Obama signs away your legal protections
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Obama signs away your legal protections

  1. Exclamation Obama signs away your legal protections

    I have posted before about my concerns about the Civilian National Security Force Obama promised before he was elected Dictator-in-Chief. The main concerns with that were:

    1. Why in the heck would the United States need such a thing?

    2. This would be a FEDERALLY controlled organization, therefore NOT under individual state control like you see with state National Guard troops.


    Now here we have yet another example of how sneaky, underhanded and insidious this man's agenda is. Read yesterday's article from exposeobama.com, then read below an older article on the civilian national security force.

    This should be one of many things occurring in our government that should prompt the American People to take action and start to take back our country in November 2010.

    TFO



    Obama signs away your legal protections
    December 31st, 2009
    By Floyd Brown, Western Journalism

    Interpol now has free reign in the US

    With the signing of an under-publicized amendment to Executive Order 12425, Barack Obama has fundamentally altered your constitutional rights. His actions are undermining your rights to protect personal privacy from a foreign internationalist police agency named Interpol. A one-paragraph executive order may seem inconsequential to many, but this action has far-reaching implications and threatens the sovereignty of America.

    Obama’s secretive executive order amended an order issued by President Reagan in 1983. Reagan’s order recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it privileges and immunities commonly extended to foreign diplomats. Reagan opened the door to allow Interpol to operate in partnership with the U.S. but with significant constitutional safeguards. Specifically, Interpol’s property and assets remained subject to search and seizure by American law enforcement, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Interpol had to answer to the FBI and U.S. courts under Reagan’s order. These safeguards were stripped away by Obama’s action the week before Christmas without debate or explanation. Obama picked the holiday season to make this radical change, to minimize media coverage.

    This order marks a significant change in federal policy and usurps the constitutional power of our government by yielding it to an international organization. Michael van Der Galien writes, "This foreign law-enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse. Property and assets, including the organization’s records, cannot now be searched or seized. Their physical operational locations are now immune from U.S. legal and investigative authorities."

    Obama has given an international organization unsupervised freedom to investigate Americans on our own soil without recourse or the supervision of our own government.

    Obama has given an international organization unsupervised freedom to investigate Americans on our own soil without recourse or the supervision of our own government.

    Andy McCarthy writing for the National Review asks some very significant questions: "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?"

    Interpol is the enforcement arm of the International Criminal Court, or ICC. The United States never signed onto the Rome Treaty, which created the ICC, because of the potential for abuse by foreign interests. Obama has signaled he may sign the treaty over these objections and subject Americans to prosecution overseas in the ICC. This is harmful for two reasons. First, the U.S. Constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of our land, and allowing the ICC to supersede the U.S. Constitution violates America’s sovereignty. Second, the War on Terror is unpopular with Europeans, and the ICC may attempt to prosecute heroic American soldiers with trumped-up war crimes. Obama is putting brave American men and women at grave risk.

    An added wrinkle to this executive order is that Interpol’s operations center for the United States is housed within our own Justice Department. Many of the agents are Americans who work under the aegis of Interpol. This order has potentially created the new civilian security force that Obama proposed during his campaign. This group of law-enforcement officials is no longer subject to the restraints enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

    The order guarantees that Interpol officers have immunity from prosecution for crimes they may commit in the United States. Ironically, some Interpol nations are attempting to try American intelligence agents for their work abroad in the War on Terror.

    This order shows blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution. While Obama is extending due process rights to terrorists he is weakening those same rights for American citizens. If a citizen were to be prosecuted by Interpol, their newly granted immunity would interfere with the discovery process. Since Interpol files are immune to disclosure, a citizen could be denied his right to see the information used to prosecute him or her.

    Obama’s executive order has done more to weaken civil liberties than the much-maligned Patriot Act. The silence in the mainstream media on this issue should scare all freedom-loving Americans. Obama just signed away parts of our precious legal protections.


    Tags: Barack Obama, Free Reign, immunities, Interpol, Secret Executive Order
    Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (3)
























    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Obama's 'civilian national security force'



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Posted: July 15, 2008
    1:00 am Eastern

    2009

    With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.
    For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.
    In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
    Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.
    (Column continues below)


    Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?
    What does it mean?
    If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?
    I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
    Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?
    Are we talking about creating a police state here?
    The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn't count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.
    Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?
    If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?
    So far, despite our attempts to find out, the Obama campaign is not talking.
    At this point all I can do is enlist your help – and the help of every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election. I also want to ask radio talk-show hosts across America to start asking this same question. I have a feeling if others join our quest, we might yet get clarification on this proposal from Obama.
    Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?
    The questions are endless.
    But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.
    Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?
    I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national security force" than there has been about this proposal by the presidential candidate currently leading in most of the polls. I'm quite sure I would be hung out to dry as some kind of Nazi thug. Meanwhile, Obama makes this wild suggestion and it is met with a collective yawn from the watchdogs.
    Help me out here. What am I missing?
    Can I get a hand?




  2.   
  3. #2
    The Obama administration is wasting no time pushing its agenda to strip us of our power. We the people must respond quickly. This is the letter I sent my Congressman and Senators in D.C. last Monday. Of course I also sent it to Glenn Beck

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon election, you took an oath of office, solemnly swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I am writing to you to exercise my first amendment right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Specifically, my grievance is with Executive Order 12425.

    On December 16, 2009, the nation’s attention was divided between the travesty unfolding in the Senate regarding HR 3590, and the Global Warming circus in Copenhagen. On that date, President Barack Hussein Obama quietly amended EO 12425 as follows:

    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(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

    In case you are unaware, Section 2(c) reads as follows:

    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.

    Essentially, President Obama has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL, exemption from being subject to search and seizure by US law enforcement, and immunity from FOIA requests, Senate subpoenas, etc.

    President Obama just declared INTERPOL records immune from search and seizure — "The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable."

    Does this not mean that American citizens forfeit their right to the trial discovery process, or their right to know their accuser, if INTERPOL brings charges against them?

    Does this EO not exceed the Constitutional authority of the Office of the President?

    Does this EO not concede sovereignty to INTERPOL over US law?

    Is it just a coincidence that INTERPOL and EUROPOL announced a joint GLOBAL police initiative on December 16, 2009 – the same date that EO 12425 was amended?

    Would Congress, the media, and the ACLU sit quietly on the sidelines if Obama had extended the same protection to the FBI or the DOJ?

    What are you going to do about it?

    This is an outrage and I expect a redress of this grievance. I urge you to PUBLICLY address this issue with the President. Demand that he explain how this is in the vital interest of the United States of America. There has been absolutely no media coverage of this and the American people deserve the transparency that this President promised us.

  4. #3
    He wants to be remembered as the traitor that moved us all the way into the New World Order.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #4
    Yeah, and he wants all the taxpayers to pay for free health care for the illegals and the lazy.

    28th Ammendment: If you're a deadbeat you have the right to have your health care paid for by the others who work hard for a living.


    .
    In the beginning, the patriot is a scarce man -- brave, hated, and scorned. But when his cause succeeds, the timid join him. For then, it costs nothing to be a patriot. -- Mark Twain

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Tea For One View Post
    I have posted before about my concerns about the Civilian National Security Force Obama promised before he was elected Dictator-in-Chief. The main concerns with that were:

    1. Why in the heck would the United States need such a thing?

    So they can collect up all the guns with immunity. Technically, if it is the U.N. collecting your guns, you have no recourse since they are outside the authority of the constitution. Who you gonna sue over your civil rights violation? The U.N.? In what jurisdiction?



    .
    In the beginning, the patriot is a scarce man -- brave, hated, and scorned. But when his cause succeeds, the timid join him. For then, it costs nothing to be a patriot. -- Mark Twain

  7. #6
    What most people in America keep dancing around and won't dare talk about is the probability that Obama is truly a
    "closet Muslim" that has been planted here to help destroy us from within. Even if he is in fact "home grown", I believe that his aim is to damage America as much as he possibly can while he is in a position to do so. Does anyone really think that anything, anything that this man is doing is actually in the best interest of America???? Taking over of banks. Taking over of 2 of the Big 3 auto makers, kicking the stock and bond holders in the teeth, taking a percentage of the company for the government and giving most of the rest to the freaking UNIONS? Does this remotely sound like the America we know and grew up in. Socialization of the medical industry. How American is that??? Giving Interpol untold, as yet, authority on American soil apparently answerable to no one??? Apologizing to the rest of the world for America being so successful because it's always been the land of opportunity where anyone who was willing to work hard, save their money and build something for themselves and their families - legal or illegal immigrants alike???? When are we going to realize, as a nation,
    that we're being sold down the river by not only Obama but our own elected officials who have also sold us out? If we don't take control back of our country in the next 3 years, it's gone! Sunk! Finished! Welcome to Amerika!
    From RugerP345: So they can collect up all the guns with immunity. Technically, if it is the U.N. collecting your guns, you have no recourse since they are outside the authority of the constitution. Who you gonna sue over your civil rights violation? The U.N.? In what jurisdiction?
    Recourse? You don't need recourse if you shoot the first SOB that knocks on your door and asks/demands your guns.
    Why would I want to live in a country anyway where I would not be able to defend myself, my family and my country. I'd
    rather die at my front door than in a country that was nothing more than just one big jail cell.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Fresno, California
    Posts
    3

    Thumbs up Our Wonderful President??????????????????????

    Happy New Years (to all of the "Usacarry.com" members & their families)

    It's all beginning to make sense now.
    There is a radio program (Coast to Coast AM) that is on late at night on the AM. A popular conspiracy theory, about "black helicopters and United Nations troops in 'Blue Berets" comes up regularly. All these years, I've chuckled when ever that plot came up by one of the shows guests.
    Well, I'm not laughing anymore now.
    I'm going to do my best to spread the news about this latest mistake by our beloved president.


    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by bulldogpi View Post
    Happy New Years (to all of the "Usacarry.com" members & their families)

    It's all beginning to make sense now.
    There is a radio program (Coast to Coast AM) that is on late at night on the AM. A popular conspiracy theory, about "black helicopters and United Nations troops in 'Blue Berets" comes up regularly. All these years, I've chuckled when ever that plot came up by one of the shows guests.
    Well, I'm not laughing anymore now.
    I'm going to do my best to spread the news about this latest mistake by our beloved president.


    GOD BLESS AMERICA
    Only thing is it is no mistake. It is a well thought out plan that has been in the making for a long time. Anyway welcome to USACarry.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  10. #9

  11. Quote Originally Posted by bulldogpi View Post
    Happy New Years (to all of the "Usacarry.com" members & their families)

    It's all beginning to make sense now.
    There is a radio program (Coast to Coast AM) that is on late at night on the AM. A popular conspiracy theory, about "black helicopters and United Nations troops in 'Blue Berets" comes up regularly. All these years, I've chuckled when ever that plot came up by one of the shows guests.
    Well, I'm not laughing anymore now.
    I'm going to do my best to spread the news about this latest mistake by our beloved president.


    GOD BLESS AMERICA
    Thank you my friend. I have emailed many people about this and hope they in turn will do the same. Help us spread the word. God bless you and your loved ones thie New Year.

    TFO

    PS Join as in D.C. 4-19-10 if you can.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast