From my perspective, you guys are denying what's plainly in front of you. Your lack-of-racial-undertone suggestions defy reality. If there isn't a play to the stereotype about blacks shining shoes, the picture isn't "funny." If it isn't about him being black in a stereotypical uneducated African-American position, what's the joke? Obama lost his job and is now doing this? He hasn't lost his job, Jean. He hasn't come close. There's nothing that has happened in the real world to make that the tie-in to the attempt at humor.

For those who have had little exposure to ethnic stereotypes, let me clue you in (I grew up with ethnic humor. My parents, who are from the East Coast, had children late and are closer to two generations older than me, than one):

Poles and Italians - Stupid, a step in "class" only above blacks. The latter are notorious for being involved with organized crime. The former work mostly in coal mines.

Irish - Commonly drunk, work as policemen and have a hardcore devotion to the Pope.

Jews - Completely dishonest, particularly in financial dealings.

Germans - Makers of lousy food and no senses of humor. Anal retentive and devoted to detail to the Nth degree.

Chinese - Found in two places: Chinese restaurants and laundries.

Japanese - Scheming backstabbers.

Blacks - The lowest rung in American society. Only fit for positions that entail physical labor (domestics, drivers, servants, laborers ... and certainly shoe shine boys, which were commonplace in large American cities during the first half of the 20th Century).

Are these dated stereotypes? Sure. But to deny them and their place in American culture is pointless. Particularly in view of the fact that the picture in question doesn't make any "humorous" sense otherwise. Whether you perceive it or not, the person who made the Obama/Palin pic intended it, because there's no other quickly understood "funny" reason to have a black president shining shoes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Do I think the pic is a big deal or something for which we all have to immerse ourselves in "sensitivity" courses about, or some other PC nonsense? No, of course not. But when a black woman in her 80's doesn't like it, I completely understand why. It's a cheap shot at the guy. The joke, at least in part, is about his skin color, no question.

OK, end of discussion on my end. You either get it or you don't and this topic really doesn't merit the time we've invested in it. Please excuse me now, I have to go lend money at exorbitant rates of interest.

"Italians - Stupid, a step in "class" only above blacks. The latter are notorious for being involved with organized crime. The former work mostly in coal mines."

Yeah, so, what's your point? Oh, and by the way SZ, for Hanukkah/Chanukah, I got you a cement overcoat with matching shoes. I hope you like them. The outfit will go along with your free toll tokens for the Brooklyn Bridge tour. A car ride down by the river is lovely this time of year. Enjoy.;)

Trivia: All the roads in New York City end at the river.

Fugheddaboudit, lol.

A Greek and an Italian

A Greek and Italian were sitting in a Starbuck's one day discussing who had the superior culture. Over triple lattes the Greek guy says, "Well, we have the Parthenon."

Arching his eyebrows, the Italian replies, "We have the Coliseum." The Greek retorts, "We Greeks gave birth to advanced mathematics."

The Italian, nodding agreement, says, "But we built the Roman Empire."

And so on and so on until the Greek comes up with what he thinks will end the discussion. With a flourish of finality he says, "We invented sex!"

The Italian replies, "That is true, but it was the Italians who introduced it to women!":eek:

Really? OK, that sounds reasonable on the conditions that you sell it to me at wholesale and there is an extra coat, tossed in gratis, for my Uncle Morty.

Alright, off the top of my head, I can come up with this trio; the last two of which are so bad that if the Christians are right about the existence of Hell, I just reserved myself a seat in the first 20 rows.


Question: Why do Jews have such big noses?

Answer: Because the air is free.


Have you heard about the new German-built microwave currently being marketed to consumers on Fairfax and in Brentwood?

It seats 40.


Question: What is the difference between a pizza and a Jew?

Answer: Pizzas don't scream when you toss them in the oven.

O M G:eek: That is really bad, however, that won't stop me.

Can you top this?

Question: How was the Grand Canyon formed?

Answer: A Jew dropped a penny down a gofer hole.


Question: Why does the state of New Jersey have more toxic waste dumps than lawyers?

Answer: They had first choice.


Question: Why are lawyers buried with holes drilled in their coffins?

Answer: So the worms and maggots can crawl out to throw up.:)

Not only is Obama going down, so is this thread!

Oh, pleeeeeaaase ...

You're a piker in comparison to me. Lawyer jokes rank up there somewhere just above knock knock questions in terms of offensiveness.

Face it, the utterly irredeemable stuff I wrote in my last post blows your stuff out of the water. I just made mockery of one of the worst crimes in human history, and treated the unbelievable suffering of innocents as though it was somehow fit for "humor." I should be royally ashamed that my soul can be that black.

However, you and Phil are missing the silver lining to all of this. You notice that depictions of Barack Obama shining shoes seem endlessly tame in comparison now?

My work here is done! Well, almost.

Question: What does a Jewish girl make for dinner?

Answer: Reservations.

Exactly. I would rate Barack Obama shining shoes no more than a 2 on a 10-point scale of racist things.

I can be silent no more.

A photo of obamadinejad shining shoes suggests he is capable of gainful employment. The concept is ridiculous, hence the joke.

I think there are many ways to interpret the photo other than it being simply an example of a racist stereotype. I just liked the feeling it gave me to see Obama shining Sarah Palin's shoes.

Is he FIT to shine Sarah Palin's shoes?

No.

I'm not really a Palin lover and I think there may be more to her than meets the eye, but if I had to choose between her and Obama I'd take her in a New York minute! I honestly don't why you keep defending Obama, RIM. He has made no bones about wanting amnesty for illegals as soon as possible, not to mention the fact that he's about to further wreck our economy with the so-called "health care" bill, the jobs spending bill, and cap and trade. I could go on, but there's not much point. Can you cite one good thing he's done since he's been in office?

Doesn't it concern you that Obama is totally in favor of amnesty and Palin has a significantly tougher position on illegal immigration?

I always love this guy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYEtklBiBB0&feature=sub

obamadinejad has done what he intended to do, wreck the economy, totally destroy our credit rating in the world, remove us from the position of being a world power, and made an utter fool of himself over and over again. He didn't do all of this alone, he had a lot of help from the democrats in the congress and senate. He did make a fool of himself all alone.

That's why they all gotta go.

Good Morning Davi.

Thanks, and the same to you.

Yes, GWB is the worst of the worst.
I remember all the good things about our country before the former druguser/drunk took office and it is just amazing where it was in 09-08. Thanks GEORGE WALKER BUSH!

It will be interesting to see where the American people decide to go in the 2010 election. Through obamadinejad, democrats are becoming more and more entwined and linked to flat out marxisim. We'll see whether the public wants to go there or not.

Rimo, I wouldn't use the drug thing against Bush because Obama did drugs also.

Both these guys have been poor choices for the office. Obama didn't create this situation we're in and I don't believe he actually wants to destroy the US. But his ideology is more than he can overcome and as a result he is certainly doing as much damage as Bush, but it looks to me that he will do much more by the time he leaves office. He didn't have the experience to handle the job and what little experience he did have came with Chicago politics. That's why he kept the trash around him. Bush had the Mexican hookups and you see where that got us.

Obama isn't stupid, he just is so much a socialist and would prefer to see the country go down if that's what's needed to achieve that goal. He doesn't have the experience to achieve much more.

You can attack Bush all you want if it makes you feel better, RIM, but he's no longer the President, so simply comparing Obama to Bush doesn't tell us anything about what you think of Obama. You still haven't named one good thing he's done since he's been in office, and how do you feel about his about his willingness to grant amnesty to millions of illegals? I'm still waiting for an answer.

There is also no record of any drug use by GWB. The allegations of drug use were made by J. H. Hatfield in his book Fortunate Son. Fortunate Son is a controversial biography of former American president George W. Bush by J.H. Hatfield. The book was released in 2000 during Bush's candidacy in the United States 2000 Presidential Election.

Soon after the book's release, The Dallas Morning News reported that Hatfield was a paroled felon who had been convicted in 1988 of paying a hit man $5,000 to murder his former boss with a car bomb. It was also revealed that Hatfield pleaded guilty to embezzlement in 1992. Hatfield at first denied the allegations when his publisher confronted him, but he eventually owned up to his criminal history.

There's a REAL credible source for you!

obamadinejad however, has been quite open about his drug use. He wrote of it himself. Is there any indication that obamadinejad quit? No. Has he ever said he quit? Wrote about it? He addressed high school students about his drug use. Did he ever talk about his efforts to quit? No.

I used to call him obamanation. I stopped when he did just what Ahmadinejad did during the Iranian protests. obamadinejad asked his SEIU thugs to go to the tea parties and beat up the protesters. Nice guy, worth all the support in the world. They are pretty much the same when it comes to dissent aren't they?

All time low for B.O.!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President (see trends).

Fifty-three percent (53%) of men Strongly Disapprove along with 39% of women. Most African-American voters (58%) Strongly Approve while most white voters (53%) Strongly Disapprove.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove as do 52% of unaffiliated voters. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democrats Strongly Approve.

For the second straight day, the update shows the highest level of Strong Disapproval yet recorded for this President. That negative rating had never topped 42% before yesterday. However, it has risen dramatically since the Senate found 60 votes to move forward with the proposed health care reform legislation. Most voters (55%) oppose the health care legislation and senior citizens are even more likely than younger voters to dislike the plan.

One bright spot in the numbers for the President is that 51% of voters still say former President George W. Bush is more to blame for the nation’s economic woes. Just 41% point the finger of blame at the current President.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Democrats approve while 88% of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters disapprove. See recent demographic highlights from the tracking poll.

Nope, that take on the joke would require that, rather than Obama being the one shining the shoes, the person displayed in such activity be Antonio Villaraigosa, Fabian Nunez or Janice Hahn.

Not Janice Hahn. You know what she did, putz that she is. They need an entirely new category for Janice Hahn. The only mystery is WHY is she still holding any kind of office? She should have been run out a couple of years ago.

Otherwise, I would agree up to a point. obamadinejad is at least as employable as Antonio Villaraigosa or Fabian Nunez.

That said. Tony the Thug did admit he was capable of cleaning toilets. With a shoe shine presidebt and a toilet cleaning mayor, SURELY we can find something for Nunez to do.

Well, Obamaman's closed to a gap of minus 18 in the strongly approval/disapproval ratings, and his overall is 45% approval, 55% disapproval. At this rate he just might pass Bush.

I was reading some comments made on an article relating to the passage of the healthcare in the Senate, and one really struck me. It said "For the first time in my adult life, I'm ashamed of my country." Of course it was a rebuttal to what Michele Obama said, but it saddened me, because for the first time in my life I'm ashamed of my country. I'm ashamed that we have what we have in DC representing us, and that I was a Democrat for so many years. What a sad day for our country to have come to this, where we have such trash running this country. Educated trash that the uneducated put in office.

British Law declares Obama a British citizen!
 

British Law declares Obama a British citizen!
Post & Email
Thursday, December 24, 2009 A.D.
British Law declares Obama a British citizen!
THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION
Legal Analysis by John Charlton

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.../images/uk.jpg
The Union Jack, symbol of British tyranny and oppresion to the American revolutionaries, has flown over the head of Barack Obama from his birth.

(Dec. 24, 2009) — Barack Hussein Obama has written 2 biographies about himself and has publicly spoken of his origins in many public speeches. He claims as his biological and legal father, a man who went by the name Barrack Hussein Obama. That is the more common Kenyan spelling of the name. His claimed father also went by the names “Barak” and “Barack”, the former when he penned an article in an journal on economics, in Nairobi, in the 60’s, the latter when he registered at the University of Hawaii. The latter form appears on the electronic image of Obama’s alleged Certification of Live Birth.

If we apply the provisions of British and Kenyan law to the simple facts, which Obama claims about himself — though in truth there is not documentation that the public has seen to confirm the truth of these facts — the inescapable conclusion is that Obama was born a British subject and is now, still to this day, a British citizen.

The laws and regulations which lead to this conclusion are the official British Consular Registry Stipulations, the British Nationality Act of 1948 and of 1981, Kenya Constitution, and the Kenya Independence Act of 1963.


Let’s see how these apply to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that he’d be born a ‘British Citizen by Descent’
The British Consular Registry uses the criteria set forth in the British Nationality Act of 1948 Section 5(1) of the United Kingdom and Colonies to determine who would be qualified as a “British Citizen By Descent.”

Section 5-1 reads thus:

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or

(b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; or

(c) that person’s father is, at the time of the birth, in Crown service under His Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom; or

(d) that person is born in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act in which a citizenship law has then taken effect and does not become a citizen thereof on birth.

The man Obama claims as his father is Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., a man born in the Kenya Colony in 1936. Being born in the Kenya Colony, he was a British subject or citizen. Obama was born after the commencement of this above quoted act, ergo, Obama Jr. is a British citizen-by-descent.

The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that he’d become a Citizen of Kenya in 1963
According to the Kenya Constitution (87), Obama became a Kenyan citizen in 1963, by virtue of the fact that his claimed father was born in the Kenya colony.

The Constitution of Kenya, Section 87, reads thus:

87*. Persons who became citizens on 12th December, 1963
1.Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on llth December, 1963, as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person, shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963:Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.
2.Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on llth December, 1963, as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person, shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Therefore Obama Jr. became a citizen of Kenya, Dec. 12, 1963, when his father did. Moreover, when his father returned to Kenya, upon graduation from Harvard, he obtained employment with the Kenyan Government as a senior Economist.

Note, that while the Kenyan constitution prohibits dual citizenship for those 21 years old or older, it does not do so for minors (cf. section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution).

The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that he’d remain a British citizen-by-descent after 1963
According to the Kenya Independence Act of 1963, Obama would have retained his British citizenship status.

This is the legal conclusion of the provisions of Chapter 54, section 3 of that act of Parliament:

3.—(1) Any reference in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section to a colony, protectorate or protected state shall, subject to subsection (7) of this section, be construed as a reference to a territory which is a colony, protectorate or protected state (within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1948) on the appointed day, and, accordingly, shall not include a reference to Kenya or any part thereof.

(2) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, a person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he, his father or his father’s father —

(a) was born in the United Kingdom or in a colony; or

(b) is or was a person naturalised in the United Kingdom and Colonies; or

(c) was registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or

(d) became a British subject by reason of the annexation of any territory included in a colony.

(3) A person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he was born in a protectorate or protected state, or if his father or his father’s father was so born and is or at any time was a British subject.

(4) A woman who is the wife of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall not cease to be such a citizen under section 2(2) of this Act unless her husband does so.

…

Since Obama’s claimed father was born in Kenya Colony, which was in 1936 part of the British Empire, and furthermore, since his father’s father, Hussein Onyango Obama was born in the British Protectorate of Kenya in 1895 (cfr. Dreams of My Father, p. 376; 425-426) , and was therefore a British Protected Person under the British Nationality and Status Act of 1914, Obama Jr retained his British citizenship status after Dec. 12, 1963.

Obama’s alleged childhood history raises the question that he was adopted by an Indonesian citizen, and therefore became an Indonesian citizen in 1966-67
According to the laws of Indonesia, in force in the 1960’s, Obama would have become a citizen of Indonesia if he was adopted by Lolo Soetero at the age of 5 or younger.

It is not yet known whether he was adopted, of if he was, in what year this may have occurred. Facts to support such an adoption are thus: an Indonesian school record which indicates that he was an Indonesian citizen, bearing the name Barry Soetero, and the Dunham-Soetero Divorce Decree of 1981, which indicates a non-minor as a child of the marriage.

That Obama goes by the name “Barry” was evidenced recently, when he called into a radio show and spoke with the outgoing Governor of Virginia. On that occasion he identified himself as “Barry from D.C..” When questioned about this phone call, the White House said that it “would not be inaccurate” to say the person calling was Barack Hussein Obama, Jr..

The Presumption is that Obama did not revoke his British Citizenship on Aug. 4, 1979
According to the British Home Office: U.K. Border Agency, to renounce British Citizenship one must be at least 18 years of age and fill out a declaration, using form RN.

Therefore, upon reaching the age of 18, on Aug. 4, 1979, Obama could have revoked his citizenship. However, the British Government has never affirmed that he has. Therefore in law we must presume that he has not, if his birth story is true.

There is ground to suppose Obama renewed his Kenyan Citizenship in 1982
The Kenyan constitution establishes that upon reaching the age of 21 years, a Kenyan citizen must renounce all other citizenships, if he wants to retain his Kenyan citizenship. There is a 2 year window in which he must make such a renunciation. In Obama’s case this window opened on Aug. 4, 1982, and closed on Aug. 4, 1984. It is known that Obama visited Kenya 2 years after his father’s death (which occurred in 1981), and thus in 1983, during this window of opportunity.

The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that in 1983, he’d become a British-overseas-citizen and remain such today


Obama acknowledges his British citizenship, by bowing to his Queen, Elizabeth II.
The British Nationality Act of 1981 changed the nomenclature for citizenship status.

The pertinent provision of that act is found in Chapter 61, Part III, and reads as follows:

PART III BRITISH OVERSEAS CITIZENSHIP

s 26 Citizens of U.K. and Colonies who are to become British Overseas citizens at commencement.

Any person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement and who does not at commencement become either a British citizen or a [British overseas territories citizen] [FN1] shall at commencement become a British Overseas citizen.

By “commencement”, the Act signifies Jan. 1, 1983, the date upon which it went into force.

Hence according to this Act, Obama Jr. would have gone from being classified a British citizen-by-descent, to a British Overseas Citizen.

In summary, Obama was born a British citizen-by-descent, and remains a British Overseas Citizen even today — if his birth story is true. He was also a citizen of Kenya prior to age 21, and may still be one. He seems also to have been a citizen of Indonesia from 1966-1980’s, but this is uncertain.

[Editor's note:

There was another article at The Post & Email with a similar title and subject, but which I was asked to pull by its author, since the author feared being attacked by Obama supporters. I owe all the research to this author, but this article is entirely my own creation, inasmuch as I have not cited the author in anything, and wrote all the above myself, excluding the cited laws.]

Obama is a British Citizen!
 

Link
Obama is a British Citizen! THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION!
Posted by KC on December 24, 2009 at 1:18am

Obama is a British Citizen!
THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/...itish-citizen/


Pass it far and wide. I realize there have been other lawsuits, but this should have legs. It’s well written and documented by the British.


Natural Born Citizen can only be established by being born of the soil (within the lands of the United States), and of TWO parents who are already U.S. Citizens at time of Birth.


It’s clearly defined by the Framers. Now read the article above.


Then top it off with the article below, and everything else we know of regarding the election, the lawsuits, the cover-ups, the corruption, the affiliations, the money trail, turning his back on our allies, not willingly saying the Pledge of Allegiance during the campaign, the American Flag Pin, the lack of respect for our Constitution, our laws, our traditions, and lack of respect for our history, all the bits and pieces that don’t quite fit for a real NBC President.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...wMGU1ZjZhOG...


Why did Obama sign an Executive order to grant Interpol immunity from American Law? He did this in the last 10 days.



We have to find a way to get this info onto Talk Radio, in newspaper, whatever it takes. I know we have tried before, but we didn’t have this information from Great Britain. Leo Donofrio was right.

Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?
 

Link
Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? [Andy McCarthy]

You just can't make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.

Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld. Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America's defense).

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?

Steve Schippert has more at ThreatsWatch, here.

12/23 07:59 AMShare

Wither Sovereignty
 

Link

http://threatswatch.org/site-resourc..._back-full.jpg
ThreatsWatch.Org: PrincipalAnalysis
Wither Sovereignty
Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?
By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.
By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
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©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.

After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.

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. (Emphasis added.)

Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.")

Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

Context: International Criminal Court

The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.

We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF).

29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.

President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.

President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on.

However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.

Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.

"Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.

The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.

President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.

The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.

When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who's INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.

For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.

This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.

Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.

By Steve Schippert on December 23, 2009 3:00 AM
Notes
The White House: Executive Order - Amending Executive Order 12425
Patriot Room: Obama exempts INTERPOL from search and seizure on US lands
ICC: Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF)
UN Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Foreign Policy in Focus: Global Cooperation: The Candidates Speak
Pierre Legrand's Pink Flamingo Bar: Executive Order 12425 What The Hell Is This? What Did Obama Just Do?
Brutally Honest: Did Obama give INTERPOL more power last week?
NoisyRoom.net: Of Executive Orders and Trojan Horses
Twitter / Steve Schippert: Can someone please explain ...

Jean, do you know who said that? That's beautiful, I'd really like to know! And as for the rest of your post, I couldn't have said it any better except to add the word corrupt to educated trash.

I didn't take note Phil as to who exactly said it. It was over on Topix, but that one sentence really struck me, and I realized that I felt the same way. I am ashamed that our political representatives are not representing us as a country anymore. They are the educated, and yes corrupt, trash we have in DC. When you think of an embezzler you think of them as trash, but that's exactly the way I think of our politicians, just educated trash.

Has obamadinejad said anything - ever - that would lead a reasonable person to conclude he would be a loyal American? He has been, always, and is, exactly what he said he was, a citizen of the world. It seems natural that he would give interpol immunity in the US. They are the highest law enforcement authority he knows of.

One of my buddies on another forum has another name for him. She calls him the "IMPOTUS".

OP Ed essay in New York Times 12-25-09.

Headlined in today's (12-29) La Daily News as:

Tightrope act is dangerous one for Obama

Opinion Piece by Thomas Sowell