The Consistency of Inconsistency

Wow…where do I begin? The most transparent administration this nation has ever seen is about to hold it’s first press conference in more than three hundred days; Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department is beginning the process to challenge Arizona’s immigration law but refuses to investigate allegations that a member of the White House may have committed a felony in offering Representative Joe Sestak a Federal position in exchange for abandoning his primary challenge against Senator Arlen Specter or perhaps the wink and nod given to SEIU protestors by Maryland police when they amassed 500 people on the private property of a Bank or America attorney to protest housing foreclosures?

The news is abuzz with the announcement that President Obama will hold a general press conference before departing for another tour of the Gulf coast to review the steps taken to halt the major oil spill there. This would not ordinarily be news but the President’s last open press conference was more than three hundred days ago. Three hundred days ago, the healthcare bill had not passed, the Fort Hood massacre had not occurred, the failed terror attacks on a flight bound for Chicago and in New York’s Times Square were months in the future and Arizona had not passed its controversial Immigration Law.

Some would argue that the President is not the coach of a sports team or the spokesman for Gillette but consumed with the matters of State and has little time for such things. I think the responses issued for the President by the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, says more about this administration’s disdain for the media than it does about the President’s busy schedule. The Gibbs press appearances usually take one of three distinct tracks; he refuses to answer, blames the Republicans or accuses the Tea Party of distorting the truth. In fact, the President does not hold press conferences because he and his advisors believe the press is a distraction; that if the truth were printed it would represent a danger to his agenda.

This disdain for the press can be witnessed in the White House’s handling of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagen. They have refused to allow the press access to Kagan for the usual round of interviews and instead, provided the press with a copy of an interview conducted by a White House staffer. Kagan was asked only the questions that she could answer without jeopardizing her nomination and her answers were as innocuous as the questions were. Is this free press? Of course not but this administration is not impressed with the Constitutional guarantee of a free press nor is it restrained in its obvious attempt to manipulate that fundamental guardian of freedom. Obama’s own appointee to the newly created position of Chief Diversity Officer within the FCC, Mark Lloyd, was not ashamed to comment that if Hugo Chavez had not restrained the free press in Venezuela that his “amazing” revolution could not have occurred; a lesson apparently not wasted on Obama and his thugs.

Lloyd is not the only member of the Obama administration that believes the First Amendment is a problem. Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, was quoted as saying the First Amendment is “highly overrated” and Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar, says the First Amendment needs to be “reformulated” to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.” In other words, if a majority of American’s are opposed to their Progressive views on governance then there should be legal methods available to them so as to silence a portion of that majority and provide the illusion that there are just as many supporters. In the end, all I really expect from the President during this press conference is more smoke in mirrors and a shameless attempt to use the oil spill to try and sell his cap and tax, energy bill. After all, Rahm Emmanuel said “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Eric Holder has become just another caricature in the Obama circus as his Justice Department seems to have lost the meaning of justice. As Attorney General, Holder is supposed to be the highest law enforcement officer in the United States but his political and ideological prejudices have prevented him from effectively discharging those duties. He spoke out against Arizona’s immigration law and commented that he was contemplating legal action to block it weeks before he admitted that he had never read it. Justice?

Holder’s Justice Department refused to act against Black Panther Militants that positioned themselves outside polling places wielding clubs during the 2008 Presidential election. The official statement made by the department is that there was a “lack of evidence” that there was any attempt to interfere with the election. I’m not sure what evidence they need but I’m sure civilians in combat boots holding police style batons within five feet of the front door of a polling place is in that book somewhere. Justice?

Holder’s Justice Department also refuses to investigate charges that a member of the White House offered Representative Joe Sestak a position within the administration in exchange for dropping his primary challenge against Senator Arlen Specter; a challenge that Sestak won handily. This charge, if true, represents a fundamental violation of United States law and the person or person’s involved would have committed a felony if found guilty. The election process is one of America’s most prized rights and any attempt to tamper with that process must be met with the full weight of the law. Of course, if the Justice Department doesn’t recognize that loitering in front of a polling place armed with a weapon is tampering with the electoral process then why should their muted reaction to this surprise us?

Now we have the Washington DC police spotted escorting fourteen buses loaded with SEIU thugs on their mission to torment an attorney in the employ of the Bank of America. The official statement was that this was a lawful protest staged by union members outraged by the flurry of recent home foreclosures but is it? Five-hundred “protestors” exited the buses and congregated on the lawn and front porch of the Bank of America attorney with signs and bull horns. This was a private residence on a small suburban street so whose attention was this protest meant to gain? The only member of the media invited to the “protest” was a blogger that contributes to the liberal rag-sheet, The Huffington Post so it certainly wasn’t for the benefit of the press. It wasn’t a march down Main Street so it wasn’t for the benefit of the public. Was it an expression of the forces that SEIU could assemble meant to intimidate the opposition? That’s what it looks like to me.

While the DC police say that “trailing” assembling protestors are done in the interest of public safety, what the Maryland police did, or did not do, was far more disturbing. The protestors were in clear violation of Maryland law regarding disturbing the peace but Maryland police focused their attention solely on trespass laws. For someone to be in violation of the Maryland trespass law, the property owner would have to request that the trespasser leave the property and the trespasser would then have to refuse before the police can lawfully act. However, the ordinances preserving the peace prohibit any one or any group from entering private property and creating a disturbance through loud noises or threatening gestures. Other residents of the area say they overheard police telling the besieged attorney that they were concerned that police involvement would further incite the mob.

The official comment from the Maryland Police Chief was that the officers dispatched to the scene arrived as the protesters were dispersing and did not witness the activities that were alleged by the neighborhood residents. They categorically deny that the officers said anything about being fearful of inciting the mob and that the acts that the police witnessed were peaceful and within the bounds of the law. Really? Five hundred people carrying signs can walk across your lawn in Maryland, scream over a bull horn, frighten your neighbors and children and no violation of law has occurred?

DC police said they called Maryland police as the caravan of school buses crossed into Maryland and the Maryland police took over from there. Now we are supposed to believe that the mob found parking for fourteen school buses in a quiet suburban neighborhood, discharged their passengers, organized the group and concluded their protest all in the minutes between that call and the arrival of the responding officers? It sounds to me like the SEIU got a free pass by Maryland police. Could that be because of the pressures that unions are facing as Cities and States are asking for concessions as they wrestle with devastating budget shortfalls? Could it be that since SEIU represents thousands of municipal workers that some police organizations may see them as kindred spirits deserving of their respect and assistance? If so, where does that place the public in this new alliance of self-serving special interests?

This incident is also deserving of investigation by Federal authorities but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Former SEIU President, Andy Stern, is still a frequent visitor to the White House and an Obama advisor which pretty much guarantees the SEIU a pass from the so-called Justice Department too.

Paul

The World Apology Tour Continues

No world apology tour would be complete until the Obama administration apologized to China for perceived human rights abuses right here at home. Assistant Secretary of State and left wing screwball, Michael Posner, spoke candidly about his meetings with Chinese officials. The meeting included Posner’s suggestion that Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law represents a disturbing trend within the United States and an illustration on how America must address its own human and civil rights issues. Posner also spoke about the U.S. treatment of Muslims implying that our post-9-11 policies amount to a procedural mistreatment of Muslims and that those policies are themselves, a human rights concern.

Arizona Senators Jon Kyle and John McCain drafted an open letter to Posner demanding an apology saying that "To compare in any way the lawful and democratic act of the government of the state of Arizona with the arbitrary abuses of the unelected Chinese Communist Party is inappropriate and offensive." Just the idea that we would apologize to China for exercising our right as a sovereign nation to secure our borders is ludicrous. Our laws are based on due process and Constitutional practices that protect human rights while China secures its own borders with iron bars and lead bullets. Add to that that China is one of the world’s worst violators of human rights even if we can’t come right out and say it. After all, you can’t anger your banker, now can you?

Of course, the Obama administration only apologizes for America and not to America so Kyle and McCain will undoubtedly have a long wait. The State Department immediately defended Posner's comments. Spokesman P.J. Crowley disputed the notion Posner was apologizing to China when he was actually "standing up" for America by demonstrating how debate works in a "civil society." Crowley did, however, support the Obama's administrations concern of the Arizona law, stating, "There is, as many have said, real concerns about -- that this Arizona law will inevitably devolve into racial profiling. That would be a fundamental challenge to human rights around the world.” Of course, when Crowley was questioned as to whether or not he had actually read the Arizona statute, Crowley had to admit he had not.

Crowley is in good company. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke forcefully about his concerns regarding the Arizona law and how the Justice Department was considering filing suit to block its implementation. Curiously, as he was being questioned about his concerns by Arizona Senator, John McCain, Holder sheepishly admitted that he had not actually read the bill and that his concerns were based on what he had seen about the law on television. Well, isn’t that refreshing! CNN and MSNBC are now the legal research arm of the United States Justice Department. We are going to save a fortune in tax payer dollars now that we can eliminate all those high-priced attorneys and legal aides in Holder’s Justice Department. Apparently, all we have to do now is install a bank of televisions in Holder’s office. In fact, why stop there? Why not let Judge Judy adulate Federal cases and close the Justice Department altogether.

Department of Homeland Security chief and former Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano, was also questioned by John McCain after she voiced her concerns about Arizona’s illegal immigration law and again, admitted that she had not read the law either but “knows of it”. When a high government official takes a stance on something as delicate as immigration or involving State’s right, I expect that they should have more than a vague idea of what the issue is before they speak out for, or against it.

Arizona has been left to deal with what has become a full-fledged border town drug war. The police are outmanned and out-gunned by Mexican drug runners and American citizens are being accosted while their properties are routinely violated by roving gangs of Mexican nationals. Despite numerous calls for assistance to fight a growing and dangerous wave of illegal border crossings, the Federal government has been deaf to this plea for help prompting Arizona to act unilaterally. Instead of fulfilling their Constitutional obligation to combat an ongoing foreign incursion onto American soil, the Federal government is now in the process of invoking eminent domain to seize five acres of private farm land in Vermont to strengthen the border between the United States and Canada. While border security is a high priority, the Obama administration is, as with everything else they have done, taken America 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Mexican President Calderon joined with Obama this week in denouncing Arizona because of the illegal immigration law which is laughable since Mexican law is far more punitive and unforgiving than anything Arizona is attempting. Mexican law prohibits any form of assistance until a person’s immigration status has been confirmed. According to Mexican law, even Mexican police, medical and emergency services can be withheld until you prove that you are in that country lawfully. Of course, I don’t hear a whimper from the Obama administration about the danger that policy represents to human rights but the administration’s outrage really isn’t about human rights or immigration now is it?

So why has the Obama administration spoke out so harshly against Arizona’s immigration law? The law is taken directly from Federal immigration policy and Arizona lawmakers have actually strengthened the safeguards that protect innocent people from being needlessly harassed. The law requires that the police must have already stopped, detained or arrested someone under suspicion of a crime and the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the subject is in the country illegally before they can be questioned about their immigration status. The laws goes even further in providing protection against racial profiling by requiring that the officer’s suspicion must be based on something other than race. The corresponding Federal law offers no such protection against racial profiling.

The reason the administration is so dead set against this law is because it is based on the State’s right to self determination and affirms the Tenth Amendment protection of the sovereignty of the States. To allow the Arizona law to stand would pose serious agenda difficulties for an administration that is attempting to harness the States under the yoke of Federal control. This is only the first real challenge to Obama and his band of radical friends and Socialist advisors. The truth is the Constitutional authority for a State to enact immigration policy within that State’s own borders has already been tested in the Supreme Court, and our highest court recognized the State’s right to craft that policy.

Despite the precedent established by the Supreme Court, the Obama administration has made fighting Arizona’s immigration law a gilt edge priority because it is based on the State’s Tenth Amendment rights. A victory for Arizona in this will set the stage for additional State challenges against the Healthcare Bill, the UN gun control initiative and a national energy policy. This is about power and they have already lied about the intent and scope of the immigration law to broker as much opposition against it as possible. Fortunately, Arizona has the weight of law, the hammer of truth and the power of public support behind her as she enters the arena. This is still the United States and we still live under the rule of law. Obama may think that the Federal government has the authority to impose its will simply because they are the giant in this battle but they have obviously forgotten the story of David and Goliath. Well, Arizona is ready with the sling of truth and stone of the Constitution.

Paul

Arizona's New Immigration Law

Arizona recently passed, and signed into law, “strict new” immigration legislation which has brought the State under fire and thrust it into the national spotlight this week. The truth behind this legislation is that it is hardly new and considerably less strict that the opponents would have you believe. Open border advocates are incensed that Arizona would have the nerve to pass a law that basically says that something that is illegal is, well, illegal. The armies of the left are shouting accusations that Arizona has adopted Nazi tactics and will be asking people walking down the street for their “papers”. Cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles are calling for boycotts against Arizona as if California still has enough industry left after their experiment with Progressivism to make all that much of a difference to Arizona. In fact, I think that if Arizona continues down the path of Conservatism and adopts some “business smart” tax policies, they could easily capture what business California has managed to hold on to while that State imposes more ridiculous regulations, falls deeper in debt and taxes climb even higher. Hey, in Arizona you can still get a McDonald's Happy Meal with a toy!

The law Arizona passed is nearly an identical copy of existing Federal law but unlike “Big Brother’s” edition, the Arizona law specifically prohibits race as a consideration. Those subjected to scrutiny under this new law must have been stopped by the police for an obvious infraction of existing law or must be displaying suspicious behavior. Once contact with law enforcement has been made, the police must also have a reasonable suspicion that the subject is in this country illegally before asking for identification, excluding race as a cause for suspicion. Of course, that is the part of the story that the main stream press and open border proponents have intentionally left out of their description of what Arizona has done.

There will be no swarms of police harassing Latinos on the streets of Phoenix; there will be no door to door searches of private property and there will be no traffic stops to check citizenship. Arguably, there are some police officers that have engaged in behavior that is prohibited under department rules and in some cases, race was clearly the motivation. That is a sad state of affairs wherever it happens and it has happened all over America at one time or another. While the media would have you believe that this is standard procedure for most police departments the truth is that this is not representative of the vast majority of police and the explosion of camera phones and digital video recorders have been very effective at exposing those individuals and removing them from duty.

The safeguards against racial profiling present in the Arizona law will actually serve to spotlight police officers that believe they can act with impunity and abuse the power they have been given. With every civil rights organization focused on finding those abuses, is there any doubt that the slightest infraction will not be met with a torrent of legal challenges and in the prosecution of the offending officer? In fact, Arizona may well turn out to be the best place in the country for lawful immigrants as police abuses in other cities are dismissed as meaningless because of their enlightened laws where immigration status is concerned. Let’s face it, burglars don’t break into a house across the street from a police station; they go where no one is looking and all eyes are on Arizona right now.

The President has called Arizona’s new law “misguided” and that it only illustrates the need for the Federal government to enact comprehensive immigration reform before other States follow suit. Attorney General Eric Holder is exploring the possibility of challenging the law in court and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said that he believes the Arizona law is unconstitutional. This only displays their lack of understanding of the law that Arizona has passed. Since it is based on existing Federal law, if the Arizona law is unconstitutional and violates civic rights, so does the Federal law. This is little more than political posturing. Lindsey Graham, a Progressive Republican, has long pushed for an amnesty program that would grant legal status to the hoards of people that have already broken American law to be in the United States but we’ve tried amnesty before; haven’t we? The purpose of the last amnesty program was to prevent the hardships that illegal immigrants would face after they had already established a life in this country if they were sought out by new immigration laws and repatriated.

We granted amnesty to those illegal immigrants that had maintained residence in the United States for at least five years with the understanding that we would improve border security and provide for effective enforcement of immigration law in the future. So far, the Federal government failed miserably in its responsibility to secure our borders and that is the reason for Arizona’s new law. Isn’t it funny that one of the things that Congress is clearly responsible for, the defense of the nation, has taken a back seat to healthcare reform, Cap and Trade and the takeover of General Motors; none of which can be found in the Constitution. Clearly, if you want actual examples of misguided legislation, you must look to Washington, not Arizona.

In recent years, Arizona and other Border States have been inundated with a virtual tidal wave of violent criminal activity because of the drug wars in Mexico. In the absence of any meaningful act by the Federal government to prevent this flood of drugs, criminals and yes, innocent Mexican citizens seeking asylum from the brutality of lawless drug gangs in their home land, Arizona was forced into action to preserve law, order and quality of life. Those that are opposed to the law either do not understand its limitations or are located a comfortable distance from the war zone brewing at the Arizona border and just don’t give a damn. The Mexican government is, and always has been, a bad partner in eliminating these problems and has actually encouraged illegal immigration into the United States rather than take the next logical step towards their own legitimacy. When Arizona police have found illegal immigrants, they have never been able to count on the Mexican government to provide accurate information about criminal history and that is what has cast a cloud of suspicion over all illegal immigrants.

Arizona has long been tolerant where immigration is concerned and aside from the questionable activities of the Maricopa Sherriff’s department, has provided a safe and beneficial environment for people seeking a better life. Most of the residents of Arizona go about their lives with out race as a consideration and we have been able to build a pretty decent life here with a level of diversity that most of the country would find baffling. Truth is; we don’t care. What we do care about is crime and how that affects our families. The drug gangs waging war in Mexico are particularly brutal and have no consideration for human life and the Federal government has offered no help against their intrusion into Arizona.

Did it help that Attorney General Eric Holder intruded to make sure that three members of the infamous MS13 (Mara Salvatrucha) gang would not receive the death penalty? The three were in the United States illegally, were arrested in Virginia and charged with murder and conspiracy. As Federal prosecutors were preparing their case, Holder stepped in and instructed them not to seek the death penalty. Holder refused to comment on what prompted his involvement in this case but apparently he believes that Michigan militia men and Arizonans are far more dangerous than your run of the mill, murder for hire foreign drug gangs or international terrorists for that matter.

It is this insane posture assumed by the Federal government that forced Arizona to take unilateral action. If we are to be left to protect ourselves by a disinterested Washington, then they should not be surprised when the people on the front lines actually take action. Los Angeles’s reaction is a little surprising since they have had some of the same issues with their shared border with Mexico. San Francisco had previously announced that they are a “sanctuary city” and would not cooperate with Federal immigration law so who cares what kind of immigration problems San Francisco has. Sanctuary was really only a fun little political ploy but seriously, considering where they are located, who could they possibly be getting flooded with; Oregonians?

Maybe that is where the real racism is in all this? Los Angeles was very quick to denounce Arizona and has called for a boycott of Arizona businesses even though the law was carefully crafted to avoid any possibility of racial profiling. Is it because they believe Arizona’s new law is that outrageous or is there a real fear among Los Angeles politicians that illegal immigrants residing in Arizona may leave the State to avoid deportation and show up in L.A.; posing an additional burden to their local services? Why hasn’t the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco extended their hand to welcome this wave of refugees they have claimed will be driven from Arizona?

Well, to anyone that is in Arizona illegally all you need do is obey the law, respect your neighbors and you have nothing to fear. In fact, I’ll probably see you at the next county fair. If obeying the law is something that is a problem for you, then I would suggest you head to the sanctuary city of San Francisco. They have already said they would not cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement so that is your best chance to avoid capture and deportation.

Paul

Obama: Immunity for Interpol

On December 16 2009, President Obama issued an executive order amending the International Organizations Immunities Act. When I first heard of this, the commentator erroneously stated that the President had issued an order granting immunity to Interpol as they conduct operations within the United States. In fact, Interpol was already recognized as an International Organization in an executive order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1983 and as such, were already entitled to the immunities enumerated in the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 except for the sections of that act that were detailed in Reagan’s executive order (Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6).

In 1995, President Bill Clinton also issued an executive order amending the act as it pertained to Interpol by deleting section 2 (d). That section related to import taxes and duties on personal items brought into the country by agents of a recognized international organization. The order that Barack Obama signed was for the most part, tax related provisions that would actually require Interpol agents to pay taxes on certain monies earned within the United States. There is one little disturbing part of his order that is most definitely not tax related; Section 2 (c).

Executive Order 13524 of December 16, 2009

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

Barack Obama

In the original act, section 2(c) grants international organizations immunity from search and or confiscation of property and assets as well as declaring the archives of such an organization as inviolable. This immunity was specifically denied to Interpol in the original order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1983 and that denial was not altered by Bill Clinton’s executive order of 1995.

“The International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288)

Section 2 (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.”

Why would Interpol, an international police department, require immunity from search of their properties and assets? Why would they have a need to maintain secrecy of their records from the government of a member nation and why was that important enough to invoke a Presidential Executive Order to reverse the denial of that immunity? Something just isn’t right.

Interpol was founded in Austria in 1923 as the International Criminal Police (ICP). After the annexation of Austria by Germany in 1938, Interpol fell under Nazi control and the headquarters were moved to Berlin. During that period, the Presidents of the ICP included Otto Steinhäusl who was an SS General, chair of the Wannsee Conference and the chief executor of the “Final Solution to the Jewish question”, Arthur Nebe, a general in the SS and Einsatzgruppen leader under whose command at least 46,000 people were killed, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner, a general in the SS, the highest ranking SS officer executed after the Nuremberg Trial.

After the end of World War II in 1945, the organization was revived as the International Criminal Police Organization by European Allies of World War II officials from Belgium, France, Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. Its new headquarters were established in Saint-Cloud, a town on the outskirts of Paris. They remained there until 1989, when they were moved to their present location, Lyon. ICPO officially adopted the name “Interpol” in 1956.

In order to maintain as politically neutral a role as possible, Interpol's constitution forbids its involvement in crimes that do not overlap several member countries, or in any political, military, religious, or racial crimes. Its work focuses primarily on public safety, terrorism, organized crime, crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, Piracy, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime and corruption.

Hmmm? I still see no reason why they would need the immunities detailed in Obama’s Executive Order; particularly immunities regarding archived information. After all, didn’t a “crotch bomber” just walk on to an international flight bound for the United States because our own intelligence and law enforcement agencies refused to share information?

The fact is that regardless of what Interpol’s constitution says, there can be no verification that they are adhering to their own constitution or that they are not impinging upon the Constitutional rights of our own citizens without the ability to subpoena and examine archived files and information if the need should arise. If one of the activities of interest to Interpol is terrorism, wouldn’t their involvement necessarily revolve around a member nation’s definition of a terrorist? We already know our own head of Homeland Security has some very curious criteria for identifying potential domestic terrorists. In fact, Janet Napolitano may have a hard time using the name “terrorist” in conjunction with Muslim extremists but curiously, she has no problem throwing that title around at American citizens, identifying whole groups (profiling) of Americans that she feels may have the potential to engage in acts of domestic terror. You know…those really suspicious tea party people, people with shaved heads and former members of the military that are not exactly pleased with the direction this nation is taking.

We also know that certain records can be catastrophic to a Presidency. Nixon’s fall centered more on eighteen minutes of missing audio tapes than it did on a third rate burglary. The steps Nixon took to categorize the people that he considered unfriendly to his administration led directly to laws prohibiting the compilation of a Presidential enemies list and resulted in requirement to archive and maintain all White House correspondence in perpetuity. No, the wrong kind of records can be very bad for a President unless you can get someone else to keep them for you….someone that cannot be forced to produce those records; maybe even an international police force that routinely keeps, well, records about people. How convenient!

Now that Hillary Clinton agreed that the US would partner with the United Nations on their small arms initiative, those records (records the United States government is prohibited from keeping) as well as the immunity of Interpol, could be very useful if the UN decided it was time collect privately owned weapons in the United States…you know…just to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. After all, Interpol (ICP) records were very useful to the Nazi’s during World War II for exactly that purpose and millions of lawfully owned weapons were confiscated using those records each time the German Army occupied a new territory.

To continue, each member country maintains a National Central Bureau (NCB) staffed by national law enforcement officers. The NCB is the designated contact point for the Interpol General Secretariat, regional bureau and other member countries requiring assistance with overseas investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives. This is especially important in countries with many law-enforcement agencies. This central bureau is a unique point of contact for foreign entities, which may not understand the complexity of the law-enforcement system of the country they attempt to contact. For instance, the NCB for the United States of America is housed at the United States Department of Justice. The NCB then ensures the proper transmission of information to the correct agency.

Well what do you know about that! The Interpol National Central Bureau for the United States is housed in the same building as the Department of Justice. Why, Interpol is neighbors with Eric Holder. Now that is convenient too. But maybe I’m reading too much into this. After all, a reputable organization like Interpol has an entire independent command structure that doesn’t answer to our President. At least I don’t think so?

As it turns out, the current Secretary General of Interpol is Ronald Kenneth Noble. Ronald Noble is an American that was the Undersecretary for Enforcement of the United States Department of the Treasury under Bill Clinton. Wow! What a coincidence! I’ll bet our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, saw him all the time back then; in fact, this must be like one of those high school reunions for them. What fun!

The President of Interpol is Khoo Boon Hui. Hui is from Singapore but believe it or not, he attended the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard right here in the good old USA. A lot of very liberal, very political people attended that school and you would not believe the connections you can make just by being an alumni and that is really, really, really convenient.

Paul

Obama Bin Laden?

Isn’t ironic that the Congress is focused on passing a healthcare bill which violates the Constitutional restraints on government authority, while at the same time, Congress has abdicated an area of responsibility that the Constitution clearly lists as a primary function of the Federal Government. To provide for the security and defense of the United States is one of the enumerated powers that is granted to the Federal Government and while our DC demagogues chase legislation to bring about a socialist utopia, the threat of Islamic terror has grown exponentially in the face of the perceived feebleness of the Obama administration.

On December 24th, Nigerian born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was aboard Northwest Airlines flight 253 as the aircraft prepared to land in Detroit Michigan. Abdulmutallab returned to his seat from a lengthy visit to the rest room where he covered himself with a blanket to hide his attempt to detonate the plastic explosive, PETN, hidden in pockets sewn into his underwear. Passengers reported hearing “popping” noises and began to smell what they described as a foul odor. Once passengers and members of the flight crew saw the leg of Abdulmutallab’s trousers and the wall adjacent to his seat were on fire, they pounced on the would-be suicide bomber and restrained him until the aircraft landed safely in Detroit.

Janet Napolitano, Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, assured the nation that this was an isolated incident and did not appear to have any connection to organized terror. Well Abdulmutallab had another view. In police interviews, Abdulmutallab admitted that he was in Yemen from August until early December where he received training and material support from Al Qaida in order to carry out this attack. The Al Qaida faction in Yemen has since issued a statement claiming responsibility for the attempt. In an even more bizarre statement released to the press, Napolitano praised the capture of Abdulmutallab and claimed the system “worked”.

Really Janet? What system would that be? The system that allowed a man that was on at least one government “no-fly” list to board a plane bound for the United States? The system that ignored reports from Abdulmutallab’s father to the American Embassy that his son (Abdulmutallab) had become far more radical in recent months and posed a material threat to American interests? Or maybe it is the system that forces passengers aboard commercial aircraft to provide the first line of defense for America while Federal authorities are comfortably asleep at the wheel?

Apparently the only system that worked was Napolitano’s own insistence that there are no acts of terrorism, there are only man-caused disasters. The interests of the United States have been lost under this administration and that places our nation in danger. Homeland Security is more interested in the actions and whereabouts of United States citizens that are upset by this administration’s agenda, especially if those citizens are former military. The ATF is more interested in shooting down State ballot initiatives that preserve the second amendment rights of its citizens than they are about hunting down gangs and terror groups that have been obtaining fully automatic weapons that have been banned for decades. The Justice Department has ignored the military intent of terror groups and is preparing to turn the captured militants over to the civilian courts for trial. A move that again, places our nation in jeopardy as their Al Qaida brothers plot to disrupt the proceedings.

Abdulmutallab has already declared that he is not alone; that there is an army of other Al Qaida soldiers preparing their own attacks on America interests and embassies abroad and upon the American homeland itself. The purported leader of Yemen’s Al Qaida group is Sa'id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri. Al Shihri was a Guantanamo detainee that was released and repatriated to Saudi Arabia in 2007. There was a board hearing that determined the status of Al Shihri’s detention in Guantanamo Bay. By unanimous vote, the board ruled that Al Shihri would be repatriated even though the review listed eleven primary factors favoring continued detention and only five that favored release or transfer. The board issued a report and corresponding memos on Al Shihri’s transfer but the documents were so heavily redacted that very little usable information remained that would point to a reason for their decision.

Whatever prompted the decision, the transfer placed Al Shahri in the hands of Saudi officials where he was enrolled in a rehabilitation program for former terrorists. Yep, they have reform schools for terrorists now which apparently have the same record of success that American rehabilitation programs have. Immediately upon his release from the Saudi rehabilitation program in January 2009, Al Shahri appeared in several jihadist videos, including one where he was identified as second in command of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. He also appeared in a “You-Tube” video with three other men, identified as Abu Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi threatening America and American allies.

The New York Times reported that an earlier car bomb detonated outside the American Embassy in Sana was the work of the reformed and freed, Al Shihri. Now that the Yemen Al Qaida group has claimed responsibility for the attack attempted by Abdulmutallab, it is clear that Al Shihri is behind that as well.

How fortunate we are. If it were not for Janet Napolitano’s soothing assurances we might be fooled into believing that America is under as great a threat by Islamic extremists than we were prior to September 11, 2001. Even the idea that these are no longer acts of terrorism but mere man-caused disasters makes it so much better now. Yes the system indeed worked and one must wonder if it will work even better in the future as we close Guantanamo and repatriate even more of these unfortunate and misunderstood detainees.

As the new “system” under Obama’s administration continues its efforts to soft-pedal the threat of Islamic terror, it is simply charming that Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security and Eric Holder’s Justice Department are more concerned with a possible American backlash against Muslims and now Nigerians, in response to new threats of terrorism. Sorry Janet…I meant man-caused disasters. Actually, the way things have been going these days, I’m surprised the passengers that tackled and restrained Abdulmutallab were not themselves arrested for assault or even possibly, for perpetrating a hate crime against this poor man. After all, anything could have caused his pants to burst into flames so it must have been prejudice that prompted them to tackle Abdulmutallab instead of rendering assistance to him.

Hmm? Could it be that it is the attack on Abdulmutallab by fellow passengers itself that Napolitano is concerned with? Could this be part of the backlash she warned us about? It is clear to me that America under Barack Obama has become a far weaker presence in the world and it is the appearance of that frailty that has invited the renewed interest of Al Qaida. While Obama makes his world apology tour, bowing to foreign leaders and begging forgiveness for the Bush years, our security machine has been stripped of its most potent components and our enemies know it.

It would be wonderful if the world was that simple. The idea that showing fairness and kindness to Islamic terrorists would somehow change the paradigm and create an era of peace is indicative of the naivety of this President and of the left in general. The fact is that the fundamentalist roots of mid-east terror have existed for centuries and the terrorists hate for hate’s sake, not because of a detention camp in Cuba. Al Qaida does not seek dialogue with the West; they are only interested in the total destruction of America and the murder of all “infidels”. This is the first time in history that we are facing an enemy that wants nothing from us but our deaths and will stop at nothing, including the sacrifice of their own lives to accomplish that.

During the Revolutionary War, American colonists used Indian tactics and fought a guerilla war against Britain. The British Army, until then, had only fought in conventional wars against organized armies. The rigid discipline of the British Army could not adapt to this new kind of warfare and that is the real reason that the Colonies prevailed. Without the willingness of the Obama administration to admit that this is a non-traditional war and that we will have to consider brutal and unconventional means to combat the threat, we will lose just as surely as the British did.

Abdulmutallab’s attempt was close to having been a reality and if successful, would have rained flaming wreckage down upon the city of Detroit as well as killing everyone aboard that plane. We must engage these factions as relentlessly as they seek to engage us and we must fight them wherever they appear with a ferocity that will leave no doubt as to our resolve. When it comes to the defense of the United States, nothing should be "off the table".

Paul

The Trial of Khalid Sheikh Momhammed

On November 13, 2009, the U.S. Justice Department announced that it will be transferring five of the Guantanamo Bay detainees to New York to face trial for their involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks involving the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Despite a public outcry against this strategy, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi are to be tried in Federal Court literally blocks from the scarred hole in the ground where the Twin Towers once stood. Recent polls show that Americans oppose trying terror suspects in the Federal court system by a margin of two to one but that has not deterred Obama administration Attorney General, Eric Holder, who claims that the day has finally arrived for these men to face justice.

After a brief statement, Eric Holder faced harsh questioning in the Senate yesterday and was visibly unprepared for the direction the questioning had taken. Senator Lindsay Graham asked Holder “Can you give me a case in United States history when an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?” As Mr. Holder struggled to find an appropriate answer he finally uttered that he would have to research the issue at which time, Senator Graham interrupted and answered the question for him. “The answer is never” Graham said, adding “We are making bad history”’.

Senator Graham was not being deliberately argumentative; he was stating a point of law that could spell doom for the prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four coconspirators. If you try these individuals in Federal Court you must bestow the full protection of the American legal system on the defendants; protections that would thwart the ability of the United States to gather intelligence from captured terrorists crucial to the efforts of this nation protect itself against future attacks. Mr. Holder could not answer the question of whether or not these defendants were advised of their Miranda rights or if they had ever been offered legal council, both of which are fundamental to any civil prosecution.

If Mohammed had not been advised of his rights or given the opportunity to seek counsel, the statements he made regarding his involvement in the attacks would be inadmissible in civilian court. The detainees were captured by the military in a foreign country during the prosecution of a war so reasonably, they had not been “Mirandized” when taken into custody nor had they been offered an attorney prior to questioning, both of which are required by our system of justice. We already know that the CIA engaged in water-boarding the detainees to obtain additional intelligence and whether you agree with that practice or not, the information it yielded has kept us from feeling the sting of additional civilian attacks on American soil since 9/11. As beneficial as that information was, the methods simply will not fly in a civilian court.

The primary question that any first year law student would present in the defense of these individuals would revolve around the Constitutional protections against torture, self incrimination, the right to legal counsel and since he was captured in 2003, the right to a speedy trial. They would not be wrong, that is how our system of justice protects American’s from potential abuses of the authorities. Unfortunately, we do not have a separate set of rules for the prosecution of foreign combatants or extremist terrorists. If we intend to prosecute them in the United States criminal justice system then those same protections would have to be afforded to the terrorists. There are already recorded statutory cases where the Supreme Court have overturned convictions and freed known criminals because their civil rights had been violated. The Supreme Court did not free these individuals because the violation of their rights brought the evidence against them into question, they were guilty men freed in essence, only because their constitutional rights had been violated.

Knowing what we know, can anyone argue that even if the courts were to ignore these facts and allow the trial to proceed at all, that the Supreme Court would have to review the conviction on appeal and would most likely free these men because their civil rights had been violated during their apprehension and incarceration? That is the law and that is why we do not try these cases in civil court. These are foreign combatants that launched an attack against the United States in effect, declaring war on America. Their trial is a military matter and does not belong in the civilian courts nor do they deserve to be afforded the same constitutional rights guaranteed by an America they are pledged to destroy.

One of the most disturbing things about this is the number of stories I have seen coming from the press calling the transfer of these prisoners to New York “foolish” or indicative of the administration’s inexperience. As usual, I have a very different take on this. Eric Holder is an exceptionally bright individual. He had begun working for the Justice Department upon completion of law school before serving as a judge for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In 1993, Holder was appointed to the post of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and eventually became the Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton. This man knows the law and I am sure he knows the precedents of Supreme Court decisions regarding prisoners whose civil rights had been violated. If he doesn’t, you can be certain his staff does. In light of his experience and knowledge of the law, why would Eric Holder attempt to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian courts if he knows that a conviction cannot stand a Supreme Court challenge?

This administration has been locked in battle to advance their radical agenda ever since Barack Obama has taken the oath of office. They had counted on the complacency if the American people but the recession had turned the spotlight on and the people have been waiting for some sign from this President that he is going to take meaningful steps to restore the vitality of the economy. The President pressed for immediate passage of a $787 billion dollar stimulus bill claiming that passage of this bill would stem the recession and reduce unemployment. We watched as the administration spoke glowingly of how well the stimulus plan was working while each month an additional 200,000 plus people lost their jobs.

Instead of focusing on the economy, we watched the administration campaign for an energy bill (cap and trade) that promises to further cripple business in this country and to hobble the economy. After Cap and Trade was passed through the House of Representatives, Healthcare reform became the priority for Obama and we watched the House churn out a massive one-thousand page bill and press for a vote before the members of Congress had even had an opportunity to read it. As the details of healthcare bill were revealed, people took to the streets and attended town hall meetings to protest against this crazy jumble of taxes and mandates in an attempt to bring attention to what American’s really want…jobs and a stable economy. People recognize that America can not survive if we continue the growth of the Federal Debt but the government keeps writing massive spending bills.

Now we are faced with the sad fact that the Government has absolutely no idea where hundreds of billions in stimulus money has been spent. The eighteen-million dollar website dedicated to tracking the stimulus money and the jobs it has created has been an unqualified disaster. The site shows jobs created through millions spent in Congressional districts that do not exist. The media’s examination of the figures shows not just a trend, but a systematic exaggeration of the jobs that have been attributed to stimulus money. Despite this expose’, the administration is still applauding the success of the stimulus bill even as unemployment topped 10.2%.

The President is also struggling with an image he has created of an inexperienced Commander in Chief that is unable to take decisive action even when his hand-picked theater commander in Afghanistan tells him he needs to reinforce the troop levels in the Afghan war or face the failure of the mission. The request made by General McChrystal in mid-September is still under consideration and that does not bode well with the people that heard Candidate Obama say that he would heed the advice of his generals and give them the materials and support they need to succeed in their mission.

Anyone that has ever been on stage know that spotlights can get awfully hot; heat this President didn’t expect. When faced with the possible loss of both healthcare and cap and trade they had only one course left….blame Bush. The public trials of Mohammed and his friends are meant to shift the spotlight from this administration and on to the so-called “atrocities” committed against the people detained in Guantanamo Bay. After all, what would bring Bush’s name back into focus better than months of testimony about the poor treatment these people received at the hands of the Army and the CIA? Well, that was another miscalculation on the part of Obama and his crew.

Americans have not forgotten the burning buildings or the innocent Americans leaping to their deaths to escape the flames. They have not forgotten that the “accused” was not only responsible for the 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon but also the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attempted airliner “shoe bombing” by Richard Reid, the bombing of nightclubs in Bali where Americans frequently relaxed and Mohammed has even admitted that he was in fact, the individual that beheaded American Journalist, Daniel Pearl.

We are a compassionate nation but we have no stomach for barbarians that practice the slaughter of innocent people. This is not an enemy that is really seeking retribution for perceived ills. This is an enemy that hates us for who we are. His actions are not meant to convert people to his religion but rather to eliminate them entirely. Even the Spanish Inquisition’s ultimate goal was to secure the salvation of man and to spread the word of God, not to indiscriminately kill anyone that did not already possess a bible.

If the Justice Department insists that these men are tried in civilian courts and they are freed on a technicality, the spirits of the people murdered by this fanatic will scream aloud and their voices will be heard every remaining day of Obama’s single and inglorious term as President.

Paul