by Timothy Michel
Feb. 23, 2006
NOAA and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, or EUMETSAT , announced Wednesday they have signed a Data Denial Implementation Plan, which secures the continued flow of real- time meteorological satellite data from NOAA-provided instruments onboard EUMETSAT's MetOp spacecraft to public duty users in the United States and EUMETSAT Member States during episodes that might otherwise require data denial. Data denial means real-time data from U.S. environmental instruments can be denied during periods of crisis or war. Click here for high resolution artists conception of the satellite. Please credit "NOAA"
This is good, becuase with the advent of catastropic climate change we need to be informed of impending climate event in real time, not three hour delayed.
I would now like to turn attention to the request by George W. Bush for approval for the selling of our Port security to the United Arab Emirates. I want first to review John Locke, because it was his writing that was considered more than any other when Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were considering what form the Constitution of the United States would take.
"Whether the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny. Whether those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants of Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better.
Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and acting without authority, may be opposed as any other man, who by force invades the right of another."
The word authority, derives from author, and in the United States, the people are author of the law.
"When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws, whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey, by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislature, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those, who without authority would impose any thing upon them. Everyone is a t the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the delegation of the society, the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurp the place, who have no such authority or delegation."
This passage implies that George W. Bush cannot arbitrarily make any legislation. He can only enforce legislation authored by the people’s legislature. If he violates that arrangement, then the people are no longer obligated to recognize his authority.
"Fourthly, the delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislature, is certainly a change of the legislature, and so a dissolution of the government; for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one entire, free independent society, to be governed by it’s own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another."
We, the people of the United States, are a union of people, who formed this union in the interest of securing our lives, our ability to think freely and creatively, to protect our property from the usurpation of others, to refine our crafts to the highest possible standard of excellence and to ensure that we are not invaded by people of other unions that wish only rob us of our craft. Though it would be wonderful for the whole world to function as one body under a common legislature that assures each of us common protection against any that would wish to do us harm, we have to recognize that there is no legislature that extends to all of us. Though corporations that are incorporated in the United States would wish to be able to conduct business anywhere in the world without restriction, the truth is there is no body that can ensure the protection of other people against unreasonable demands and expectations, who would be employed by those corporations in other parts of the world, just as there is no body that can ensure the protection of people in this country employed by corporations incorporated in other countries against unreasonable be demands and expectations. We have for too long had a policy of allowing businesses incorporated in this country to exploit peoples in other parts of the world, I only have to think of Wall Mart to provide a glaring example. Since there is no international body, which has been given power to protect all countries from the abuses of each other, there is no reason to expect that the borders of our country are transparent to the business aspirations of corporations from other countries. We still control the resources of our country. We still need to provide for the security of our own country in the absence of any international body that has been authored by the people of the world and has been given force over the aspirations of all other subordinate countries. We make laws in the United States for the protection and welfare of the people of the United States. We don’t make those laws in the interest of putting ourselves up for sale to the highest bidder. We in this country set a higher standard than many others in other countries. It is for that reason that we will, until we agree to the forming of an international body that represents the will of all the peoples of the entire world, reserves the right to determine which foreign companies may or may not do business within our borders. It is a risk a company from another country takes when operating within our borders, as it is the will of the people whether that privilege will be extended from one time to another time. It is also illegal for any government official to make any agreement with a foreign country that weakens or jeopardizes the sovereignty of this country. I therefore ask the president, how allowing a company incorporated in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, to secure our ports would benefit the people of The United States. I also ask how does NAFTA CAFTA and FTAA secure the sovereignty of this nation? While I agree that isolationism isn’t desirable, I disagree that that unregulated commerce between countries is desirable. If two countries want to have complete transparency between their borders, then they need and agreement ratified by both their peoples enforcing the laws and regulations of both their peoples ensuring the protection of both their peoples. Anything else is simply lawlessness and illegal under the very definition of government.