……………………..Limits are for governments.

Aha! I think I see the problem

Upcoming Earth-Asteroid Encounter – .4 Lunar Distance

This is going to be close. There will likely be a very large explosion or electrical response from the earth when this goes by. Both the previous low solar activity, and the sudden X-flares from the sun, will make this an electrical transaction between the charged earth and the charged asteroid.

Recent & Upcoming Earth-asteroid encounters:
2014 UF56  Oct 27  0.4 LD  15 m

At the very least, we should be experiencing something like this:

via spaceweather.com “Valentine’s Day in Scandinavia began with a magnetic storm. Rob Stammes of the Polar Light Center in Lofoten, Norway, reports: “Our instruments recorded 2o swings in the local magnetic field, which induced strong electrical currents in the ground outside our lab.” The needles on his chart recorder were swinging wildly. “Overhead we saw some fantastic auroras,” he adds.”

Examples of electrical explosions and arcing between bodies in space:

Footage from the Siding Spring encounter with Mars showed an exceedingly bright flash.

Flash from projectile hitting Temple 1

The near earth asteroid of February 14, 2013 was also highly energetic according to many.

Shoemaker Levy broke apart and struck Jupiter with many flashes of extraordinary intensity.

From The Virtual Telescope:

I believe this could leave a mark, based on the recent Mars encounter.


Amend the Constitution So That the Supremacy Clause Refers to Treaties with Other Sovereign Nations and Does Not Include Treaties With Collective International Bodies (Such as the UN)

The treaties signed with the UN are considered international treaties, of course, and under the “Supremacy Clause” of our Constitution, these cannot override the Constitution but do trump state laws. So signing treaties with the UN does two things. It provides a way for distant world bodies and the Federal Government to change domestic policy by fiat, and it gives the activist judges and courts everywhere an international document to refer to in deciding local and state cases.

There are treaties with the UN awaiting ratification by the Senate which intrude into every area of our lives, from how we educate our children and what they are taught, to how and where we get our energy, to what we produce in our country, to whether we may fish or mine our own coastal waters – just to offer a few grievous examples. The response to some of these threats has been to attempt to add individual Constitutional amendments which would defend against Federal and International dictates created by treaties with the UN. For example, the Parental Rights Amendment has been introduced in the House and Senate protecting the duty and right of parents to educate and raise their own children in response to the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I think that one single amendment would be more efficient and effective: an amendment which defines a treaty as an agreement with one or several governments of other sovereign nations, as signed with their leaders, in their State Capitals, but not with an international collective of nations such as the UN. This could pass Constitutional muster and respect the intent of the writers in Article VI Clause 2. Treaties with the UN are only being used to undermine domestic policy which was decided by voters and states, and to give the Fed gov’t expanded powers into state gov’t, lower courts, and resources which they do not now legitimately possess.  We, in the West, have wonderful Republics and they will work for us even under the gravest threats and tests, if we continue to believe in the balance and separation of powers and in our founding principles.