This comes from Myrtle Beach Online

Over the past 10 years, South Carolina has become a much safer place to live, work and raise a family. Since the General Assembly wisely chose to allow good citizens to carry guns for self-defense, the violent crime rate has sharply declined. And although the mainstream news media largely avoid reporting such facts, the truth is more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime.

It looks like some of the media are finally getting it. Read the rest of the article here at Myrtle Beach Online.

There is a new wave of copyright driven censorship sweeping across the net. You are probably not aware of guitar tab sites, used by musicians to learn how to play songs. These sites are no threat to the copyright holders, they are just trying to learn how to play their music.

From the Music Student and Teacher Organization (MuSATO):

A BBC web article dated 12 December, 2005, quotes US Music Publishers Association president Lauren Keiser as saying that unlicensed guitar tabs and song scores were widely available on the Internet but were “completely illegal”…and further that the owners of these sites should “be jailed”.

One of the remaining sites is Ultimate-Guitar.com, who are protected from the MPA’s flurry of shutdown letters because they are located in Russia. They are also actually paying royalies through the ROMS system:

Ultimate-Guitar.Com website is absolutely legal tablature archive which activity is based on a Russian Organization on Collective Management of Rights of Authors and Other Rightholders in Multimedia, Digital Networks & Visual Arts (ROMS)’ license. ROMS is the national Russian organization providing professional collective management of authors’ property rights and protection of interests of rightsholders in cases of use of their works in digital interactive networks, including the Internet.

And guitartabs.cc has this to say:

When you are jamming with a friend and you show him/her the chords for a song you heard on the radio, is that copyright infringement? What about if you helped him/her remember the chord progression or riff by writing it down on, say, a napkin… infringement? If he/she calls you later that night on the phone or e-mails you and you respond via one of those methods, are you infringing? I don’t know… but I would really like to know. If anyone has information on this, please email support@guitartabs.cc.

Apparently, the NMPA/MPA believes that the Internet may be on the foul side of the legality line they would like to draw here. For me, I see no difference. It’s teachers educating students and covered as a ‘fair use’ of the tablature. The teachers here don’t even get paid nor do the students have to pay this website to access the lessons.

Liberty Watch Magazine (not affiliated with LibertyNews) has a good interview with Texas Representative Ron Paul. Rep. Paul is elected as a Republican, but it really a Libertarian. He is probably one of the smartest Libertarians, he realizes that he needs to actually win elections in order to make a difference. He ran for President in 1988, and although he got my vote it didn’t amount to much. Running as a Republican has allowed him to actually be elected, allowing his strict constitutional ideals to have some effect on the Federal freight train that continues to run over our founding documents.

[tags] Ron Paul, Constitution, Freedom, Libertarian[/tags]

From the National Firearms Association of Canada:

Sarcastically referred to as the “Woolworth Gun”, the Liberator Pistol’s actual name was the “Flare Projector” Caliber .45 (FP-45). A single-shot pistol, the Liberator was designed to be scattered about occupied Europe to be used by Resistance groups as disposable assassination weapons or to enable resisters to kill a German soldier and then take his weapon.

According to the Wikipedia entry the guns were never actually used in combat and most were destroyed at the end of the war. It was probably the only pistol made that took longer to make than to load (6 second to make, 10 to load).

[tags]Liberator, Guns, .45 of the Week[/tags]

I came across this World Net Daily this article on a Belgium family being accused of criminal negligence because they home school their children. Apparently Belgium signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and it is being used to threaten this family with criminal charges. The article also points out that the treaty was signed by the Clinton Administration, but never ratified by the Senate; therefore it has no legal power in this country. But if it had been ratified it would supersede the Constitution.

My initial reaction was probably the same as yours – “that’s crazy! The Constitution is the supreme law!”. But I also did some research, starting with the Constitution itself.

Article VI, Clause 2 is the section referred to by people concerned about the power of Treaties:

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 Constitution is easy to read and this clause is as clear as any other — treaties, Laws and the Constitution are equals and all the States are bound by them. This doesn’t sound good.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, powers of the Presidency, has this reference to Treaties and the power of the President:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Again, this is clear. Treaties are made by the President and 2/3 of the Senators present, which is also disturbing. If only 9 show up it only takes 6 to pass a treaty.

Article III, Section 1, Clause 2, which covers the power of the Supreme Court, reads in part:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

This clause appears to give the Supreme Court the power to overturn treaties, which would make sense if they are on an equal standing with Laws.

What the Constitution doesn’t tell us is why it was written like this. For that we turn to the Federalist Papers, published anonymously in 1788, they were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. The essays addressed many of the concerns over the proposed Constitution in order to persuade people to support ratification. The subject of treaties is covered in several of the essays.

John Jay, in Federalist 64, addresses the concerns directly:

Others, though content that treaties should be made in the mode proposed, are averse to their being the SUPREME laws of the land. They insist, and profess to believe, that treaties like acts of assembly, should be repealable at pleasure. This idea seems to be new and peculiar to this country, but new errors, as well as new truths, often appear. These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it. They who make laws may, without doubt, amend or repeal them; and it will not be disputed that they who make treaties may alter or cancel them; but still let us not forget that treaties are made, not by only one of the contracting parties, but by both; and consequently, that as the consent of both was essential to their formation at first, so must it ever afterwards be to alter or cancel them. The proposed Constitution, therefore, has not in the least extended the obligation of treaties. They are just as binding, and just as far beyond the lawful reach of legislative acts now, as they will be at any future period, or under any form of government.

This perspective makes sense to me. If treaties were not the supreme law of the land how would we ever convince another country to sign a treaty with us? They have to be on equal footing with the other laws.

There is another interesting section of Federalist 64, discussing the Senators who need to approve the treaty by a 2/3 vote that is very relevant to this discussion:

The convention appears to have been attentive to both these points: they have directed the President to be chosen by select bodies of electors, to be deputed by the people for that express purpose; and they have committed the appointment of senators to the State legislatures. This mode has, in such cases, vastly the advantage of elections by the people in their collective capacity, where the activity of party zeal, taking the advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, and the hopes and fears of the unwary and interested, often places men in office by the votes of a small proportion of the electors.

As the select assemblies for choosing the President, as well as the State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence.

Remember that the 17th amendment changed the method of selecting Senators. They are no longer chosen by the state legaslators, but by popular vote “…where the activity of party zeal, taking the advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, and the hopes and fears of the unwary and interested, often places men in office by the votes of a small proportion of the electors.” This would appear to me to be the biggest concern regarding treaties — previous to 1913 Senators were chosen by the State Legislators and were less susceptible to the current political whims of their parties.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 75, also addresses the question of treaties extensively. He doesn’t address the need for treaties, but the methods implemented by the constitution.

So, after reading all of that I really don’t have a problem with treaties, as they are laid out in the Constitution. What I do have a problem with is the fact that Treaties with the UN really are not treaties with another nation as would have been the norm during the time of the Founding fathers. These days it seems like Treaties are a way for anti-American groups to try to impose a ‘World Government’ on our population. This emphasizes why elections are important, if you elect the wrong Senators we may end up with one of these slipping through. Although from my reading of the Constitution it appears that the Supreme Court could declare it invalid.

[tags]treaties, constitution, liberty[/tags]

Bill Roggio of the Counterterrorism Blog writes:

The Israeli Defense Force is probing hard across the entire Lebanese border, from Metulla to Marwahin. Eight Israeli brigades, at about 1,000 soldiers per brigade, plus supporting units (engineering, artillery, reconnaissance, communications, logistics) are currently engaged inside southern Lebanon.

Read the full article at the Counterterroism Blog.

Israel is not backing down, they are creating a buffer zone similar to what they had before their withdrawl in 2000 according to the article. I hope that the world again learns its lesson. Appeasement has never and will never work. Now that we have finally learned that lesson can be please get on with the business of wiping out those who have sworn to kill us?

This comes via Michelle Malkin and Hot Air.

Its all over the news, Fidel Castro has handed power over to his brother and is supposedly gravely ill. We can only hope! Good coverage as events unfold over at Babalu Blog.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Cuba’s 11 million people could be free sometime this decade? And shouldn’t the United States lend a hand? Babalu and Sierra Times have some compelling evidence that we owe it to them to help them out of this Communist mess.

[tags]Cuba, Castro[/tags]