# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Obama gave INTERPOL immunity from the Constitution on Dec 16!  IMPORTANT

## devil21

(Hat tip to an ATS poster that found this EO item originally.  This analysis is mine however.  Yeah it's long but this is VERY Important!!!  Please read, understand and SPREAD!)  

Signed by Obama just 6 days ago.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...ve-order-12425




> 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.



Here is the original EO12425, signed by Reagan in 1983:
http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-order-12425




> By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.


So Obama's Amendment turns Reagan's EO 12425 into:




> By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.


Wow, that's a lot of "except those provided by sections" deleted!  So there's NO restrictions anymore?  Keep reading....

Here's a link to Int'l Organizations Immunities Act:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._20_XVIII.html

Section 2(c) covers SEARCH AND SEIZURE!  INTERPOL is now untouchable on US soil.  *Remember, the original EO excluded these exemptions!  These exemptions now apply to INTERPOL on US soil.*



> (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.*


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inviolable



> 1. prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement, or desecration: an inviolable sanctuary; an inviolable promise.  
> 2. incapable of being violated; incorruptible; unassailable: inviolable secrecy.


Section 3 exempts duties and taxation from baggage.  INTERPOL now can bring in (or out) a bag with whatever it wants in it.  How can you impose duty or tax on something inside a bag you can't search?



> § 288b. Baggage and effects of officers and employees exempted from customs duties and internal revenue taxes
> Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the baggage and effects of alien officers and employees of international organizations, or of aliens designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to such organizations, or of the families, suites, and servants of such officers, employees, or representatives shall be admitted (when imported in connection with the arrival of the owner) free of customs duties and free of internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.


Section 4 exempts all property taxes being levied.  INTERPOL can now build or occupy whatever properties it wants within the US and not have to pay any property taxes of any sort.



> § 288c. Exemption from property taxes
> International organizations shall be exempt from all property taxes imposed by, or under the authority of, any Act of Congress, including such Acts as are applicable solely to the District of Columbia or the Territories.


Section 5 gives immunity from any sort of registration of foreign agents.  INTERPOL now doesn't even need to declare themselves or presumably even need a passport to enter the US.  SHADOW POLICE!  Don't believe me?  Read it for yourself!  Oh and you can't sue any of them for any reason.



> § 288d. Privileges, exemptions, and immunities of officers, employees, and their families; waiver
> (a) Persons designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to international organizations and the officers and employees of such organizations, and members of the immediate families of such representatives, officers, and employees residing with them, other than nationals of the United States, shall, insofar as concerns laws regulating entry into and departure from the United States, alien registration and fingerprinting, and the registration of foreign agents, be entitled to the same privileges, exemptions, and immunities as are accorded under similar circumstances to officers and employees, respectively, of foreign governments, and members of their families. 
> (b) Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such representatives, officers, or employees except insofar as such immunity may be waived by the foreign government or international organization concerned.


Section 6, last but not least, sets requirements that foreign agents be "recognized" by the State Dept in order to receive the immunities in this Act.  Not anymore!



> § 288e. Personnel entitled to benefits
> (a) Notification to and acceptance by Secretary of State of personnel 
> No person shall be entitled to the benefits of this subchapter, unless he 
> (1) shall have been duly notified to and accepted by the Secretary of State as a representative, officer, or employee; or 
> (2) shall have been designated by the Secretary of State, prior to formal notification and acceptance, as a prospective representative, officer, or employee; or 
> (3) is a member of the family or suite, or servant, of one of the foregoing accepted or designated representatives, officers, or employees. 
> (b) Deportation of undesirables 
> Should the Secretary of State determine that the continued presence in the United States of any person entitled to the benefits of this subchapter is not desirable, he shall so inform the foreign government or international organization concerned, as the case may be, and after such person shall have had a reasonable length of time, to be determined by the Secretary of State, to depart from the United States, he shall cease to be entitled to such benefits. 
> (c) Extent of diplomatic status 
> No person shall, by reason of the provisions of this subchapter, be considered as receiving diplomatic status or as receiving any of the privileges incident thereto other than such as are specifically set forth herein.


So here's the bottom line:

*INTERPOL, an international law enforcement agency, has just been granted complete and utter "diplomatic immunity" within the borders of the United States, courtesy of Obama.*  They are not subject to any Constitutional limitations within the United States.  Good luck filing for discovery, documents, witnesses or subpoenas against a police force that is *operating outside* of the Constitution *in your own country*!  You can't sue them.  Their records can't be searched.  They are not subject to FOIA requests.  You probably won't even know the name of the agent prosecuting you if INTERPOL comes to visit.  And they don't have to tell you either.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!  

I got a headache now....


(later edit:  Wow I just did a google search and my post is all over the net and still spreading.  Very cool and thx to everyone that helped get it out there.  This seems to be opening some fresh eyes.)

----------


## parocks

Ron Paul should get on this.

CFL asked recently which of 4 issues should be addressed.

The Patriot Act / Dangerous ID was one of the 4.  This fits together with those.

This is some scary stuff.

----------


## pcosmar

*It gets better* (or worse)

*Waco Siege "Enforcer" To Rule Over Global UN and Interpol Police Force coming to US*
http://homelessokc.newsvine.com/_new...e-coming-to-us



> For a taste of what Americans who aren't so favorable to taking orders from foreigners on home soil can expect, consider the fact that the secretary general of Interpol, and one of the men at the forefront of setting up the global police force, is none other than Ronald K. Noble.

----------


## Aratus

after ww2  we have the situation whereupon to harry s. truman's people, the ancient ww2 era interpol 
had an odium & an aura that mayhap only recently dissipated in full, if we go by our potus's new actions!

----------


## ItsTime

wtf?

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

Carrying Dubya Bush policies to new lows... like EFF.org stated, WORST THAN BUSH!

Investigate the people behind the Puppet. The National Security Council is where much of this ruthless $#@! comes from.

----------


## Dieseler

I wonder how many Local Sherriff's Departments are aware of this.
This is definitely a breach of trust between the Government and the people here not to mention Local Police and Federal Authorities.
This will only serve to build more paranoia in the minds of those who Are paying attention.

----------


## ItsTime

The first thing I thought was. Does this allow interpol to enter your house and make you house them?

----------


## Dieseler

This could lead to gunfights between Local Authorities and International police.

----------


## devil21

Im glad this is catching on.  I hope my write up helped spread the info.

Some interesting takes other people have on this has opened it up a little further to discussion.  Just some food for thought on where this could go.

1.  Could INTERPOL simply deputize US local, state, federal police?  Those cops would suddenly no longer be subject to the Constitution either and would be granted the same immunities while serving as INTERPOL agents.  It has been said that INTERPOL doesn't have a formal "police force" but rather just makes use of the authorities where they are operating.  (EDIT:  It does exclude US Nationals, after all.  Will the law be amended soon?)

2.  Makes it very easy for INTERPOL agents to move into, around, and then out of US with little to no paper trail, and what paper trail there is would be immune from our legal process.  I wonder if another 9/11 is in the works?  Obama's approval ratings are falling like rock, while the economy continues downward.  Another big 9/11 would be a great tool to consolidate power further while boosting Obama's ratings and distracting from the crap economy.

----------


## dannno

> *It gets better* (or worse)
> 
> *Waco Siege "Enforcer" To Rule Over Global UN and Interpol Police Force coming to US*
> http://homelessokc.newsvine.com/_new...e-coming-to-us


Hahahahha!!!! 

David Koresh was probably more correct than he ever imagined...

----------


## RonPaulVolunteer

"Section 3 exempts duties and taxation from baggage. INTERPOL now can bring in (or out) a bag with whatever it wants in it. How can you impose duty or tax on something inside a bag you can't search?"

This is currently the case for all diplomatic bags anyway, nothing has changed here.

----------


## devil21

> "Section 3 exempts duties and taxation from baggage. INTERPOL now can bring in (or out) a bag with whatever it wants in it. How can you impose duty or tax on something inside a bag you can't search?"
> 
> This is currently the case for all diplomatic bags anyway, nothing has changed here.


Maybe Im misunderstanding what you're saying here?  Please clarify.

INTERPOL wasn't considered "diplomatic" until Obama's EO amendment, because of the exclusions in Reagan's EO.  It hasn't changed for recognized "diplomats" but it has changed for INTERPOL.

----------


## pcosmar

Now add this ugly twist and see if it doesn't cause nightmares.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/wo...rpol.html?_r=4
http://www.interpol.int/Public/FusionTaskForce/

*CIVPOL*
http://www.state.gov/p/inl/civ/
http://www.civpol.org/
http://www.civpol.org/modules.php?na...article&sid=54

----------


## devil21

Can you post the NYT article text pcosmar?  It wants a login from me.

----------


## LibForestPaul

Wow, more national sovereignty disappearing. Only slaves believe in citizenship.

----------


## Danke

> Can you post the NYT article text pcosmar?  It wants a login from me.


October 12, 2009
Interpol and U.N. Back Global Policing Doctrine
By DOREEN CARVAJAL

PARIS  Interpol and the United Nations are poised to become partners in fighting crime by jointly grooming a global police force that would be deployed as peacekeepers among rogue nations riven by war and organized crime, officials from both organizations say.

On Monday, justice and foreign ministers from more than 60 countries, including the United States and China, are gathering in Singapore for a meeting hosted by the two international organizations.

It is the first step toward creating what Interpol calls a global policing doctrine that would enable Interpol and the United Nations to improve the skills of police peacekeepers, largely by sharing a secure communications network and a vast electronic trove of criminal information, including DNA records, fingerprints, photographs and fugitive notices.

We have a visionary model, said Ronald K. Noble, secretary general of Interpol and the first American to head the international police organization, which is based in Lyon. More than 187 member nations finance the organization.

The police will be trained and equipped differently with resources, Mr. Noble said. When they stop someone, they will be consulting global databases to determine who they are stopping.

Modern peacekeeping has evolved dramatically since the blue-helmeted U.N. military force won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1988. Since 2005, the number of police officers within the total force of 95,400 peacekeepers has more than doubled from about 6,000 to 12,200 in 17 countries.

U.N. police are already battling kidnappings and drug crime in Haiti and illicit lumber trading in Liberia. The aim of the joint effort is to increase the ability to track the movement of criminals around the world by sharing resources and common standards, according to Mr. Noble. He is also pressing ahead with plans for special electronic passports for the agencys staff of more than 600 Interpol investigators to speed border crossings.

The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is contributing more than $2 million to finance the development of international global policing standards, according to Andrew Hughes, an Australian who currently heads the U.N.s force of police officers.

The ambition is to create a series of networks to counter borderless organized criminal operations, Mr. Hughes said. Women, in particular, are being recruited, with a goal of reaching 20 percent of the U.N. force and the development of all-female units like the group of 140 peacekeepers from Bangladesh that is about to be deployed.

Were working with refugees, Mr. Hughes said. Many of the victims of atrocities are women, and theyve had enough of men with guns and uniforms.

He said that among the most critical tasks for a global police force were combating illegal arms and drug trafficking. His own officers in West Africa have watched the growth of cocaine smuggling by Colombian and Venezuelan drug cartels through weakened countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia to the lucrative consumer markets in Europe.

The United States remains the biggest market for cocaine, according to the U.N.s annual report on drugs and crime. But in the past three years, South American cartels have moved more drugs to Europe using transit points like Guinea Bissau, where the president and the head of the military were killed in sophisticated bombing attacks in March. Each year, at least 50 tons of cocaine from Andean countries passes through West Africa to the streets of Europe, where the drugs are worth almost $2 billion, according to the U.N. report.

Organized crime is a business that looks for opportunity to expand their market enterprise, Mr. Hughes said. When you have a breakdown in police and courts and corrections, organized crime is ripe. We also see the toxic effect of corruption, because they are able to corrupt officials, which makes it difficult to build a functioning society.

In Afghanistan, where heroin and hashish trafficking is also a thorny issue, NATO announced plans this month to start training the local police  a move it has avoided in the past to concentrate on military responsibilities.

But Mr. Noble of Interpol says he takes a dim view of transforming warriors into beat cops, because the mind-sets are so different.

We caution on making the delegation of civil police development tasks to military structures, Mr. Noble said, citing the example of an attack that freed hundreds of Taliban from a prison in Kandahar, Afghanistan, last year. Although Interpol immediately asked for information about the missing prisoners, he said, we were really shocked and dismayed to learn there were no fingerprints and photographs despite billions spent to train police there.

With the meeting of justice ministers on Monday, which coincides with a general assembly of Interpol police members, the group is expected to debate the global police issue and to craft a declaration that would lead to an action plan for international police peacekeeping within 12 months.

----------


## LibForestPaul

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/...9/PR200987.asp
INTERPOL co-ordinates landmark hazardous waste operation in North America
 the operation also involved INTERPOLs National Central Bureaus (NCBs) in Ottawa and Washington which provided secure police communication channels, access to a range of INTERPOL databases and analytical support*.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/58384.html
Working with INTERPOL and Canadian authorities, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)....

search in google for interpol and your local .gov site, enjoy what pops up, there are others.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> Hahahahha!!!! 
> 
> David Koresh was probably more correct than he ever imagined...


Freaky how all this stuff comes full circle.

----------


## Did I Tweet That

I was hoping that this would open the door to Bush and Cheney being extraordinarily rendered and possibly tortured till they told us everything we wanted them to tell us, whether it was true or not.

That would be a Christmas miracle.

I don't feel this way about all Republicans, just those that violate the law.

----------


## ramallamamama

> I was hoping that this would open the door to Bush and Cheney being extraordinarily rendered and possibly tortured till they told us everything we wanted them to tell us, whether it was true or not.
> 
> That would be a Christmas miracle.
> 
> I don't feel this way about all Republicans, just those that violate the law.


I like this person already.

Welcome!

----------


## InterestedParticipant

*They are losing control.*  

Otherwise, they would not resort to such extreme measures.  They know they cannot win using violence.  

*This is a sign of weakness*.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> WAKE UP PEOPLE!


Wake up to what?

To face the horror?

That, de facto, we have already succumbed to the New World Order?

Twaddle...half the people on *this* board won't even admit to the horror *right in their face*.

----------


## Anti Federalist

INTERPOL = International *CRIMINAL POLICE* Organization.

Yeah, they sure are, aren't they?

----------


## phill4paul

Aye Anti-Fed.. but what to do...what to do? 

  For myself it is creating who I am as a business entity and not contributing to the Fed. 
  I'll still pay state taxes. I feel that within my state changes can be made. Changes that will affect the federal relationship.

  As far as federal taxation. No. 

  I'd like to say I'll see ya on the inside (of a camp). However, that is not an option. But, that is just me.

  Good luck to all. Because there is no longer a rule book to this game.

  Hail Mary! I'll pass and pass a plenty when the championship comes a knockin'

----------


## Danke

> Aye Anti-Fed.. but what to do...what to do? 
> 
>   For myself it is creating who I am as a business entity and not contributing to the Fed. 
>   I'll still pay state taxes. I feel that within my state changes can be made. Changes that will affect the federal relationship.
> 
>   As far as federal taxation. No. 
> 
>   I'd like to say I'll see ya on the inside (of a camp). However, that is not an option. But, that is just me.
> 
> ...


You talking about income tax?

----------


## phill4paul

> You talking about income tax?


  Fed tax, yes.

----------


## Danke

> Fed tax, yes.


How do you do that?  The State tax is based on your Federal Tax.

----------


## phill4paul

> How do you do that?  The State tax is based on your Federal Tax.


  As a worker your taxes are automatically withheld by your employer through force. As an independent contractor you are responsible for your taxes. 

  Pay them if you wish or face the repercussions. On one end you'll at the least  get your day in court and hope that there are enough activists to distribute enough literature regarding jury nullification.

  On the other end. Well, lets just say your committed without being committed.

----------


## Danke

> As a worker your taxes are automatically withheld by your employer through force. As an independent contractor you are responsible for your taxes. 
> 
>   Pay them if you wish or face the repercussions. On one end you'll at the least  get your day in court and hope that there are enough activists to distribute enough literature regarding jury nullification.
> 
>   On the other end. Well, lets just say your committed without being committed.


So you are reporting that you have taxable income to the state, but at the same time you are denying that you have taxable income to the Feds?

----------


## stilltrying

> *They are losing control.*  
> 
> Otherwise, they would not resort to such extreme measures.  They know they cannot win using violence.  
> 
> *This is a sign of weakness*.


Good observation.

----------


## phill4paul

> So you are reporting that you have taxable income to the state, but at the same time you are denying that you have taxable income to the Feds?


  No Danke. I'm reporting my income to the state. I'm going to pay my taxes to them. 

  I'm not going to even acknowledge the fed. 

  Dichotomy to some? I suppose.

----------


## Danke

> No Danke. I'm reporting my income to the state. I'm going to pay my taxes to them. 
> 
>   I'm not going to even acknowledge the fed. 
> 
>   Dichotomy to some? I suppose.


You know the state revenue departments work hand in hand with the Feds, right?

----------


## Theocrat

*Obama can do whatever he wants, since he is the god of his own universe and doesn't have anyone above him to answer to (no God, no laws written down on paper). Those of you in this thread who don't believe in God but are complaining against what he's done are not being consistent with your worldview.*

/rant

----------


## phill4paul

> You know the state revenue departments work hand in hand with the Feds, right?


  Yeppers!

----------


## Danke

> Yeppers!


Well, then prepare to do battle.

(it can be fun  )

----------


## phill4paul

> *Obama can do whatever he wants, since he is the god of his own universe and doesn't have anyone above him to answer to (no God, no laws written down on paper). Those of you in this thread who don't believe in God but are complaining against what he's done are not being consistent with your worldview.*


  Thanks for that piece of $#@! self supporting observation. 

  You claimed you were leaving us. Could you please do do that? Please?

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, then prepare to do battle.
> 
> (it can be fun  )


  The line is far past drawn. There is NO correction excepting in states nullification.

  I will not support the enemy any longer.

  Good luck to me and $#@!. I'll see ya in the obituaries.

----------


## Theocrat

> Thanks for that piece of $#@! self supporting observation. 
> 
>   You claimed you were leaving us. Could you please do do that? Please?


Obama gave INTERPOL immunity from the Constitution (a piece of paper written by man). So what? It's just a piece of paper! As I said before, Obama can do what he wants as long as there are no objective standards or an absolute person above him to correct him otherwise. What? You don't like facing the implications of your own belief system? Just be consistent, and leave Obama alone.

----------


## phill4paul

So you are here to stay. O.K. then.

  Define the implications of my own belief system, please, in regards to this post.....

  If you are capable, please leave aside the belief in a sky pilot, and contribute to this thread in a way that might allow non-believers to affect your personal goals. Unless, your goals are anti-liberty and freedom of choice.

----------


## Met Income

> Obama gave INTERPOL immunity from the Constitution (a piece of paper written by man). So what? It's just a piece of paper! As I said before, Obama can do what he wants as long as there are no objective standards or an absolute person above him to correct him otherwise. What? You don't like facing the implications of your own belief system? Just be consistent, and leave Obama alone.


non-aggression principle

----------


## Theocrat

> So you are here to stay. O.K. then.
> 
>   Define the implications of my own belief system, please, in regards to this post.....
> 
>   If you are capable, please leave aside the belief in a sky pilot, and contribute to this thread in a way that might allow non-believers to affect your personal goals. Unless, your goals are anti-liberty and freedom of choice.


If there is no God, then there is no universal, invariant, and absolute foundation for morals, justice, and the need for law to be placed upon any man whatsoever. Such a belief leaves each person to do what is right (true, free, cool, etc.) in his own eyes.

In this particular thread, it has been shown that Obama has given an entity outside of U.S. jurisdiction a "free pass" to do as it pleases, even if it contradicts the U.S. Constitution. So, if it is true that God (the universal Creator, Giver, and Sustainer of our rights and privileges) does not exist, then it's quite natural and logical that Obama can do what he's done and not be at fault for it, *given the standards that he has set for himself.*

So, I don't see how any non-theist can have an issue of fault or accusal against Obama's actions. He's doing what he believes is right and just to bring freedom, not just to Americans, but to the global community. If you are really "pro-liberty" and for "freedom of choice," then why don't you respect Obama's liberty and free choices?

----------


## Theocrat

> non-aggression principle


That just begs the question. *Why* should Obama subject himself to the Non-Aggression Principle, if his own morals and actions are based on his own free choice? The Non-Aggression Principle doesn't justify itself, after all. There are other ethical/social mores out there which can be equally as valid as the NAP, especially if there is no objective determining factor to judge one from the other. So, stop forcing your ethics on Obama, and let him do what he feels is best for the country and global community.

----------


## devil21

Please don't turn this into a religious thread.  It's much too important of an issue to get bogged down with theological diatribes.  We live under a rule of law established by the Constitution and the principles of freedom that it instilled in the citizens of this once great country.  Obama is not above those principles, as hard as he and every other recent president tries.  

As quickly as Theocrat dismisses the Constitution as just a piece of paper (hmm...where have I heard that before?), I dismiss Obama's EO as just a piece of paper too.  The difference is who is more willing to stand up for the principles they believe in.

----------


## phill4paul

Agreed. Stop it Theo. Go on your way as you implied that you would. Please?

----------


## InterestedParticipant

I don't understand what assumptions one is relying upon when they assume that Obama is in control of anything, let alone his thinking.

----------


## Theocrat

> Please don't turn this into a religious thread.  It's much too important of an issue to get bogged down with theological diatribes.  We live under a rule of law established by the Constitution and the principles of freedom that it instilled in the citizens of this once great country.  Obama is not above those principles, as hard as he and every other recent president tries.  
> 
> As quickly as Theocrat dismisses the Constitution as just a piece of paper (hmm...where have I heard that before?), I dismiss Obama's EO as just a piece of paper too.  The difference is who is more willing to stand up for the principles they believe in.


It should be obvious to you that we no longer live under the "rule of law," especially when we have a President who disregards it at every jot of his pen. In any case, this issue is a theological one, and it's basic formulation is this: is man God, or is God God? If Obama grants immunities to organizations or people he deems fit for such privileges, who are any of us to complain against it (assuming there is no God above him)? He's making a choice for what he perceives as liberty, no matter what any document tells him, be it the Bible or the Constitution.

Just for the record, I don't dismiss the Constitution as just "a piece of paper." I only said that because non-theists make similar diatribes like that towards other documents which prescribe how man should live (i.e. the Bible), and I was showing how that same rationale can be used against the Constitution. But why not? If there are no such things as absolute truth or objective moral standards, then people have every whim to behave by what please them best.

You say the difference is a matter of "who is more willing to stand up for the principles he believes in," but the answer is obvious. Obama and his ilk are in control of things now, and they have indeed stood up for their principles and won. Yet, many people here seem to have a problem with that, especially those who hold to the view that men have the freedom to do what they want without any authority above them. It is to those people who I challenge to be consistent to their so-called liberty views, and let Obama be, even if it means he allows the INTERPOL to be exempt from the Constitution.

----------


## phill4paul

> It should be obvious to you that we no longer live under the "rule of law," especially when we have a President who disregards it at every jot of his pen. In any case, this issue is a theological one, and it's basic formulation is this: is man God, or is God God? If Obama grants immunities to organizations or people he deems fit for such privileges, who are any of us to complain against it (assuming there is no God above him)? He's making a choice for what he perceives as liberty, no matter what any document tells him, be it the Bible or the Constitution.
> 
> Just for the record, I don't dismiss the Constitution as just "a piece of paper." I only said that because non-theists make similar diatribes like that towards other documents which prescribe how man should live (i.e. the Bible), and I was showing how that same rationale can be used against the Constitution. But why not? If there are no such things as absolute truth or objective moral standards, then people have every whim to behave by what please them best.
> 
> You say the difference is a matter of "who is more willing to stand up for the principles he believes in," but the answer is obvious. Obama and his ilk are in control of things now, and they have indeed stood up for their principles and won. Yet, many people here seem to have a problem with that, especially those who hold to the view that men have the freedom to do what they want without any authority above them. It is to those people who I challenge to be consistent to their so-called liberty views, and let Obama be, even if it means he allows the INTERPOL to be exempt from the Constitution.


OK Theo.. I distinctly remember a post when you said you were leaving. What date is that again?

----------


## devil21

This thread has been linked all over the net so *please, please, please* keep it on topic.  It has absolutely nothing to do with "God", since people can believe in freedom and sovereignty and not be religious.  Please stop trying to hijack the thread Theocrat.

----------


## phill4paul

> This thread has been linked all over the net so *please, please, please* keep it on topic.  It has absolutely nothing to do with "God", since people can believe in freedom and sovereignty and not be religious.  Please stop trying to hijack the thread Theocrat.


  Thank you.

----------


## LibForestPaul

> If there is no God, then there is no universal, invariant, and absolute foundation for morals, justice, and the need for law to be placed upon any man whatsoever. Such a belief leaves each person to do what is right (true, free, cool, etc.) in his own eyes.
> 
> In this particular thread, it has been shown that Obama has given an entity outside of U.S. jurisdiction a "free pass" to do as it pleases, even if it contradicts the U.S. Constitution. So, if it is true that God (the universal Creator, Giver, and Sustainer of our rights and privileges) does not exist, then it's quite natural and logical that Obama can do what he's done and not be at fault for it, *given the standards that he has set for himself.*
> 
> So, I don't see how any non-theist can have an issue of fault or accusal against Obama's actions. He's doing what he believes is right and just to bring freedom, not just to Americans, but to the global community. If you are really "pro-liberty" and for "freedom of choice," then why don't you respect Obama's liberty and free choices?


His liberty and free choices end when they affect my liberty?
I do not need God to justify the liberties I am born with?
Obama can not cede any free mans liberties?

----------


## phill4paul

> This thread has been linked all over the net so *please, please, please* keep it on topic.  *It has absolutely nothing to do with "God", since people can believe in freedom and sovereignty and not be religious.*  Please stop trying to hijack the thread Theocrat.


  So then what now is the course?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Because there is no longer a rule book to this game.


No, there sure isn't.

The Rubicon has been crossed, the shark jumped, the cliff run off.

All bets are off now and any attempts at "monkey wrenching" will be dealt with harshly.

I know a couple, fairly good acquaintances, who are rotting in prison right now, for doing nothing more than selling Irwin Schiff's book, *ten years ago*.

That being said, I salute your courage in your course of action.

----------


## devil21

> So then what now is the course?


I wish I knew, brother.  But people are awakening to what's taking place and things that seemed like crazy talk not long ago are _quickly_ turning into stark reality.  More and more are catching on, though sadly still the minority. I believe that "the course" will become very apparent and self evident when the time is right.  That is my belief.  It is what happened during the first revolution and I see no reason to think that human nature has changed so much in the last two hundred years.  But the key continues to be to inform people of what's happening to their country and remind them of the freedoms their forefathers fought and died for.  Those same freedoms that many people are letting slip away today with nary a blink or question.  Unlike Theocrat, I do not think the battle is already lost.  Not at all.  Americans, by and large, are still coddled and have it much easier than most of the rest of the world.  This coddling is what keeps them compliant and unaware of what's being set in motion around them.  That is obviously changing though and more people will wake up as their "distractions" (the distractions that replaced their freedoms) disappear along _with_ their freedoms.

Franklin's words about safety and freedom will become a common truism again soon enough.

It is indeed very interesting times we live in.  Just do your part.  One man can only do so much.  It's like a successful sports team.  No one plays thinking about the entire team on the field.  They play their position to the best of their ability and as long as everyone is doing what they are supposed to do, the result is the *team* is successful.  That is how it must be approached.  And as RP reminds us, the young people is where the future is.  Reaching the young people is very important.  They will also be more receptive now that their "bubble upbringing" is ending.

----------


## Danke

> I wish I knew, brother.  But people are awakening to what's taking place and things that seemed like crazy talk not long ago are _quickly_ turning into stark reality.  More and more are catching on, though sadly still the minority. I believe that "the course" will become very apparent and self evident when the time is right.  That is my belief.  It is what happened during the first revolution and I see no reason to think that human nature has changed so much in the last two hundred years.  But the key continues to be to inform people of what's happening to their country and remind them of the freedoms their forefathers fought and died for.  Those same freedoms that many people are letting slip away today with nary a blink or question.  Unlike Theocrat, I do not think the battle is already lost.  Not at all.  Americans, by and large, are still coddled and have it much easier than most of the rest of the world.  This coddling is what keeps them compliant and unaware of what's being set in motion around them.  That is obviously changing though and more people will wake up as their "distractions" (the distractions that replaced their freedoms) disappear along _with_ their freedoms.
> 
> Franklin's words about safety and freedom will become a common truism again soon enough.
> 
> It is indeed very interesting times we live in.  Just do your part.  One man can only do so much.


I agree.  More and more people are receptive to what I have been telling them.

I certainly don't have all the answers and am learning new stuff everyday.

It is really a matrix.

----------


## Volitzer

See next post...

----------


## Volitzer

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/...990-toobad.jpg

----------


## osan

> If there is no God, then there is no universal, invariant, and absolute foundation for morals, justice, and the need for law to be placed upon any man whatsoever. Such a belief leaves each person to do what is right (true, free, cool, etc.) in his own eyes.


Actually, this is not quite so.  Consider this essay: 

http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...s-freedom.html

As you can see, there actually is an invariant - human life.  It is most safe to say, for example, that the vast and overwhelming majority of people in the USA (let us forget about the rest of the world for the sake of this exchange) do not wish to be murdered, robbed, raped, or beaten.  We already have 4 elements of "the invariant", i.e., the standard by which proper action is defined and the limits of our prerogatives delimited.




> In this particular thread, it has been shown that Obama has given an entity outside of U.S. jurisdiction a "free pass" to do as it pleases, even if it contradicts the U.S. Constitution.


Which is suggestive of a traitor's treason, or at least an ignoramus' willingness to be directed by others, regardless of where it may lead.  To the latter point, it is most often overlooked by even the likes of those found here to discover those behind the scenes.  Without a concentrated effort at exposing, investigating, and possibly prosecuting and even executing such people and destroying the organizations to which they owe fealty and in whose interests they operate, no amount of cleansing effort will produce the desired result.




> So, if it is true that God (the universal Creator, Giver, and Sustainer of our rights and privileges) does not exist, then it's quite natural and logical that Obama can do what he's done and not be at fault for it, *given the standards that he has set for himself.*[


The existence of "God" is predicated wholly upon the definition.  The argument of whether God exists is idiotic on its face when no definition of the term is given.  Take my own point of view, for example:  I do not believe God exists - I know God exists.  The very fact that _we_ exist proves to me beyond any reasonable doubt that God exists as well.  This is a trivial point, however, because the question that makes the real difference in these metaphysical musings asks "what is the nature of God?"  That is the lynch pin on which any such conversation turns.  That is the question over which people have butchered one another for thousands of years and continue to do so today.




> So, I don't see how any non-theist can have an issue of fault or accusal against Obama's actions.


If you read the essay above, then the basis for issue becomes abundantly apparent.




> He's doing what he believes is right and just to bring freedom, not just to Americans, but to the global community. If you are really "pro-liberty" and for "freedom of choice," then why don't you respect Obama's liberty and free choices?


Your question reflects the all-too-common and wholesale misconception of what it means to be free.  Freedom does not mean "anything goes".  Freedom is bounded, and that is a very good thing for those metes and bounds act as the guide to the most fundamental aspects of proper behavior.

----------


## osan

> That just begs the question. *Why* should Obama subject himself to the Non-Aggression Principle, if his own morals and actions are based on his own free choice? The Non-Aggression Principle doesn't justify itself, after all. There are other ethical/social mores out there which can be equally as valid as the NAP, especially if there is no objective determining factor to judge one from the other. So, stop forcing your ethics on Obama, and let him do what he feels is best for the country and global community.



Obama has no moral basis for violating my rights, nor those of anyone else.  I am a sovereign being, so Obama can screw off with his opinions, as can anyone else with notions of violating my space.  You appear to be of the mind that your idea of "God" is necessary for proper action.  I assure you that it is not only unnecessary, it is a most unsound way of approaching the matter.  Put a million people in a room and I promise you that there will be at least 2 million definitions and opinions on what God is and what God wants.  More like twenty million, but perhaps the point is made.

The only safe standard is life as viewed through the lens of the Golden Rule.  Live.  Let live.  Don't want to be a ****?  Don' be one, but leave that decision for each and every person to make for themselves.  Believe as you choose to believe - God, no God, kitchen sink, whatever - and allow others to do so as well in the way that accords with the dictates of their respective consciences.  This is the only sound approach.  If a group wishes to live as socialists, let them.  If they attempt to impose that life on you, shoot them.  There is no excuse for violating the consensual choices of individuals as that or in groups so long as they do not infringe upon your choices.  Live.  Let live.  It is the perfect formula for living.

----------


## osan

> It should be obvious to you that we no longer live under the "rule of law," especially when we have a President who disregards it at every jot of his pen.


I think we got that one.




> In any case, this issue is a theological one,


It may be for you.  For others it is not.  Let it go.




> and it's basic formulation is this: is man God, or is God God?


I must assume you are a "man of faith".  If so, you violate your status by speaking as if you _knew_ the first thing about God.  I seriously doubt that you do.  Faith is just that: _belief_, and that is perfectly valid.  But if you _believe_ this or that about "God", you really should refrain from making any positive assertions about "God" that do not begin with "I believe" or "It is my opinion that".  Anything other than this is claiming knowledge rather than expounding one's faith.




> Just for the record, I don't dismiss the Constitution as just "a piece of paper." I only said that because non-theists make similar diatribes like that towards other documents which prescribe how man should live (i.e. the Bible),


The bible is not the basis of our form of government.




> and I was showing how that same rationale can be used against the Constitution.


That rationale is fallacious - wholly invalid, and untrue to boot.  Just because something is said, it does not follow that it is true.




> But why not? If there are no such things as absolute truth or objective moral standards, then people have every whim to behave by what please them best.


There is an objective moral standard.  We call it "life".  I direct you to this essay once again:

http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...s-freedom.html

One does not get more objective than that.

----------


## constituent

> Actually, this is not quite so.  Consider this essay: 
> 
> http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...s-freedom.html
> 
> As you can see, there actually is an invariant - human life.  It is most safe to say, for example, that the vast and overwhelming majority of people in the USA (let us forget about the rest of the world for the sake of this exchange) do not wish to be murdered, robbed, raped, or beaten.  We already have 4 elements of "the invariant", i.e., the standard by which proper action is defined and the limits of our prerogatives delimited.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is suggestive of a traitor's treason, or at least an ignoramus' willingness to be directed by others, regardless of where it may lead.  To the latter point, it is most often overlooked by even the likes of those found here to discover those behind the scenes.  Without a concentrated effort at exposing, investigating, and possibly prosecuting and even executing such people and destroying the organizations to which they owe fealty and in whose interests they operate, no amount of cleansing effort will produce the desired result.
> ...





> Obama has no moral basis for violating my rights, nor those of anyone else.  I am a sovereign being, so Obama can screw off with his opinions, as can anyone else with notions of violating my space.  You appear to be of the mind that your idea of "God" is necessary for proper action.  I assure you that it is not only unnecessary, it is a most unsound way of approaching the matter.  Put a million people in a room and I promise you that there will be at least 2 million definitions and opinions on what God is and what God wants.  More like twenty million, but perhaps the point is made.
> 
> The only safe standard is life as viewed through the lens of the Golden Rule.  Live.  Let live.  Don't want to be a ****?  Don' be one, but leave that decision for each and every person to make for themselves.  Believe as you choose to believe - God, no God, kitchen sink, whatever - and allow others to do so as well in the way that accords with the dictates of their respective consciences.  This is the only sound approach.  If a group wishes to live as socialists, let them.  If they attempt to impose that life on you, shoot them.  There is no excuse for violating the consensual choices of individuals as that or in groups so long as they do not infringe upon your choices.  Live.  Let live.  It is the perfect formula for living.





> I think we got that one.
> 
> 
> 
> It may be for you.  For others it is not.  Let it go.
> 
> 
> 
> I must assume you are a "man of faith".  If so, you violate your status by speaking as if you _knew_ the first thing about God.  I seriously doubt that you do.  Faith is just that: _belief_, and that is perfectly valid.  But if you _believe_ this or that about "God", you really should refrain from making any positive assertions about "God" that do not begin with "I believe" or "It is my opinion that".  Anything other than this is claiming knowledge rather than expounding one's faith.
> ...




Friend, you ain't seen nothing yet!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=223823

Welcome to RPF.

----------


## orafi

Do citizens (of any nation) have access to Interpol in any way?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Do citizens (of any nation) have access to Interpol in any way?


Not that I know of.

They are a completely "closed" enforcement arm of...something.

----------


## Cap

Has the good Doctor weighed in on this yet?

----------


## Captain America

Our President is the 5th Column.

Remember to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemy's
Mr. Obama you are a Domestic enemy.

----------


## ScoutsHonor

Tellin' it like it is ...

----------


## FrankRep

> President Barack Obama amended Reagan-era Executive Order 12425 on December 17, which granted agents of the global police database Interpol full immunity from U.S. tax and customs laws, as if they were full ambassadors from other countries. by Thomas R. Eddlem



*Obama Executive Order on Interpol Gives Fatcats Full Tax Exemption*


Thomas R. Eddlem | The New American 
29 December 2009


President Barack Obama amended Reagan-era Executive Order 12425 on December 17, which granted agents of the global police database Interpol full immunity from U.S. tax and customs laws, as if they were full ambassadors from other countries.

The original 1983 executive order designated Interpol as an international organization protected by some immunity laws, but Obama's amendment granted all Interpol employees full exemption from U.S. taxes and customs inspections. Under provisions of Obama's executive order, Interpol and its employees in the United States won't have to any pay income taxes, property taxes, or Social Security taxes, in addition to customs duties.

The executive order also notes that Interpol employees and their property shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.

The latter provision has caused some alarm on the Internet, where many have feared Interpol  which is a law-enforcement agency  would be given more authority to operate in the United States. However, this executive order does nothing to change the authority of Interpol to operate in the United States, except to exempt them from taxes and searches.

It is suspicious that the archives of Interpol is said to be inviolable from U.S. government search, as the entire purpose of Interpol is to share information on international criminals between nations. Such an executive order makes it possible  however unlikely  that such an exemption from customs duties and searches could lead to the export of sensitive materials without U.S. government authorization. It is also possible that U.S. persons could be exported (perhaps for trial at an international criminal court) without a search. The International Criminal Court has actively courted cooperation with Interpol, the Lyon, France-based International Criminal Police Organization formed in 1923 (and later taken over by Nazi Germany, though revived after World War II).

Though such abductions are possible under Obama's amended executive order, the amendment doesn't authorize anything of the sort. And it doesn't appear abduction of Americans for the International Criminal Court (to which the United States is not a party) is the intent of Obama's December 17 edict. Abductions are against the basic principles of Interpol. Rather, it looks as if Obama is just giving some of his globalist fatcat friends a full-blown tax exemption.

We should all be so lucky to be exempt from income and Social Security taxes. But Americans have seen their taxes increased under Obama, from the tobacco tax increase already passed to the cap-and-trade and healthcare tax increases eagerly being sought by the Obama administration.


*SOURCE:*
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....-tax-exemption

----------


## ctiger2

http://threatswatch.org/analysis/200...r-sovereignty/

YouTube - America placed under international police state

----------


## Merk

Those blue helmets are sure easy to spot in a crowd. 


YouTube - America placed under international police state

----------


## Merk

Please note my signature below.

You will be spared no quarter if/when interacting with INTERPOL agents.

I suggest a very balanced reciprocity be practiced.

----------


## Captain America

Day after day we are losing Liberty and what made America great. There has to be something legally we can do.

----------


## crushingstep7

He is most definitely the enemy .

----------


## FrankRep

Obama grants Interpol immunity as foreign 'assets' assigned to U.S. homeland
YouTube - Obama grants Interpol immunity as foreign 'assets' assigned to U.S. homeland


Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?
(International Criminal Court)

ThreatsWatch.org
December 23, 2009

http://threatswatch.org/analysis/200...r-sovereignty/

----------


## devil21

A push to "protect" accusing witnesses, for _their_ safety of course, is starting up.  Heads up.  Anybody remember this?

Who exactly is INTERPOL right now?

----------


## TommyJeff

Great post devil21.  Where is congress during all this?  Is no one in congress upset about losing their job (to make law)?  Why do we need congress if the present makes EO?   And where are _our_ representatives (at least in the house) notifying their constituents about such a policy?

----------

