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.

Tweet This Post 

Tweet This Post 

A bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.

Well, as I see it, this is another thing that, on the surface, makes sense to a majority of folks.  After all, the .govs out there need to be protected in case of some kind of massive hack attempts by the Chinese, right?  And all the bank files need to be safe don’t they? We do own them now anyway, right? But Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air gets it right when he says

Section 14 may be a bigger problem.  It essentially revokes all privacy safeguards on Internet use for all networks.  The Fourth Amendment would go straight out the window with the explicit inclusion of “private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.”  While Section 18 limits jurisdiction to federal networks, Section 14 allows the government to go after private networks without search warrants.  The section also doesn’t limit the jurisdiction to acute attacks, either.  That jurisdiction exists at all times.

That’s right folks.  This administration wants to be able to control, search, seize, or shut down private internet networks, like the one we have with our hosting company, or you have with yours, without so much as a hint of a thought of an actual warrant.  Or, let’s just say you want to read about hydroponic farming because you, like us here at the Raffles, are under severe water restrictions.  Your internet address, the server you used, the sites you visited, etc. might possibly be added to a database of people who are growing pot in their houses because obviously only criminals would need that kind of information according to Skippy the civil servant.  Or maybe you want to buy ammo in bulk from an online ammo store, can we trust Skippy not to freak out because in his mind there is no reason for anyone to need to buy a thousand rounds of ammo at a time unless they were going to go all clock towery?  In response, Skippy shits down the website, shuts down the hosting company that has that site on its servers (thereby shutting down thousands of that company’s other client sites), and puts your name on the list of folks who need to be ‘interviewed’.  All in the name of national security, of course.  And all without a warrant, possibly without even some supervisor giving the OK.

The bill is asking for “a cadre of information technology specialists” to do this work, so we have to assume that means civil servants and all that it entails.  Low paid, disgruntled individuals who weren’t good enough to get an IT job with a private company, and their bosses who may not even know how the WWW works, let alone how to put together a search string on Google.

Now, one more thing…

How, if at all, does this bill (introduced on April 1) relate to the bill (introduced Jan 7) HR266, the Cybersecurity Education Enhancement Act of 2009?

To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to award grants to institutions of higher education for the establishment or expansion of cybersecurity professional development programs, and for other purposes.

Is this a way for the Fed to be able to grow their own little e-nerds and funnel cash to lib universities at the same time? Otherwise, why would it be under the Sec of HS instead of say, Education?  If they do relate to each other, isn’t it odd that the oh-so-vaunted ‘transparency’ doesn’t seem to be in effect?

Like we’ve said folks, it isn’t just the Dems, it isn’t just this administration.  It is the culture of D.C.  They want subjects, not citizens.  They want to be a huge Uncle Sam who has control,  subtle for now, over every aspect of your lives that they can touch.  Do Not Fall For This.  The first bill will violate your First and Fourth amendment protected rights to free speech and due process.  The second one, which was actually introduced first, will give them the drones to pursue the policy.

Thanks to Byron Wolfsong who originally emailed this subject to us while we were off enjoying our weekend stimulating the economy.

Tweet This Post 

“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.”  That’s what President Barack Obama said to Rep. Peter DeFazio in a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus last week, according to the Associated Press.

Yes, Mister “President…”  We are keeping score as well.

Tweet This Post 

On the one hand, it sounds like a whiny plea to please o please raise tuition so we can pay for good profs. But is this ‘fundraiser’ really sponsored solely by the student government or is it the idae of some ‘advisor’ on staff?

One the other hand, if these college kids are really doing this themselves, I applaud them for taking some sort of stand.  They are only going to raise enough to maybe, possibly, save one professor.  I sincerely hope these kids are keeping a really good eye on the money trail.

Personally, it sounds like a left handed way for someone, and I am not claiming to know who, to give the students an emotional interest and positive feedback for asking that their own tuitons be raised.

Tweet This Post 

The public should not notice the furlough days. Frank has timed them with already planned government holidays when the office was to be closed anyway. But employees won’t be paid for those days off.

The days are Monday, May 25 (Memorial Day); Friday, July 3 (the day off coinciding with Independence Day; and Monday, Sept. 7 (Labor Day).

So basically, these public dole parasitical govenment empoyees don’t have enough paper shiffling to make up for their salaries.  Does this mean that they are going to have to find new ways to get folks into the court system?  Or is this a good first step to eliminating some phone sanitizers?

Tweet This Post 

I am saddened to hear this news.  It seems like some locals have decided to suppress free speech, without quite saying that is what they were trying to do.

Lynn Rosko planned to hold a tax payer tea party at Jaycee Park in Cape Coral on April 1st. The idea was announced at a Cape Coral City Council meeting, then an e-mail blast by the Republican Party and it was mentioned in the local media.

With all of that attention, the City of Cape Coral felt there could be more than 500 people attending the tea party.

Therefore Rosko needed to get a permit and insurance for the event.

That’s right neighbors.  They are using the threat of civil litigation to silence us.  The city of Cape Coral has said that their subjects will not be allowed to gather in a peaceful rally to celebrate liberty.  The city of Cape Coral has said that their subjects cannot meet in a public forum, without some one person pre-selected to take the fall if some sort of accident should befall a rally attendee.  The city of Cape Coral, Florida has told their subjects that too many people in their feifdom actually beleive in the right to assemble guarenteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.  The city of Cape Coral, Florida, in these United States, has flatly chosen to ignore the right of the people to ask for a redress of grievances.

They claim it is because of liability issues and the fact that so many would show up that rally organizers need a permit, a permit, to express their ideas.

I just think that is the saddest thing ever.

I sincerely hope Ms. Rosko  will attend the rally in Fort Myers, and is allowed to tell her tale to those assembled.  I hope she actually recognizes it for what it is– strongarm tactics by a goverment that doesn’t want you to exercise  your rights under the First Amendment.

Tweet This Post