The backpages of the SW Metro Tea Party Patriots continue yield astonishing copy. Just this week, the site served as a source for GOP chair wannabe Holsten: Daily Show "most embarrassing thing I've ever done in my life" here at Bluestem, while Dave Brown's Agenda 21 last summer at the Chanhassen Rec Center is fodder for Mille Lac Messenger editor Brett Larsen's tongue-in-cheek column, First our emissions, next our first-born
An item from Fox News suggests that we've only begun to dig into the fodder posted by the Chanhassen Patriots.
The dubious debate in Dubai
The beloved conservative news source reports in US, 20 countries boycott UN treaty endorsing gov't control over cyberspace:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Envoys from nearly 90 nations signed Friday the first new U.N. telecommunications treaty since the Internet age, but the U.S. and other Western nations refused to join after claiming it endorses greater government control over cyberspace.
The head of the U.N. telecoms group pushed back against the American assertions, defending the accord as necessary to help expand online services to poorer nations and add more voices to shape the direction of modern communications technology. . . .
But the U.S. and its backers worry that the new treaty could alter the tone of debates on the Internet. Instead of viewing it as a freeform network, they claim, it could increasingly been seen as a commodity that needs clear lines of oversight.
"A free and open Internet with limited restrictions has been critical to its development into one of the greatest tools for empowering people to connect and share information globally," said U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who represents part of Silicon Valley, in a statement from Washington.
"But there are countries and groups who wish to exert greater control over the Internet in order to restrict or censor it for political or cultural reasons," she added. "We need to stand firm against those kinds of threats if we want the Internet to continue as a vibrant engine for innovation, human rights, cultural and economic growth."
The United State's opposition to the terms are nothing new. In mid-September, the National Journal reported in Senate Panel Approves Internet Freedom Resolution:
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday unanimously approved a resolution calling on the United States to prevent the United Nations from having a greater role in governing the Internet.
The nonbinding resolution, which mirrors one passed by the House in August, instructs Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to pursue a policy that "clearly articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control."
American officials fear that international telecommunications treaty negotiations later this year could be used to shift Internet governance away from its current decentralized form, which includes many non-governmental organizations. . . .
. . .Besides the congressional efforts, the Obama administration has said it is working to prevent any increased U.N. Internet regulation. In addition, for the first time the issue got a shout out in the national platforms of the both the Democratic and Republican parties.
The terror of treaties in the Chanhassen Rec Center
Sound like a united, bipartisan opposition to the threat? It's not the story Minnesota's west metro suburban Tea Party Patriots share among themselves. In the November 12, 2012 agenda, under "News --Action Item-Events," there's this short essay:
THE REAL REASON THE DEMOCRATS NEEDED THE PRESIDENCY AND SENATE
What all Americans Need to Know … Right Now! ~ By Vicki Daley
"Any treaty signed by the U.S. (president) but not yet ratified by the Senate is binding on our country-as if it had been ratified-until it is either rejected by the Senate or renounced by the president. This requirement-embedded in the Vienna Convention signed and ratified by the U.S.-means that these treaties might come into force and effect even if we NEVER ratify them."-Dick Morris' book. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/08/in-second-termobama- will-allow-un-to-tax-americans/ That means that President Obama can sign whatever treaty he wants (remember his open mic comment to Medvedev, "I'll have more flexibility after MY election"-regarding nuclear arms) and Harry Reid can simply keep it from coming up for discussion or vote in the Senate!
The following U.N. TREATIES are either already signed by President Obama or being negotiated, mostly by the end of the year (while everyone is busy with holiday preparations):
--LAW OF THE SEA TREATY (already signed by Obama and up for ratification now) gives U.N control of all oceans and seas and minerals under them. It would give the International Seabed Authority (193 countries, all with one vote) authority to tax oil and gas wells and distribute funds wherever they want. It would also require our oil and gas companies to give our modern offshore drilling technology to other countries. And it will limit the power of the U.S Navy to protect freedom of the seas.
--U.N. CONTROL OF THE INTERNET treaty is now under secret negotiation to be signed in Dubai in December 2012. It would give the U.N. the power to regulate and tax the Internet and allow nations to inspect private emails of their citizens. . . .[emphasis added]
Regardless of Senate committees, House resolutions and the express policy of the Obama Administration, these folks just know that Obama is going to turn the Internets over to the United Nations.
Law of the Sea, or rolling in the deep, really, really deep
And that Law of the Sea Treaty? On July 16, 2012, those commies at the Wall Street Journal reported in GOP Scuttles Law-of-Sea Treaty:
Senate Democrats’ hopes of passing the Law of the Sea Treaty sank Monday, when a pair of Republican senators announced their opposition to ratification.
Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire penned a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) saying, “we have concluded that on balance this treaty is not in the national interest of the United States.”
The treaty, completed in 1982, seeks to codify big chunks of customary international maritime law, including freedom of navigation and access to deep-sea energy resources. It is supported by a wide swath of business interests, environmentalists, and military officials in the U.S.;[emphasis added] most countries have ratified it.
. . .One of the enduring mysteries of the treaty is how it has failed to even come up for a ratification vote given the breadth of support it enjoys from widely disparate groups. Former secretaries of State, both Republicans and Democrats, top civilian and uniformed Pentagon officials, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, environmentalists, and former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have all been vocal supporters.[emphasis added]
They argue that the treaty would not erode U.S. sovereignty. On the contrary, they say, it would enhance the country’s ability to defend freedom of navigation, would improve U.S. companies’ access to undersea resources, and would give the U.S. legal tools to parry threats from aggressive countries, such as China.
It's no mystery why the treaty doesn't pass--given the folktales passed around by the Republican base and toe-sucking hucksters like Dick Morris. And having spent time studying the remains of the Tea Party in Minnesota, Bluestem isn't shocked to learn these nincompoops aren't paying attention to even Fox News or the Wall Street Journal anymore.
Image: The United Nations in the unchained imagination of some Tea Partiers.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly "bleg" though Christmas.