There's a new SHERIFF in town....

[GS78]

Wednesday, December 23, 2009



Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? [Andy McCarthy]


You just can't make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.

Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld. Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America's defense).

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?

Steve Schippert has more at ThreatsWatch, here.


12/23 07:59 AMShare

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... mJiZDNmMDY

[GS78]

http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/1 ... vereignty/


ThreatsWatch.Org: PrincipalAnalysis

Wither Sovereignty


Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?


By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton
Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.


BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.
After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.

Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)

Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.")

Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

Context: International Criminal Court

The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.

We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF).

29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.

President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.

President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on.

However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.

Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.

"Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.

The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.

President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.

The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.

When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.

For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.

This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.

Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.

By Steve Schippert on December 23, 2009 3:00 AM

[zephyp]

That aint good news bubba. I highly recommend others read GS78's first link (text below):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/1 ... vereignty/

ThreatsWatch.Org: PrincipalAnalysis
Wither Sovereignty
Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?
By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.
By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.

After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.

Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)

Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.")

Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

Context: International Criminal Court

The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.

We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF).

29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.

President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.

President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on.

However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.

Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.

"Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.

The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.

President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.

The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.

When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.

For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.

This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.

Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.

By Steve Schippert on December 23, 2009 3:00 AM

[VBshooter]

As we all are painfully aware, the Constitution is an irritating inconvenience to his exalted highness who seems duty bound to destroy it and the country that it represents.Some dark days lay ahead in the future if this trend is not reversed. It's been said that fearing the 2010 election blood bath , Obama and his signets will attempt to interject as much of their traitorous agenda as they can, He seems to have a very well laid out plan that will ultimately end in our demise as a sovereign nation and plant us smack in center of some Orwellian New World Order that his twisted mind sees as the path to take,,,A concept Frightening to Free Peoples ..Completely Unacceptable in it,s entirity,

[zephyp]

Well, alot of folks think that congress cant do this and they cant do that. But the real truth of the matter is they can pass any law they want as long as they get enough votes. And, if you are one of those folks who say "well, they cant pass an unConstitutional law" then you better think again. They do it routinely. Consider the possibilities:

- Abolish presidential term limits. There is an idiot in congress who introduces this bill at the beginning of every year. It doesnt go anywhere but its there...hello...
- Redistricting of congressional boundaries. Hasnt this one been in the news this past year...hello...
- Go crazy and wild with eminent domain. Isnt this also a big news item this year...hello...
- Mandate by law that every American MUST buy health insurance or face penalties...hello...
- Restricting the freedom of press. Now where did I hear that...HELLO...
- Grant complete immunity to INTERPOL...you just cant make these things up...
- Grant amnesty to all illegals...hello...are we getting the picture yet?

Consider some other possible (yes possible) but maybe not quite so probable "changes"

- Extending current terms of office
- Lavish retirement packages for serving just one term
- Seriously screwing up and changing the way elections are ran
- Make hunting and fishing illegal for private individuals
- Ban all guns
- Restricting the right to address grievances to the government
- Use your imagination - AND YES THEY CAN !!!!!!!!!!!

[GS78]

couple this with the previous stories and you can see why Im all stocked up on tin foil....


The U.N. small arms "treaty"....

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=116041





email from Donna Holt of Va10thamendment.org

Recently, according to an NRA news release, Hilary Clinton mentioned the Obama administration’s intention to negotiate a new small arms treaty with the UN. In late October of this year, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012.

The proposed Small Arms Treaty will make it more difficult for Americans to legally buy firearms. The Treaty will do that by creating higher financial costs and complicated bureaucratic licensing processes. The Treaty will also create an international gun registry scheme that will eventually ban guns nationwide.

If Obama meets UN expectations to adopt the Small Arms Treaty for domestic and international considerations, Obama will be violating our Second Amendment rights. The UN Treaty requires that the US government confiscate guns from law-abiding Americans—something Obama wants.

That is extremely wrong since the Second Amendment is justified by our natural right of self-defense. Since guns help us implement that right, the second amendment is just and must not be violated—not by our government nor by the UN.

Furthermore, the Founding Fathers viewed our Bill of Rights as representing “natural rights.” That is, rights we have by nature which exist prior to, or independently of, the existence of government. Therefore, a government can not justifiably “give” or “take away” our rights, including our Second Amendment right. If the Obama administration signs the Small Arms Treaty and submits to UN rule, the second amendment stipulation becomes wrongfully nullified.

Moreover, our Founding Fathers fought to make us Independent from rule by a foreign power. Whereas it was King George’s dictatorship during the 1700s, it is now the UN. America’s current administration must respect this tradition of Independence and keep America free from unconstitutional influence –let alone conquest—by foreign institutions and nations.

Delegate Bill Carrico has taken a stand against this unconstitutional confiscation of our guns with HB69, the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act, to challenge the powers of the federal government under the commerce clause to regulate (or seize) any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and kept in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Montana and Tennessee have already passed a similar law and there are 24 other states following their lead with a FFA either already introduced or intended to be introduced in their next legislative session.

As a suggested script to your legislators, you may copy and paste the body of this email and address it to your representatives along with the added paragraph below.

I ask that you please support and cosponsor Delegate Bill Carrico's HB69 to preserve our second amendment rights in Virginia and reassert our sovereignty under the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Yours in liberty,

Donna Holt

Administrator

VA 10th Amendment Revolution

www.va10thamendment.org

[VBshooter]

Great additon to the already listed information...All who read this should pay close attention to these attempts to usurp our 2nd amendment rights by other means.This treaty is the kind of thing that can not only deny us our rights it will also add another nail in the coffin to losing our sovereignty as a nation. We (The United States) are the prize in a United Nations free for all grab to get hte US on board with all of it's World Order Garbage.... Groups like Bloombergs MAIG is another one attempting to restrict if not outright ban guns by using the regulatory power of BATFE to do it and completely bypass Congress legally.Our battles are clearly ahead of us against clever and very capable opponents.

[GS78]

Ah.... the TSA, those pimply-faced young people who ask to see your boarding ticket, right? Not so fast...... the TSA has an enforcement and investigation wing too, and they have recently began to flex their muscles....

..http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/1 ... s-blogger/


This guy said he was "visited" moments after a friend who is a world renowned newspaper reporter and editorialist called him to tell him he himself was just "visited"....Steven Frischling said he told his friend "No, nobody has been to see me..." and said on foxnews that immediately upon mouthing those words a black government sedan pulled up outside his home......

[GS78]

I also wanted to add, that Obama's choice to head up the TSA, is being held up in confirmation because of rumors that he ,along with the administration are hoping to unionize the organization, something that would prove to be a great boon for the democrats but , not so much for the security of air travel.....

[zephyp]

For what its worth obama cannot enter into a treaty. By our Constitution the president transmits the treaty to the senate where it must be passed by a 2/3 vote (if memory serves correctly this first day of 2010).

[GS78]

I think Obama can agree to sign the USA onto any UN "policy" as a co-signee without congress's approval, which wouldn't exactly make it a law under the constitution, but may bypass , or usurp the constitution....'for the good of the World,etc...'...

[GS78]

the only thing Joe Biden has ever said that I remember was something like this " There will come a time when this President will do something that doesn't seem right, we will need you to stand with us "....

[zephyp]

Well, alot of folks think that congress cant do this and they cant do that. But the real truth of the matter is they can pass any law they want as long as they get enough votes. And, if you are one of those folks who say "well, they cant pass an unConstitutional law" then you better think again. They do it routinely. Consider the possibilities:

- Abolish presidential term limits. There is an idiot in congress who introduces this bill at the beginning of every year. It doesnt go anywhere but its there...hello...
- Redistricting of congressional boundaries. Hasnt this one been in the news this past year...hello...
- Go crazy and wild with eminent domain. Isnt this also a big news item this year...hello...
- Mandate by law that every American MUST buy health insurance or face penalties...hello...
- Restricting the freedom of press. Now where did I hear that...HELLO...
- Grant complete immunity to INTERPOL...you just cant make these things up...
- Grant amnesty to all illegals...hello...are we getting the picture yet?

Consider some other possible (yes possible) but maybe not quite so probable "changes"

- Extending current terms of office
- Lavish retirement packages for serving just one term
- Seriously screwing up and changing the way elections are ran
- Make hunting and fishing illegal for private individuals
- Ban all guns
- Restricting the right to address grievances to the government
- Use your imagination - AND YES THEY CAN !!!!!!!!!!!

I posted this a couple of days ago. Look what I saw in the news this AM. The dems are looking to change the primary election rules...who woulda guessed...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12 ... er-powers/

Democratic Panel Wants Superdelegates Stripped of 'Super' Powers

FOXNews.com

Looking to avoid a repeat of the prolonged and bitter 2008 primary battle, a Democratic Party panel has recommended that the first-in-the-nation contests be pushed back in the calendar and that so-called "superdelegates" be stripped of their "super" powers.

Looking to avoid a repeat of the prolonged and bitter 2008 primary battle, a Democratic Party panel has recommended that the first-in-the-nation contests be pushed back in the calendar and that so-called "superdelegates" be stripped of their "super" powers.

The DNC Democratic Change Commission rolled out its recommendations Wednesday, marking the first step toward reforming the primary process -- something President Obama called for last year.

Superdelegates -- governors, senators, members of Congress and other party bigwigs -- played an unusually large role in the 2008 Democratic campaign. They are unique in that, unlike "pledged" delegates, they are not obligated to vote the way of their states and can essentially support whomever they want. Hillary Clinton started out with the bulk of the superdelegates on her side in 2008, meaning that even after Obama seized the advantage in the primary states, he still had to convince the superdelegates to drift toward him.

Democratic primaries are typically not close enough for the superdelegates to matter, but last year was an exception. The new recommendation would require those delegates to vote based on the results of their states' caucuses and primaries. A Democratic official said their votes would be allocated proportionally with other delegates' votes.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Rep. James Clyburn, D-Mich., who co-chaired the commission, said the recommendation would make the process "more democratic."

"These recommendations, if approved, will make the process more democratic and offer more power to primary voters," McCaskill said in a statement.

The recommendations would also call for the first-in-the-nation contests -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- to be held after Feb. 1. All four of those states held their 2008 primaries and caucuses in January.

The recommendations call for all other primaries to be held after March 1. The idea is to shorten the primary calendar.

"The approved report seeks to reduce front loading of state primaries and caucuses that have extended the primary season in recent cycles," Clyburn said.

The Democratic official said the goal is to have the recommendations, if passed, in place by 2012. The official, though, noted that the party expects to "know who our candidate is for 2012," and so 2016 would be the first year when the changes could have a substantive impact on the race.

[GS78]

For what its worth obama cannot enter into a treaty. By our Constitution the president transmits the treaty to the senate where it must be passed by a 2/3 vote (if memory serves correctly this first day of 2010).

I was thinking about this, when Obama signed the exec.order granting INTERPOL immunity from american law and constitution....could it have been and end around, knowing that the senate wouldn't or wont radify the UN small arms treaty that is set for 2012? I had posted a link on another thread to a pdf I couldn't open, well using someone's advise I did get it open and read some of it the other day, and clearly the UN small arms treaty is geared toward the elimination of "civilian" armament along with the destruction of ammunition as well. This is clearly stated as one of ten bullet points on page 15 or 16 I believe. These recomendations have been voted on by 'member states' however, I could not find the United States as a voting member? In some of the votes and reports of the votes it said something like " 134 member states voted, none abstained....but then it went on to name the member states but omitted two?.... All throughout this document, and programme(as they call it) INTERPOL is named exclusively as the only law enforcement agency with ultimate authority in implementing "the plan")another term they use in this document)anyway, even if the US Senate does not radify a treaty that Mrs Clinton and B.Hussein Obama have said they want to see enacted , by giving the agency immunity, as the above article states, doesn't that negate any need for radification? Where is "John Adams"? I'd like to hear his opinion on this?

[zephyp]

If they call something a treaty they would have a hard time getting around ratification. I think the INTERPOL thing was a matter of obama extending executive privilege. Still has clout but I dont think it counts as a treaty, which is between sovereign nations not organizations and a nation.

[GS78]

If they call something a treaty they would have a hard time getting around ratification. I think the INTERPOL thing was a matter of obama extending executive privilege. Still has clout but I dont think it counts as a treaty, which is between sovereign nations not organizations and a nation.

I get that part, what I'm wondering is even in the event that America does NOT ratify any treaty, does the fact that by executive order,INTERPOL has been given authority to implement UN policies that are deemed to be in direct conflict with small arms treaties signed by other member states even in this country? I don't believe that the Senate will ever ratify a treay that openly and forcibly disarms the american people....but, does his E.O. open a back door for the International Police to come after "violaters" of this treaty here? Don't forget a violater can be a civilian who owns firearms according to the UN plan. They don't have to be involved in any trafficking, just owning a firearm, and especially one that is not a "smart weapon" and has some kind of built in tracability feature..

[zephyp]

I you live nearby and you hear a commotion (shots, screams, explosions, expletives, sirens, etc) then you could assume hypothetically that UN troops knocked on someone's door looking to relieve said someone of certain personal property...

[gunderwood]

For what its worth obama cannot enter into a treaty. By our Constitution the president transmits the treaty to the senate where it must be passed by a 2/3 vote (if memory serves correctly this first day of 2010).

I was thinking about this, when Obama signed the exec.order granting INTERPOL immunity from american law and constitution....could it have been and end around, knowing that the senate wouldn't or wont radify the UN small arms treaty that is set for 2012? I had posted a link on another thread to a pdf I couldn't open, well using someone's advise I did get it open and read some of it the other day, and clearly the UN small arms treaty is geared toward the elimination of "civilian" armament along with the destruction of ammunition as well. This is clearly stated as one of ten bullet points on page 15 or 16 I believe. These recomendations have been voted on by 'member states' however, I could not find the United States as a voting member? In some of the votes and reports of the votes it said something like " 134 member states voted, none abstained....but then it went on to name the member states but omitted two?.... All throughout this document, and programme(as they call it) INTERPOL is named exclusively as the only law enforcement agency with ultimate authority in implementing "the plan")another term they use in this document)anyway, even if the US Senate does not radify a treaty that Mrs Clinton and B.Hussein Obama have said they want to see enacted , by giving the agency immunity, as the above article states, doesn't that negate any need for radification? Where is "John Adams"? I'd like to hear his opinion on this?

I do enjoy these discussions and encourage them. However, I don't think my contributions are quite up to that level. Besides, I'm not a lawyer, just a concerned citizen brave enough to ask some hard questions. Don't always like the answers either.

I have discussed the "treaty" issue with my friends before and still think it is absurd to suggest that the President can sign a treaty that supersedes the agreement that give him his power. Here is a decent link: http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html

"Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: 'If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.' Alexander Hamilton agreed: 'a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.'"
Thomas Jefferson quoted from his Manual of Parliamentary Practice and Alexander Hamilton from The Federalist Papers cited by Hoar WP. Treaties vs the constitution --- which law is supreme. The New American 1995;11(7):55.

Jefferson raises an obvious point (or at least should be obvious). As for the Interpol immunity, the President, as far as I'm concerned, has broken his oath of office. By exempting some group from the rule of law, he violated the equal protection clause. One of the fundamental tenets of our system was the applicability of the law to everyone. The king and the pauper were equal under the law, protected and punished alike. We abandoned this quite some time ago. Today our laws provide special privileges and/or protections to many groups. The Feds exempt themselves from State laws whenever they feel like it. He may have technically violated the republican form of government clause too. Plus the treaty clause as he has effectively signed a treaty with foreign entity.

P.S. There is debate if the President, as chief administrator, can choose to not enforce a Federal law. http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The ... ed-By.html

[zephyp]

Well by definition nothing should supersede the Constitution but unfortunately congress has passed laws that already blew that one away. A treaty can become law of the land and again by definition should not supersede the Constitution, but if a law passed by congress can (and do) then so can a treaty. Not saying its right just the way it is.

[gunderwood]

Well by definition nothing should supersede the Constitution but unfortunately congress has passed laws that already blew that one away. A treaty can become law of the land and again by definition should not supersede the Constitution, but if a law passed by congress can (and do) then so can a treaty. Not saying its right just the way it is.

Understand. My opinion would be that the Constitution gave the Federal government its' powers. It can not violate the Constitution without voiding the contract, the Constitution. Anyone who does so is actually attempting to overthrow the lawful government of these United States. It doesn't matter what the other branches say does it? They were given their power to check each other. The States gave up only certain specific powers to the Federal government. If a State wishes to change that it can call for a convention or leave(?) or convince the other States to amend the contract, i.e. the Constitution. It can't unilaterally, change anything. Neither can the Feds. If they try, they are traitors and the States should try them as such. Problem is the States have been all to happy to let the Feds have way more power than they actually have for so long, good luck taking it back. Bills like the WY and TN firearm freedom acts are a start, but from what I hear the States still aren't going to go to bat for you when the Feds illegally violate their laws.

Don't get me wrong, the Federal government has a valid and vital role to play in our society. It just happens to be they don't want to be Federal any more, they want to be central with States as merely geographic boundaries. If we want to amend the Constitution, so be it. If we want to toss it out completely and create a central government, so be it. I just won't be tagging along for the ride.