A Conservative Review of the Obama Administration Part 9 (The Final Straw)
Posted: Monday, January 18, 2010
by Jim Anderson
Weddings That Last
There is a structure that all the issues I discussed in previous articles is creating. This is a structure that has been slowly under construction since Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. An important book that reveals all this is titled "Woodrow Wilson and the roots of modern liberalism" by Ronald Pestritto.
They knew to accomplish this they needed to build a structure. It had to be complex and difficult to understand. They must avoid all debate to keep the facts buried. They also have to move quickly before they are discovered, while they silence all dissent. They use bribes and they indoctrinate to further their agenda. This is the motivation behind the effort to use the National Endowment of the Arts as a vehicle for getting propaganda art. Valerie Jarrett in the administration is overseeing the effort to pay artists to create propaganda art. There are phone conferences conducted to inform and recruit artists. Part of that propaganda is to reinforce the idea that Healthcare is a right that can be granted by congress. The problem is that this means our government is claiming to be God. Only God can grant our rights, and this is clearly outlined in out Declaration of Independence.
Politics is now conducted as a destructive effort, as opposed to the "hope" that was used in the campaign. Hadasa Leiberman, Senator Leiberman's wife, was targeted by liberals for being fired as the global ambassador for the Susan G. Coleman Foundation for breast cancer because her husband was threatening not to vote for the healthcare bill. It was the former girlfriend of Andy Stern, SEIU chief, that started in all on her blog. A grass roots movement called the "Tea Party" has been ridiculed and then ignored by the complicit media. Members are called racists and accused of being violent protestors. All this while liberal protestors are actually violent and many are arrested at their protests and Tea Party protestors still have not had one arrest at their gatherings.
Healthcare would be the single most important accomplishment to moving the progressive agenda forward. If the government now bestows rights upon its citizens, it will start to take other rights away. This already happens. A British nurse who went to New Zealand to live. When she got there she learned that since she was overweight the government would not let her live there. They determined it would cost the government too much money.
A very scary move by the President is the signing of an executive order just before Christmas of 2009 that allows the InterPol (International Police) the ability to be immune from oversight by the FBI when they enter the country looking for people targeted for prosecution. That means American citizens are offered no legal protection from the International Police when they are targeted by them. This is evidence of the move Obama is making to make the U.S. part of the global community under one global government. The sovereignty of the U.S. would no longer exist, and our ability to vote on laws would disappear. International Law would trump the U.S. Constitution. The Summit on Global Warming was attempting to put the foundation in place for that very idea, and Obama is participating in the effort. Thankfully no agreement was reached because other countries recognized the danger to their ability to control their own legal system.
If Americans let this progressive agenda continue. We will see the end of America we have known for over 200 years, and will see a decline in our living standards and our personal freedoms and liberties. Is that what we want? Personally, I hope not.
This Article has been viewed 167 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)Interpol has no police force, doesn't make arrests and doesn't conduct criminal investigations. It is just an administrative body that facilitates sharing of information between the police forces of its 108 member countries.If a police force in another country issued an arrest warrant for someone currently residing the US, InterPol would simply pass on the warrant and info to the relevant authorities in the US, who would then be free to decide whether to take any action.If the relevant US authority decided local laws justified an arrest, they'd make that arrest using their own officers.Therefore the statement "That means American citizens are offered no legal protection from the International Police when they are targeted by them" is misleading and false - InterPol don't "target" people, they just pass on information about from police forces in other countries. US citizens would not lose out on legal protection.The "immunity" applies only to the administrative staff in the New York office.Please log in to respond to this comment.I appreciate your comment. The devil is in the details.This organization is a police organization. They are being given additional privileges that will allow them more power in pursuing their targets. Here is what it says on Interpol's website:"INTERPOL is the world’s largest international police organization, with 188 member countries. Created in 1923, it facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.
INTERPOL aims to facilitate international police co-operation even where diplomatic relations do not exist between particular countries. Action is taken within the limits of existing laws in different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. INTERPOL's constitution prohibits ‘any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.’ "Obama's executive order has reduced accountability, and the intent of the amendment to President Reagan's executive order was to extend their privileges in hunting down suspects and criminals in the U.S. Obama's intent beyond this is to ultimately subjugate our supreme law (U.S. Constitution) to "international law". He has stated this, and has taken at least two other actions that idea that I know of. One had to do with parental rights, and the other was the international agreement in Copenhagan that he was unable to complete. He is intentional. The change was only one word, it eliminated "except". That can entirely change the meaning of the sentence, or it could only be a grammar error. I don't think grammar errors are corrected with executive orders.Here is a quote from the order:"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, 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."Please log in to respond to this comment.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.