He was an agent of that dastardly red-headed left-handed traitor, Tom Jefferson.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf

History of the Logan Act

After the French Revolution, difficulties developed between the Federalist Administration of the United States and the various revolutionary governments of France. Because the United States had not assisted the French revolutionaries to their satisfaction and because the United States had ratified the Jay Treaty with Great Britain, the French government authorized plunderings of American merchant ships.

In 1797 President Adams sent John Marshall, Charles C. Pinckney, and Elbridge Gerry as special envoys to France to negotiate and settle claims and causes of differences which existed between the French Directory and the United States. This mission resulted in the XYZ letters controversy, and its failure led to such strong anti-France feelings in the United States that preparations for war were begun by the Congress.

After the unsuccessful envoys returned from France, Dr. George Logan, a Philadelphia Quaker, a doctor, and a Republican, decided to attempt on his own to settle the controversies. Bearing a private certificate of citizenship from his friend, Thomas Jefferson, who at the time was Vice President, Logan sailed for France on June 12, 1798. In France he was hailed by the newspapers as the envoy of peace and was received by Talleyrand. The French Directory, having concluded that it was politically wise to relax tensions with the United States, issued a decree raising the embargo on American merchant ships and freed American ships and seamen. Logan, however, received a less friendly response from the United States after he returned. Secretary of State Pickering told him that the French decree was illusory. General Washington expressed his disapproval of Logan’s actions. President Adams recommended that Congress take action to stop the “temerity and impertinence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States.” Representative Roger Griswold of Connecticut introduced a resolution in Congress to prevent actions similar to Logan’s . . .

. . . The bill was debated at length, and various amendments were proposed, some of which passed and some of which did not. The House of Representatives passed the bill on January 17, 1799, and the Senate passed it on January 25, 1799. It was signed and became a law on January 30, 1799.

. . . So far as can be determined, there have been no prosecutions under the Logan Act.

. . . The one indictment found occurred in 1803 when a grand jury indicted Francis Flournoy, a Kentucky farmer, who wrote an article in the FRANKFORT GUARDIAN OF FREEDOM under the pen name of “A Western American.” Flournoy advocated in the article a separate Western nation allied to France. The United States Attorney for Kentucky, an Adams appointee and brother-in-law of Chief Justice Marshall, went no further than procuring the indictment of Flournoy, and the purchase of the Louisiana Territory later that year appeared to cause the separatism issue to become obsolete.

If somebody were prosecuted under the Logan Act, its vague language might be found unconstitutional, but meanwhile, it's the law. Does it apply to members of Congress? Here's what some U.S. State Department lawyers concluded :

DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1975, p. 750.

. . . The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: “I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn....” (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.

Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.

Like Sparkman and McGovern, Speaker Pelosi made no attempt to negotiate, and made it clear that she wasn't authorized to negotiate. Therefore, she didn't break the Logan Act.

Doctor Logan, however, may have broken the Logan Act. That's the kind of guy he was. In 1791, he got expelled from Quaker meeting because he was a captain in the state militia. In 1794, he resigned from the militia in protest against Washington's orders to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Despite (or because of) the controversies in 1798, he became a U.S. Senator in 1801. He became disillusioned with Jefferson. (He just couldn't respect AUTHORITY.) And he made a supposedly unauthorized trip to England, in search of peace, but was never indicted under the Logan Act, partly because President Madison may actually have (unofficially) sent Logan to England.

I dunno. First of all, the bureaucrats making the decisions, especially in THIS administration, probably don't understand DNSsec. (To be fair, only a very few gurus actually understand its implications . . . and maybe not even those guys either.) Maybe the bureaucrats just think it's their job to run the internet. Maybe they want to be able to disrupt the internet themselves (though I'm sure they already have contingency plans for doing that).

DNSsec itself is questionable. Some people claim it's useless. Some claim it's worse than useless. My hunch is -- mostly useless, but maybe it'll make DNS "poisoning" a little less likely, and e-commerce a little more secure.

Which is a long-winded way of saying, I dunno.

Leftists such as William T. Quick really do view Iraqis as less than human!
http://dailypundit.com/?p=25101

“What can you expect of Islamist barbarian savages?” They are scorpions. Don’t be surprised when they act like it. And when they do, kill them, and burn out the nests that spawn and support them.
- - Bill Quick, today, in response to Ledeen