.
I sincerely hope this isn’t by design. That’s the sort of thing that could cause people to start filing lawsuits.
As a Citizen of this country, as a CCW holder in the state of Florida, I urge you to put an end to this foolishness. Line-item veto this misappropriation, line-item veto the threat to our state’s education budget if their trust fund theft is circumvented, and shine the light of publicity on the cockroaches that conceived the entire scheme. Prove to us that you’re different, that you’re not the typical politician, that you deserve your Governorship and a future Senate seat.
Treaty FAIL
Posted by Prof | Filed under What They Really Mean Is..., What They're Not Telling You
Ok, this one is pretty easy. When the United States enters into a treaty with a foreign power, it becomes PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION. Period. According to Article Six of the US Constitution:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
(emphasis mine)
This is important because it means that when the US signs a treaty, we are then committed to fully and completely honoring it with the full force of law from the Federal level all the way down to your local sheriff.
Consider for a minute the Kyoto Protocol. If the US signed onto it, it would mean that the UN suddenly has the right to limit American ingenuty, technology, industry, advancement, prosperity, and sovereignty. It is a way of imposing taxes on industrial countries, paid to an un-elected world body with no enforcement powers, for the dubious cause of promoting second and third world dictators and despots with our cash. All based on a pseudo-science of global warming that more scientists daily are speaking out AGAINST.
And if we signed it, we’d be on the hook.
Now take the Law of the Sea Treaty. This Treaty has been bouncing around the UN since the Fifties and again, the US has refused to sign it. And for good reasons too:
- It vested control over seabed mining in countries that do not possess the necessary technology.
- Its governing structure guaranteed a permanent majority to the less developed countries of the G-77.
- It burdened companies who would be interested in mining with unusual costs and obligations and provided various permanent advantages to their competition. Private companies would bear the expense of developing technology, of prospecting, of paying taxes. The Authority would bear none of these. Moreover, the private company would be required to sell its technology to buyers and at prices determined by the Authority. The duration and extent of the mining rights would be determined by the Authority.
- These regulatory powers would protect markets and prices from the competition of seabed mining.
In plain English, it means that yet again, a UN council will be able to tell industrialized countries or what private companies within those countries CAN’T do, under law, within their own territorial waters, where ships of commerce or war can or cannot travel, and imposes fines (again paid to an unelected body with no enforcement power that supports dictators and despots) for violations. See this article for more detailed reasons the LOS treaty is a very bad idea. Just a taste:
“One of the concerns raised by critics of the Law of the Sea Treaty is that it could be used to sharply limit U.S. military operations. Among the examples they cite is Article 20, which stipulates: “In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.”
That pretty much sounds like someone else telling us, the United States, how we can deploy our own defense structure. Answer the question of why anyone would want to force that issue and you have your answer about the real meaning of and reason for the proposed treaty.
Which brings me to the inspiration for this piece: It seems that a treaty we signed is having some negative ramifications right here and now. These folks seem to be in the right, constitutionally speaking. Morally, I find it repugnant. What I find more repugnant, however, is that the same administration that signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child sued these two towns in California who took advantage of it…and the current administration has done nothing to stop the lawsuit from pressing forward.
Washington DC, listen up. You can’t have it both ways. It could be that this is just another case of our legislature not reading the damn bill or upon reading it didn’t understand its ramifications. Once signed and ratified, however, it is the law of the land. If you want to break the treaty, fine. If you wanted exemptions to the treaty, you should have done so before it was signed and ratified. Take this as a learning moment and consider carefully the next time you have to, you know, actually THINK about something before you do it.
The Real Story
Posted by Wyoh | Filed under Take A Stand
If you’re one of those who just doesn’t get the Tea Party movement, or thinks it is somehow engineered by Haliburton, watch and listen:
