Obama's U.S. assassination program? Part 2
Exclusive: Chuck Norris reveals why Interpol exempt from U.S. search, seizure laws
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 02, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
By Chuck Norris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Part 1 last week, I gave evidence of how the Obama administration is importing its overseas policy to assassinate U.S. citizens and implementing it stateside against citizens it deems as radical threats to American security and safety. (If you have not read it, please read Part 1 before you read remaining of Part 2).
National security adviser John Brennan explained that the problem of homegrown terrorists ranks as a top priority because of the increasing number of U.S. individuals who have become "captivated by extremist ideology or causes." He went on to say, "There are … dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world that are very concerning to us."
Former director of national intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair even confessed before Congress: "We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."
That's right. No arrest. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet.
Ironically, or maybe not so, and also under the radar, the Supreme Court just ruled to back off strict enforcement of Miranda rights. Charles Weisselberg, a law professor at U.C. Berkeley, said, "This is the most important Miranda decision in a decade. And it will have a substantial impact on police practices. This decision approves of the practice of giving the warnings and then asking questions of the suspect, without asking first whether he wants to waive his rights."
President Obama himself explained in an often overlooked statement within the document of the National Security Strategy: "We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. … This includes a determination to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people by fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home."
Now, it finally is coming to light why back on Dec. 16, 2009, Obama signed an executive order "designating Interpol [International Criminal Police Organization] as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions and immunities."
Glenn Beck spoke for a host of other government watchdogs back then, when he asked on the air on his Jan. 7 show, "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."
It all comes down to one basic verb. Can you find it in the following paragraph?
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) ..."
There's the magic verb: "to extend"!
As I wrote in an earlier column on Interpol, is it also just coincidental that Interpol is exempt from typical American search-and-seizure laws?
Anyone still not connecting the dots?
There is one more titanic element that I must stress. The one overriding dilemma for Americans in Obama's hunt for homegrown terrorists is that, remember, he has changed the definitions of terrorism and terrorists. Their definitions no longer necessarily include or infer Islamic extremism or extremists.
Don't ever forget: Obama and his administration have repeatedly played down the actual threat of terrorism by Islamic jihadists. In 2008, then–presidential candidate Obama promised to close down Gitmo in his first year of presidency because, he said, it was an affront to American values and justice. He also promised to end the "warrantless wiretaps" of George Bush. In March of 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano proclaimed there was no terrorism – only "man-caused disasters." In the same month, the Obama administration also proclaimed that there are "no enemy combatants" and "no war on terror" – only an "overseas contingency operation." And, in May 2010, Obama top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan added, "... nor we do describe our enemies as jihadists."
We are therefore left to wonder: to the Obama administration, what exactly qualifies as radical extremism and terrorism and who is on their "shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing"? Consider even now who might fall into this category of non-Islamic, non-jihadist stateside homegrown terrorists. Do I need to make a list?
That's another thing that really chaps my hide. While Obama ratchets up the power and pursuit of homegrown U.S. terrorists, why in God's name is he loosening his grip over Muslim extremists who are right now planning, recruiting and seeking to carry out harm against the very U.S. citizens he has sworn to protect?
To add insult to injury, on July 27, 2004, at the Democratic convention, during the presidency of George W. Bush and just three years after Sept. 11, then-Sen. Barack Obama declared to the country, "If there is an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties."
And yet he doesn't feel obligated as president to fight for other ethnic U.S. citizens' rights or due process, even if defined by the White House as terrorists?
Am I missing something?
When the executive branch solely defines what and who is a terrorist and enlarges its unilateral power to execute the death penalty on U.S. citizens without due process or a trial, does not the whole country see this as Washington power run amok?
Has the White House not completely strayed, when the president of the United States minimizes the role of Islamic jihadists, reserves the right to assassinate U.S. citizens regarded as terrorists without due process or a trial, increases the powers of law-enforcement agencies like Interpol who are not bound to search-and-seizure laws, sues the state of Arizona for enforcing illegal-immigration border control, and does nothing to prohibit an Islamic victory mega-mosque on the edge of Ground Zero? (The very name "Cordoba House" refers to Cordoba, Spain, where Muslim conquerors symbolized their victory over Christianity by transforming a church into one of the largest mosques in the world.)
I don't care if the policy is from Barack Obama, George W. Bush or George Washington, there's absolutely no justifying one iota of this type of unconstitutional, unbridled and unchecked reckless wielding of executive power and privileges.
Rep. Ron Paul was 100 percent correct when he replied about these abhorrent acts by the federal government: "These activities should be anathema to the citizens of a constitutional republic."
I guess the Obama administration forgot to read the Dec. 4, 1981, Executive Order 12333 signed by then-President Ronald Reagan: "2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. 2.12 Indirect Participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order."
Tragically, they are also again abandoning the fundamental principles of due process, habeas corpus and our Constitution, which states in the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."
God, help us. God, protect U.S. citizens. God, save our courts. God, save our land. God, restore our republic.
(Check out other reasons why Chuck opposes the Obama administration in his new patriot service announcement.)
Exclusive: Chuck Norris reveals why Interpol exempt from U.S. search, seizure laws
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 02, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
By Chuck Norris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Part 1 last week, I gave evidence of how the Obama administration is importing its overseas policy to assassinate U.S. citizens and implementing it stateside against citizens it deems as radical threats to American security and safety. (If you have not read it, please read Part 1 before you read remaining of Part 2).
National security adviser John Brennan explained that the problem of homegrown terrorists ranks as a top priority because of the increasing number of U.S. individuals who have become "captivated by extremist ideology or causes." He went on to say, "There are … dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world that are very concerning to us."
Former director of national intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair even confessed before Congress: "We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."
That's right. No arrest. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet.
Ironically, or maybe not so, and also under the radar, the Supreme Court just ruled to back off strict enforcement of Miranda rights. Charles Weisselberg, a law professor at U.C. Berkeley, said, "This is the most important Miranda decision in a decade. And it will have a substantial impact on police practices. This decision approves of the practice of giving the warnings and then asking questions of the suspect, without asking first whether he wants to waive his rights."
President Obama himself explained in an often overlooked statement within the document of the National Security Strategy: "We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. … This includes a determination to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people by fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home."
Now, it finally is coming to light why back on Dec. 16, 2009, Obama signed an executive order "designating Interpol [International Criminal Police Organization] as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions and immunities."
Glenn Beck spoke for a host of other government watchdogs back then, when he asked on the air on his Jan. 7 show, "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."
It all comes down to one basic verb. Can you find it in the following paragraph?
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) ..."
There's the magic verb: "to extend"!
As I wrote in an earlier column on Interpol, is it also just coincidental that Interpol is exempt from typical American search-and-seizure laws?
Anyone still not connecting the dots?
There is one more titanic element that I must stress. The one overriding dilemma for Americans in Obama's hunt for homegrown terrorists is that, remember, he has changed the definitions of terrorism and terrorists. Their definitions no longer necessarily include or infer Islamic extremism or extremists.
Don't ever forget: Obama and his administration have repeatedly played down the actual threat of terrorism by Islamic jihadists. In 2008, then–presidential candidate Obama promised to close down Gitmo in his first year of presidency because, he said, it was an affront to American values and justice. He also promised to end the "warrantless wiretaps" of George Bush. In March of 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano proclaimed there was no terrorism – only "man-caused disasters." In the same month, the Obama administration also proclaimed that there are "no enemy combatants" and "no war on terror" – only an "overseas contingency operation." And, in May 2010, Obama top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan added, "... nor we do describe our enemies as jihadists."
We are therefore left to wonder: to the Obama administration, what exactly qualifies as radical extremism and terrorism and who is on their "shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing"? Consider even now who might fall into this category of non-Islamic, non-jihadist stateside homegrown terrorists. Do I need to make a list?
That's another thing that really chaps my hide. While Obama ratchets up the power and pursuit of homegrown U.S. terrorists, why in God's name is he loosening his grip over Muslim extremists who are right now planning, recruiting and seeking to carry out harm against the very U.S. citizens he has sworn to protect?
To add insult to injury, on July 27, 2004, at the Democratic convention, during the presidency of George W. Bush and just three years after Sept. 11, then-Sen. Barack Obama declared to the country, "If there is an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties."
And yet he doesn't feel obligated as president to fight for other ethnic U.S. citizens' rights or due process, even if defined by the White House as terrorists?
Am I missing something?
When the executive branch solely defines what and who is a terrorist and enlarges its unilateral power to execute the death penalty on U.S. citizens without due process or a trial, does not the whole country see this as Washington power run amok?
Has the White House not completely strayed, when the president of the United States minimizes the role of Islamic jihadists, reserves the right to assassinate U.S. citizens regarded as terrorists without due process or a trial, increases the powers of law-enforcement agencies like Interpol who are not bound to search-and-seizure laws, sues the state of Arizona for enforcing illegal-immigration border control, and does nothing to prohibit an Islamic victory mega-mosque on the edge of Ground Zero? (The very name "Cordoba House" refers to Cordoba, Spain, where Muslim conquerors symbolized their victory over Christianity by transforming a church into one of the largest mosques in the world.)
I don't care if the policy is from Barack Obama, George W. Bush or George Washington, there's absolutely no justifying one iota of this type of unconstitutional, unbridled and unchecked reckless wielding of executive power and privileges.
Rep. Ron Paul was 100 percent correct when he replied about these abhorrent acts by the federal government: "These activities should be anathema to the citizens of a constitutional republic."
I guess the Obama administration forgot to read the Dec. 4, 1981, Executive Order 12333 signed by then-President Ronald Reagan: "2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. 2.12 Indirect Participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order."
Tragically, they are also again abandoning the fundamental principles of due process, habeas corpus and our Constitution, which states in the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."
God, help us. God, protect U.S. citizens. God, save our courts. God, save our land. God, restore our republic.
(Check out other reasons why Chuck opposes the Obama administration in his new patriot service announcement.)
posted by shummer60 at Monday, September 06, 2010
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home