Wednesday, January 27, 2010

On Obama

Just a quick note on what I heard in Obama's state of the union speech:  A whole lot of what the American people want to hear and nothing about what his real plans are, unless you are talking about his strict "sanctions" on Iran.  Heck, maybe he'll just give them the evil eye.  Maybe I am just sick of politics.  I did hear the words he said and noticed that there was spin.  Yes, even in the state of the union.  So much politicking, trying to force republicans to vote for his agenda, "because you can't just vote against everything".  It is as bad as when he claimed that the reason Massachussetts voted in a Republican on a platform of conservatism and smaller government was because the voters there were angry with the Bush Administration and wanted to send a message.  Is anyone even buying this anymore?  He is starting to believe he really is the second coming of Christ.  He really must. I cannot figure him out.  I really don't want to believe that he hates this country, but what his policies are doing to it just defy understanding.  Unless it is an understanding of communism and socialism.  He said some real whoppers tonight also.  I was listening to it on the radio, and I could hear the laughter and some of the crap he was trying to sell, by some of his democrat representatives no less I'm sure.  I think it took them off gaurd just as much.

So, after two weeks of back to back republican meetings(County and state committe meetings) I at least have a sense of where at least the majority of republicanism has moved.  And it is to the right, toward a more conservative base and a proponant of smaller government.  I am energized by the platforms adopted by both committees.  I will post some of the platforms in posts to come, but what was refreshing was the adoption of verbage which reads more or less as, a platform based on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the united States.  And then of course supporting the National republican platform but this is where I like the precedent being set:  If the Republican National Commitee endorses a candidate that does not represent the platfor of the Declaration and Constitution, then our committee cannot and will not endorse that candidate.  As in Massachussetts, tea party organizations full of independents and democrats as well as republicans are coming out in force and voting conservative.  Some things are not about just party.  If you are a RINO, WATCH OUT! 

That being shared, LETS CLEAN HOUSE! (and senate, lol)

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Supreme Court upholds First Amendment

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and appropriately struck down government prohibitions on many sorts of privately-funded political advertising. In doing so, Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky argues, the court "upheld some of the most important principles: the right to engage in free speech, particularly political speech, and the right to freely associate."
The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated as a question about campaign finance laws and whether they apply to an unflattering film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton. After the government argued that campaign finance laws could even lead to bans on books, the Court ordered a rare re-argument to address the broader constitutionality of limiting corporations' independent spending during federal election campaigns.
It was a question of "ancient First Amendment principles," the Court stated in its majority opinion. It is no coincidence that the rights to free speech and assembly are among the first mentioned in our Bill of Rights -- our Founders recognized that these rights are essential to the preservation of a free government.

"Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy and the means to hold officials accountable to the people," Spakovsky argues. But the right to free speech is not limited to individual persons, he argues. For-profit and non-profit organizations are greatly "affected, damaged, or even lost" by the laws Congress passes, so there is "no rational reason why they should not be able to engage in independent political activity."
Those who criticize the Court's 5-4 decision fail to recognize a key component about this critical First Principle: free speech "is written in terms of 'speech,' not speakers," as Justice Scalia explained in a concurring opinion. It is a right that applies to all. To deny it to would be an obfuscation of the written law and a violation of a fundamental right.

By Amanda J. Reinecker

Friday, January 15, 2010

Obama's Secret Vault

On Glenn Beck's Jan. 7 show, he was rightly puzzled regarding the exact purpose of President Barack Obama's Dec. 16 signing of an executive order "DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES."




Beck spoke for a host of other government watchdogs when he said on the air: "We've been asking ever since it was signed: Why? Who can tell me what special interest group asked for this? If it were about terror, why not tell us that when he signed it? This Congress attacks our CIA and FBI, but Interpol gets immunity? Why? It makes no sense."



Glenn, I agree. But I think I recently have seen behind the veil on the White House's covert mission and mystery with Interpol.



The rest of Obama's executive order reads: "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."



Critical here is Obama's deletion of Section 2C exceptions, which come from the United States International Organizations Immunities Act: "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." (As ThreatsWatch noted, "Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery.")



But why, at this point in U.S. history, would the White House want Interpol to be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and the regulations of search and seizure? White House and Interpol officials contend that the only reason for Obama's executive order was to update Ronald Reagan's 1983 executive order to accommodate Interpol's permanent residency and bring equity to its standing among other international organizations.



Many in the conservative world have accused Obama of extending Interpol's legal exemptions for the purpose of empowering a global police force, but I believe there's a much closer goal and strategic reason he gave this presidential edict. And it dawned on me when I read seven words said by Interpol spokeswoman Rachel Billington, who explained to The New York Times the applicable location of the president's executive order: "It's only for the New York office."



"Only for the New York office"? Mm.



Is it possible the Obama administration specifically and soon plans to use Interpol's New York office for some covert purpose that would require Interpol's exemption from having its property or records subject to search and seizure?



Is it merely coincidental that Obama signed this executive order and that New York is the feds' city of choice in which to place 9/11 terrorists on trial in federal court?



Is it merely coincidental that Obama signed this executive order and that the feds now have the close proximity of Interpol archives that are exempt from American legal and investigative discovery and the Freedom of Information Act requests by the media and U.S. citizens?



Is it merely coincidental that Obama signed this executive order and that Interpol's U.S. central operations office is under the umbrella of and within our own Justice Department's offices? (Interpol -- which was started in 1923 and is made up of 188 country members, including the U.S. and Yemen -- has its bureau in the Department of Justice.)



Is it merely coincidental that Obama signed this executive order and that an Interpol spokeswoman explained that "it's only for the New York office," whose five staff members now have access to law enforcement information submitted by other countries that no U.S. authority, official, agency or citizen can view for any reason (without Interpol's waiver)?



Again, ThreatsWatch hit the nail on the head: Immunity from search and seizure "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."



If international terrorists' criminal records are allowed to pass through or be housed temporarily in New York's Interpol storage bin, they will be as safe as the gold at Fort Knox. Al Capone's vault had nothing on Obama's new Interpol repository!



Of course, it's not too late for the White House to be transparent and confess exactly why Obama granted Interpol's exemption from search and seizure laws at this critical point in the war on terror. What we do know now, however, is why the wisdom of President Reagan limited Interpol's immunities and why Obama's deletions of Reagan's executive order should have stayed intact for this international law enforcement agency.

written by Chuck Norris

Sons & Daughters of Liberty

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

Liberty link

Please visit The Liberty Sphere or any of the links to the right for updated posts on gun control and politics we should be aware of.

And please join the Sons and Daughters of Liberty list by following this blog. Click on the link at the top of this page to follow this blog.