RGV Republican Liberty Club

Wow. I’m not sure what to say about this one. Perhaps the abusiveness of the security personnel is to blame. Perhaps they need to reexamine their policies on when they are actually able to engage with people. Mr. Hill made no threatening gestures whatsoever, but apparently was such a threat to security that he had to be taken down. Hard.

This is just one of the latest instances of small minded individuals given a modicum of power and taking that power to an abusive level. At the very least, they need to be disciplined. Arguably, they should be fired for attacking an individual that did not offer up any threats. Then we have the so-called State Trooper. Ummmmm, really? I sure couldn’t see his “identification”. Upon repeated requests for his name or badge number or identification, he failed to display it. That sure seems suspect, as if he is not really a real State Trooper. He comes off as another security guard that is abusing his power. Now, Alaska is a gun friendly state. There are also several gun owners in Alaska. What happens if you are a gun owner (with a gun on you) and you witness 2 people assaulting an individual and someone masquerading as a State Trooper? Well, it’s not a good scenario. Likely, more than one person would not be sleeping that night very soundly. And I’m not just talking about Mr. Hill.

Torches & Pitchforks. That scenario seems to be getting closer every day.

Activist Post brings us this one:

This first day of the 2010 Alaska State Fair starts with sunny skies and a brutal assault by security personnel on a LaRouche supporter.

At about 5pm Alaska Time, Thursday, August 26, 2010, security personnel approach Sidney Hill, a lone man peacefully displaying an impeach Obama sign near Pioneer Plaza on the Alaska State Fairgrounds in Palmer. Minutes later, a crowd assembles, additional security forces arrive, and they physically assault the man holding the sign. He’s taken to the ground with force and detained.

An unidentified Alaska State Trooper arrives to physically disperse the crowd, and at several points during the conflict, crowd members yell in support of the demonstrator’s right to speak his message. The demonstrator’s personal firearm is confiscated by fair security, and he is held captive until Palmer police arrive to escort the man away in cuffs.

Sidney Hill was in jail awaiting a pre-trial at 1:00 pm on August 27, 2010 at the Palmer Courthouse. He has been charged with Assault 4-Cause Fear Of Injury, Disorderly Conduct-Challenge To Fight, and Criminal Trespass 2- Upon Premises. However, according to the Valley Frontiersman newspaper, “Assistant District Attorney Trina Sears said her office decided not to prosecute Hill on the assault charge.”

Assault on protester at 3:30
Trooper distracts me, but I barely catch the gun in security guard’s left hand at 4:41

Court record of arrest: http://bit.ly/bPSx6D
ADN coverage: http://bit.ly/bwE3u9
Frontiersman coverage: http://bit.ly/9V4gyn
Newsminer coverage: http://bit.ly/bEEq2K
Alaska State Fair official statement: http://bit.ly/cY5U2u

As the dissatisfactions of Americans with their national government grow, so does the likelihood of the breakup of the United States. I believe that most Americans can improve their well-being by ending the national government, that is, ending the Union. I believe that this goal should shape politics if politics is to do much good.

I don’t think Americans are going to be the first people in the modern era to initiate a large-scale anarchy. But Americans might conceivably move back to a federal form of government something like that under the Articles of Confederation. If so, the problem is how to proceed. Many Americans feel (and are) trapped and thwarted by government power.

I see two paths. Americans can do this either acting as individuals formed into a body politic of 300 million Americans or as 50 body politics organized by state. I think action by state has a better chance of success.

To act as one body, Americans would have to alter their Constitution. The divisions among Americans make this highly unlikely. Even if it were pursued, the results would be highly uncertain.

Yes, indeed. The key to success on a large scale is mobilization and activation. Individuals ranting and raving about wrongdoings are portrayed negatively in the public and only get a 10 second soundbyte on the evening news. They aren’t taken seriously and assisted in their dilemma. Why do so when they can be paraded about as a malicious Angry White Man or crazed Right Wing Fringer “bitterly clinging to their guns and religion” as the illustrious BHO would say. They don’t have much to say about their own dilemma because they are ignored by the larger system itself. Good luck trying to get your point across to a newsie. Even if you find a sympathetic ear, you can oh so easily have the entirety of your story demolished by editorial oversight. Far too many people with an ounce of power over something have an agenda to Lord it over everyone else. Just ask a Mall Cop.

Rozeff makes another good point that

A tax revolt that works from and through the state legislatures directly undermines the Union. It directly challenges the power of Congress to tax. That’s a far stronger political platform for restructuring the United States.

which is certainly true, but is a concept so far down the road to most Americans that they haven’t even thought that far ahead. Mostly, they are concerned with just trying to live their lives and minimize Government intrusion and tyranny into it, rather than proactively attempting to fix what is broken within it.

Outright secession is one political measure in a spectrum of possible actions by which one or more states stand up to the U.S. government. Nullification is another. Withdrawal from the banking system is another. A separate payments system at the state level is a fourth. Refusal to obey any of hundreds of U.S. directives is a fifth. The formation of alliances among states is another.

Rozeff makes some points of interest here and almost blows right by them. Secession is certainly an interesting topic of conversation these days. What with Governor Rick Perry making allusions to it (and being attributed to a lot more – wishful thinking on someone’s part) and more than just the local so-called rednecks (one of my local Border Patrol agents) riding around with ‘Secede’ stickers affixed to their vehicles. The topic has gotten to the level of interest in the mainstream that much of the opposition is scoffing at it as illegal. Well, we know what that means. As Gandhi stated, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.” Well if this is true, then the Secessionists are probably transversing from stage 2 to stage 3…

Nullification is another topic worthy of discussion. These United States are a collective of 50 individual States (as well as some Protectorates and other Holdings which aren’t quite “states”) which incorporated a Federal Government to oversee a very specific and limited set of Powers. The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights explicitly enumerate a finite list of Rights and privileges thereon. Now, the States authorized themselves an Out when it comes to laws that the Federal Government comes up with. Normally, the various states would be beholden to Federal laws, except whereby they are outside the scope of the explicitly delegated Powers of the Federal Government. Nullification is the Right of the state in question to nullify, or invalidate the Federal law because of it’s Unconstitutionality. This is a topic that most citizens don’t understand. However, it is something they really need to understand, because it goes to the heart of an overpowering and tyrannical Federal Government. When all legal means of redress are subverted, how does one seek satisfaction?

Next we have the topic of withdrawal from the banking system. This is yet again a difficult topic to discuss due to the vast majority of people’s misunderstanding of it. When you ask the man on the street about our banking system, he almost assuredly talks about saving and checking accounts. He thinks that the bank holds your money to loan to other people at higher interest so it makes money and can pay you smaller amounts of interest. This is a bald faced lie. Their are two types of banking prevalent to this conversation, Central Banking and Fractional Reserve Banking. The former is the macro system while the latter is the micro system. Central Banking in short, is ‘Money as Debt’ which is why we in America have a debt-based economy. It’s all about pushing debt around and debt management. You take on an amount of debt and pay it back with interest. That’s how money is made here. The problem with this is that the debt grows from interest and can never be paid back because their is not enough money in existence to pay it back. This eventually leads to bankruptcy of someone or something. On the large scale, the Federal Government doesn’t even print it’s own money! They buy it from the Federal Reserve through the issue of Bonds in the Bond Market. It is distributed in turn to the regional Federal Reserve branches and then to local banks in said regions.

Fractional Reserve Banking is where the real theft occurs. This is the kind of theft that the man on the street can wrap his head around because it doesn’t have an illustrious number of zeroes after it, boggling his mind. When I deposit $1,000 into a bank, they aren’t holding that money and loaning it to other people to make more money for me. Instead, through the miracle of Fractional Reserve Banking, they have just created more money out of thin air! Banking law allows the bank to loan out more money than they hold on deposit. That $1,000 in the vault means they get to issue “Lines of Credit” to everybody to the ratio of 10 to 1. There are several cartoons on YouTube which eloquently explain this better than I could.

Rozeff’s last 3 arguments are perhaps beyond the scope of this article, and quite a bit more in depth as to their requirements.

In short, the impending tides of  turbulence can bring on any number of effects if the citizenry of the nation unites under their respective States to do battle with the Monsters in the Swamp.

So… along with a certain island falling off into the ocean, this is a new one on me. Apparently Arizona does not share a border with Mexico. Apparently, if that were the case, then this Milwaukee County Official would think twice about the issue. Since Arizona does not share a border with Mexico, according to her, then she is in favor of the boycott proposed by certain people against the state of Arizona. This is particularly poignant because Arizona is 1600 miles away from Ms. West. Perhaps living in her neck of the woods has given her a skewed perception of  reality?

Ms. Wests’ county website is located at http://www.milwaukee.gov/West

If you would like to contact her and instruct her in geography, her contact information is as follows:

MILWAUKEE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Milwaukee County Courthouse
901 North 9th Street, RM 201
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Phone: 414-278-4222 Fax: 414-223-1380

Far too many citations and links in this one for a repost. You just have to read this entire article at WND and look at the background info for yourself. They continually break stories that most mainstream outlets won’t even touch. Instead of speculation however, they back it up with cold hard fact. This is the sort of info that cannot be disputed because thanks to the miracle of modern technology, we have archived this info for later perusal. It just took someone to do the hard work of looking all the info up and compiling it in one easy place for your easy viewing. My, now doesn’t that sound familiar?

from WorldNetDaily:

Editor’s Note: Shortly after this WND report was posted, NPR changed its web page to delete the reference to “Kenyan-born” Sen. Obama.

Those crazy “birthers” are citing National Public Radio.

Really? NPR?

Archives for the tax-supported organization reveal that a 2008 report described then-Sen. Barack Obama as “Kenyan-born”  and a “son of Africa.”

NPR’s promotion for the story included a brief description of West African correspondent Ofeibea Quist-Arcton, who “describes the stories that have been exciting, including the U.S. presidential race of Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama.”

After discussing various issues developing in Africa at the time – such as Kenya’s violent elections, the attacks in Zimbabwe and the presidency of South Africa – the conversation on the program “Tell Me More” turned to Obama.

New strategy unveiled today on answering Obama’s eligibility questions. See how you can help.

At about 9:45 of the audio report, interviewer Michelle Martin said “a son of Africa. Barack Obama is poised to at least have the opportunity to become the next president of the United States.” She asked, “How does this campaign look overseas?”

Quist-Arcton responded by describing Obama as a member of the Kenyan Luo tribe and reporting how Africa viewed the race.

…continue reading the entire article for the full list of links and background info…

from Salon:

In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration’s “presidential assassination program,” whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they’re involved in Terrorism.  At the time,The Washington Post‘s Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush’s policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile “hit lists” of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list.  The following week, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the “right” to carry out such assassinations.

Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield.  I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they’re sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind.  I won’t repeat those arguments — they’re here and here — but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.

Just consider how the NYT reports on Obama’s assassination order and how it is justified:

The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday. . . .

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say theybelieve that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said.  A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president. . . .

“The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

No due process is accorded.  No charges or trials are necessary.  No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family).  None of that.

Instead, in Barack Obama’s America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens — and a death penalty imposed — is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone’s guilt as a Terrorist.  He then dispatches his aides to run to America’s newspapers — cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they’re granted — to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist.  It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets(advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist ”involved in plots.”  These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth.  And the punishment is thus decreed:  this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done.  What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?

Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider — as theNYT reported — that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen).  Even more strikingly, Antonin Scalia, in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wrote an Opinion (joined by Justice Stevens) arguing that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government merely to imprison (let alone kill) American citizens as “enemy combatants”; instead, they argued, the Constitution required that Americans be charged with crimes (such as treason) and be given a trial before being punished.  The full HamdiCourt held that at least some due process was required before Americans could be imprisoned as “enemy combatants.”  Yet now, Barack Obama is claiming the right not merely to imprison, but to assassinate far from any battlefield, American citizens with no due process of any kind.  Even GOP Congressman Pete Hoekstra, when questioning Adm. Blair, recognized the severe dangers raised by this asserted power.

And what about all the progressives who screamed for years about the Bush administration’s tyrannical treatment of Jose Padilla?  Bush merelyimprisoned Padilla for years without a trial.  If that’s a vicious, tyrannical assault on the Constitution – and it was — what should they be saying about the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s assassination of American citizens without any due process?

All of this underscores the principal point made in this excellent new article by Eli Lake, who compellingly and comprehensively documents what readers here well know:  that while Obama’s “speeches and some of his administration’s policy rollouts have emphasized a break from the Bush era,” the reality is that the administration has retained and, in some cases, built upon the core Bush/Cheney approach to civil liberties and Terrorism.  As Al Gore asked in his superb 2006 speech protesting Bush’s ”War on the Constitution”:

Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution?

If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?

If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can’t he do?

Notice the power that was missing from Gore’s indictment of Bush radicalism:  the power to kill American citizens.  Add that to the litany — as Obama has now done — and consider how much more compelling Gore’s accusatory questions become.

UPDATE:  When Obama was seeking the Democratic nomination, the Constitutional Law Scholar answered a questionnaire about executive power distributed by The Boston Globe‘s Charlie Savage, and this was one of his answers:

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

[Obama]:  No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

So back then, Obama said the President lacks the power merely todetain U.S. citizens without charges.  Now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges.  Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face?  As Spencer Ackerman documents today, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here.

UPDATE II:  If you’re going to go into the comment section — or anywhere else — and argue that this is all justified because Awlaki is an Evil, Violent, Murdering Terrorist Trying to Kill Americans, you should say how you know that.  Generally, guilt is determined by having a trial where the evidence is presented and the accused has an opportunity to defend himself — not by putting blind authoritarian faith in the unchecked accusations of government leaders, even if it happens to be Barack Obama.  That’s especially true given how many times accusations of Terrorism by the U.S. Government have proven to be false.

UPDATE III:  Congratulations, Barack Obama:  you’re now to the Right of National Review on issues of executive power and due process, asKevin Williamson objects:  ”Surely there has to be some operational constraint on the executive when it comes to the killing of U.S. citizens. . . . Odious as Awlaki is, this seems to me to be setting an awful and reckless precedent. “  But Andy McCarthy — who is about the most crazed Far Right extremist on such matters as it gets, literally — is as pleased as can be with what Obama is doing (or, as Gawker puts it, “Obama Does Something Bloodthirsty Enough to Please the Psychos”).

UPDATE IV:  Keith Olbermann’s coverage of this story was quite good tonight – see here.

It’s official. The Almighty One has officially flushed the Republic down the drain. He successfully bought enough votes from Congress to pass Obamacare with enough of a margin to not “single out” any one particular Democrat. Never mind that the Leprechaun changed his vote to Aye after a flight of Airforce One. Never mind that the Stupak coalition had been holding out due to abortion language. Never mind that the general population had soundly notified the Monsters in the Swamp that this socialistic amalgamation of quasi taxes was not only undesirable, but unwanted and despised. That talking heads in DC didn’t follow the wishes of their constituents however. Instead, they turned on them. We’re that much closer to the collapse of the Republic thanks to the abomination that was passed yesterday, led by the likes of Nancy Pelosi.

If Uncle Sam were a genuine human instead of an amalgamated cartoonified concept, he would be aching in pain right now, reaching around in his back pocket seeking a missing billfold or wallet, because not only does he not have the money to pay for this monstrosity, his entire wallet has been stolen away from him, now residing in the hands of the Central Banks of the World. Is it a surprise that the same people who don’t pay their taxes are the kind of people that are hired to run the economy? Is it a surprise that our country, which is functionally bankrupt, is in such a ridiculously high debt, that our grandchildren will inherit it because there is no way for us to pay it off ourselves? Never mind the unfunded liabilities which are OFF the books. Those that are ON the books are bad enough! When Congress votes to raise the debt ceiling by 1.9 TRILLION dollars with the expectation of voting to raise it yet again the next Legislative Session by over 2 TRILLION, where can we possibly go from there? We are currently officially in debt some 12.6 TRILLION dollars. This latest failure from the District is ostensibly going to cost some 900 BILLION dollars. As was seen with TARP 2.0, the costs tripled. It is very likely to triple with this legislation as well. Hopefully we can be only so lucky to keep it reigned in that low without an even higher multiplier. I find it disgusting that my own government has incurred a debt approximating $40,000 dollars per citizen. Yes, that’s right. You, me, your friends, family, and strangers, have all incurred a debt of approximately $40,000 each because your so-called Representatives have committed themselves to a disastrous course. Much like the Titanic being an “unsinkable” ship that totally disproved it’s motto, the U.S.ofA is now officially headed on a sinking course. Your Legislators have failed you. Where every single Republican in the House voted against this bill with 45 Democrats joined them, a simple majority still passed it with a vote of 219-212. This includes our very own Valley “Representatives”, Congressmen Cuellar, Ortiz, & Hinojosa.

Make sure to let your “Representatives” know your thoughts regarding their stab-you-in-the-back vote for Obamacare.

from Flopping Aces:

So much for the phony “spending freeze!”

On the White House web site, the Obama Administration announced their new budget proposal with the banner headline: “A new era of responsibility, the 2011 budget.”

It may be a “new era” but it’s hardly responsible. After complaining in his State of the Union address about the budget mess he inherited, Obama’s big government spending spree will create record deficits for years to come.

The recklessness of this blatant fiscal irresponsibility is staggering. From the Politico:

After a record $1.4 trillion shortfall in 2009, the administration now says the red ink will reach $1.56 trillion this year and be little better, $1.27 trillion in 2011…The outlook….adds up to $5.08 trillion in red ink over the next five years. That’s $1.32 trillion or 35% more than the White House predicted 12 months ago.

With Democrats in control of Congress and the White House spending is spiraling out of control. Obama’s proposed “spending freeze” even if it were implemented would do nothing to stem the red tide.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office reports that the $787 billion stimulus bill passed last February will cost $75 billion more than expected. Is anyone surprised?

Even today, Obama continues to try and blame the massive deficits on President Bush, completely overlooking the fact that Democrats have controlled both houses of congress since 2007 and deficits have skyrocketed even higher since he became President.

Democrats may talk and talk about fiscal responsibility but it carries no more weight than the countless empty promises they have made in the past.

Politico reports that The New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist (we all know how worthwhile those awards are these days right?) is getting pretty darn miffed with his Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama.

Paul Krugman’s announcement that he is near to “giving up” on President Barack Obama is fueling a new round of liberal revolt.

Like many influential voices on the left, The New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist has not been shy to voice his disapproval with some of the president’s specific policy initiatives over the past year.

But in the wake of a devastating surprise loss in the Massachusetts Senate special election, and with prospects of health care reform growing dimmer by the hour, Krugman and others liberals are charging Obama with failing to lead.

In a post on his blog Wednesday night titled “He Wasn’t the One We’ve Been Waiting For,” Krugman eviscerated Obama for, in the columnist’s view, not stepping up during a crucial moment in his presidency.

“Progressives are desperately in need of leadership; more specifically, House Democrats need to be told to pass the Senate bill, which isn’t what they wanted but is vastly better than nothing. And what we get from the great progressive hope, the man who was offering hope and change, is this,” Krugman wrote, directing readers to Obama’s comments in an interview with ABC News on Wednesday seemingly advocating a scaled back health bill.

Well that’s all well and good that the Liberals are catching on that their Messiah is nothing more than another Faceman to the desires of the monied Elite. The problem here is that they don’t recognize when some of their own clan is within that group of the monied Elite.

“This is garbage,” Salon editor Joan Walsh said of the bill Wednesday during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “This is a corporate bill, with corporate giveaways that the left is pissed about.”

“President Obama has simply not led. He let the Republicans run this health care agenda,” Walsh said. “People want to blame Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? [Obama] turned it over to the Senate Finance Committee. He gave Republicans their marching orders. He gave them the rope to hang him, and that’s what they did. That’s why we are still talking about this a year after his inauguration.”

So let me get this straight… the Democrats have held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate under a sitting Democrat with a correspondingly Democrat majority in the House. Oh please, Ms. Walsh. Really? The undecided voters out there who  don’t much pay attention to politics until a quasi-Socialist is elected into office suddenly rise up in opposition to your agenda and you are going to try and turn it around an place the blame for the failed policies of BHO on the Republican Party? Ok… time to transition into selling beachfront property in Arizona, because that load of BS is a total waste of breath. Get your own house in order before you try and blame big failures on other people.

On December 16, 2009, Obama signed Executive Order 12425.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425

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 [Reagan Era], as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA

An analysis of this Amended ExOrder may be found at

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2009/12/22/of-executive-orders-and-trojan-horses/

(c) 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.

This now says that Interpol is no longer subject to the Freedom of Information Act. In reality, we have just handed over our sovereignty and laid the foundation for an international governing and policing body.

Interpol has been granted diplomatic immunity now by Obama – they have exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, US taxes and immunity from FOIA requests,

Reagan’s XO 12425

Presidential Executive Orders from the National Archives

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-order-12425

Executive Order 12425

International Criminal Police Organizations

Delivered on 16 June 1983.

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.

RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
June 16,1983.

There may have been a couple of other amendments to 12425 or other ancillary ExOrders.  But, it appears that Section 2C is the main point of contention.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY3MTI4YTRjZmYwMGU1ZjZhOGJmNmQ0NmJiZDNmMDY

http://tinyurl.com/yfka65h

Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?

Andy McCarthy

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

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?

Well, this is certainly a shooped image, but it is interesting nonetheless. My, the things people do on the internets these days, eh? If BHO really didn’t like Berlusconi, should he have gone all the way into asking for the help of Chuck Norris? After all, when the boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.