Obama’s Security ‘Breach’

Obama’s Security ‘Breach’

December 31st, 2009

Wall Street Journal

 Returning Gitmo’s detainees to Yemen defies common sense.

President Obama has belatedly declared that the near miss above Detroit constituted “a catastrophic breach of security” and ordered a review of America’s intelligence efforts. We’re glad to hear it, but let’s hope the Commander in Chief also rethinks his own approach to counterterrorism.

Recent events have exposed the shortcomings of treating terror as a law enforcement problem and rushing to close Guantanamo Bay. A new wave of jihadists is coming of age, inspiring last month’s deadly attack at Ft. Hood and nearly bringing down Northwest Flight 253, and next time we may not be so lucky.

Their latest sanctuary lies in unruly Yemen, headquarters for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, which last year pulled off a series of local bombings, including at the U.S. embassy in the capital Sana, killing 13. The al Qaeda chapter in Yemen has re-emerged under the leadership of a former secretary to Osama bin Laden.

Along with a dozen other al Qaeda members, he was allowed to escape from a Yemeni jail in 2006. His deputy, Said Ali al-Shihri, was a Saudi inmate at Gitmo who after his release “graduated” from that country’s terrorist “rehabilitation” program before moving to Yemen last year. About a fifth of the so-called graduates have ended back on the Saudi terror most-wanted list, according to a GAO study this year.

Read More:

Obama Backs Down from Threat

Obama Backs Down from Threat

December 31st, 2009

By Dan Weil, Newsmax

 Obama differentiates himself from Bush’s tough on terror stance

Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., says President Obama’s response to the terrorist attacks on Fort Hood and the airplane headed to Detroit is irresponsible.

The congressman serves on the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on terrorism.

“There wasn’t the sense of concern, urgency and just horror at what happened in both situations,” he told Kathleen Walter of Newsmax.TV.

“One of the things the president is trying to do is distance himself from the reputation the Bush administration had as being ultra tough on terrorism.”

Read More:

Obama signs away your legal protections

Obama signs away your legal protections

December 31st, 2009

By Floyd Brown, Western Journalism

 Interpol now has free reign in the US

With the signing of an under-publicized amendment to Executive Order 12425, Barack Obama has fundamentally altered your constitutional rights. His actions are undermining your rights to protect personal privacy from a foreign internationalist police agency named Interpol. A one-paragraph executive order may seem inconsequential to many, but this action has far-reaching implications and threatens the sovereignty of America.

Obama’s secretive executive order amended an order issued by President Reagan in 1983. Reagan’s order recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it privileges and immunities commonly extended to foreign diplomats. Reagan opened the door to allow Interpol to operate in partnership with the U.S. but with significant constitutional safeguards. Specifically, Interpol’s property and assets remained subject to search and seizure by American law enforcement, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Interpol had to answer to the FBI and U.S. courts under Reagan’s order. These safeguards were stripped away by Obama’s action the week before Christmas without debate or explanation. Obama picked the holiday season to make this radical change, to minimize media coverage.

This order marks a significant change in federal policy and usurps the constitutional power of our government by yielding it to an international organization. Michael van Der Galien writes, “This foreign law-enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse. Property and assets, including the organization’s records, cannot now be searched or seized. Their physical operational locations are now immune from U.S. legal and investigative authorities.”

Obama has given an international organization unsupervised freedom to investigate Americans on our own soil without recourse or the supervision of our own government.

Obama has given an international organization unsupervised freedom to investigate Americans on our own soil without recourse or the supervision of our own government.

Andy McCarthy writing for the National Review asks some very significant questions: “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?”

Interpol is the enforcement arm of the International Criminal Court, or ICC. The United States never signed onto the Rome Treaty, which created the ICC, because of the potential for abuse by foreign interests. Obama has signaled he may sign the treaty over these objections and subject Americans to prosecution overseas in the ICC. This is harmful for two reasons. First, the U.S. Constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of our land, and allowing the ICC to supersede the U.S. Constitution violates America’s sovereignty. Second, the War on Terror is unpopular with Europeans, and the ICC may attempt to prosecute heroic American soldiers with trumped-up war crimes. Obama is putting brave American men and women at grave risk.

An added wrinkle to this executive order is that Interpol’s operations center for the United States is housed within our own Justice Department. Many of the agents are Americans who work under the aegis of Interpol. This order has potentially created the new civilian security force that Obama proposed during his campaign. This group of law-enforcement officials is no longer subject to the restraints enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The order guarantees that Interpol officers have immunity from prosecution for crimes they may commit in the United States. Ironically, some Interpol nations are attempting to try American intelligence agents for their work abroad in the War on Terror.

This order shows blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution. While Obama is extending due process rights to terrorists he is weakening those same rights for American citizens. If a citizen were to be prosecuted by Interpol, their newly granted immunity would interfere with the discovery process. Since Interpol files are immune to disclosure, a citizen could be denied his right to see the information used to prosecute him or her.

Obama’s executive order has done more to weaken civil liberties than the much-maligned Patriot Act. The silence in the mainstream media on this issue should scare all freedom-loving Americans. Obama just signed away parts of our precious legal protections.

Wanted: Adult Supervision for White House

Wanted: Adult Supervision for White House

Russ Vaughn

It would appear that what is needed most in the Obama White House is adult supervision.

In the wake of the latest terror incident was the Administration’s top priority finding the weakness in our security systems that allowed a Muslim terrorist to come so close to destroying an American airplane full of Christmas travelers?

Well, no, according to an unnamed staffer who is quoted at American Spectator:

“The idea was that we’d show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could,” says a staffer in the counsel’s office. “We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we’d declassify it if necessary.”

The article states that the White House is in full defensive spin mode being directed by Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and Robert Bauer.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/wanted_adult_supervision_for_w.html at January 01, 2010 – 12:50:47 PM EST

A New Way on Iran – by Jacob Laksin

A New Way on Iran – by Jacob Laksin

Posted By Jacob Laksin On December 31, 2009 @ 12:03 am In FrontPage | 17 Comments


As the clock counts down on the Obama administration’s end-of-year deadline [1] for negotiations with Iran, it’s timely to review what the administration has to show for its policy of engaging the regime.

Obama’s investment in this policy has been substantial. The president has personally reached out to the Iranian leadership, even going so far as to send letters appealing for better relations [2] to the country’s unofficial leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. When demonstrations erupted this June in the wake of a blatantly fraudulent presidential election, the administration spurned a chance to take a stand with the thousands of opposition demonstrators who poured out onto Iran’s streets – and, when the streets became too dangerous, onto Iran’s rooftops – to protest the political injustice committed in their name. Not even grisly reprisals against democrats, dissidents, journalists and political activists elicited more than a tame warning from Washington. Obama pronounced himself “appalled and outraged” at the regime’s brutality, but revulsion did not translate into robust response. For all intents and purposes, the mullahs and their loyalist thugs were given a free pass to suppress all stirrings of dissent as they pleased.

That remains official U.S. policy. Recent weeks have seen Iran transformed once again into a battlefield between the theocratic regime and its militia enforcers on the one side and the democratic opposition on the other. Credible reports suggest that the latest crackdown has left dozens dead, even as a police-state dragnet has swept thousands under arrest. Prominent critics and democratic activists have been targeted, as have their relatives. The nephew of opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi, believed by many to be the true winner of the summer election, has reportedly been killed after being run over. The apolitical sister of Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi has been arrested. Opposition leaders who fall into the regime’s clutches face execution [3]. Watching the bloodshed from his paradise retreat in Hawaii, President Obama has offered only symbolic support for the swelling ranks of victims. Despite condemning the regime’s “iron fist of brutality,” he has not lifted a hand to break its repressive grip. And so the crackdown continues.

From the administration’s standpoint, this calculated coldness to the human-rights atrocity unfolding in plain sight is the height of pragmatism. Granting official and active support to the opposition demonstrators’ cause, the argument goes, would only encourage the regime to discredit them as seditionist stooges of the Great Satan. At the same time, it would compromise the administration’s leverage on nuclear issues, making it more difficult to bring Iran to the diplomatic bargaining table.

Such convenient rationalizations fly in the face of recent history. If the past decade has taught any lesson, it is that Iran will not be peacefully persuaded to abandon its march toward a nuclear weapon. Supporting the suspicion is the ever-expanding evidence of the regime’s covert nuclear activities, including revelations [4], earlier this month, that Iran has spent four years constructing a “neutron initiator,” otherwise known as a trigger for a nuclear bomb. For those who continue to believe that the regime can be reasoned with – a dwindling number that nonetheless includes many in the Obama administration – Iranian officials have long been the bearers of bad news. When warned recently that Iran could face a new round of sanctions if it failed to comply with the administration’s timelines, Mahmoud Ahmadinehad offered a revealing retort: “We don’t care. We are not afraid of sanctions against us and we are not intimidated.”

The same cannot be said of opposition protestors, many of whom have been forced at risk of death into hiding or exile. But if the Obama administration believed that keeping its distance from the men and women being bludgeoned on the streets would spare them from the regime’s lurid slurs of treason and the United States from charges of foreign subversion it has tragically misunderstood the cynicism of totalitarian regimes. The fact that the opposition has received no official support has not deterred Iran’s Orwellian foreign ministry from decrying [5] fictional “interference” in the country’s internal affairs. Nor has the mere fact of its absurdity kept Ahmadinejad from alleging that the mass uprisings in Iran are part of a play “commissioned” by “Americans” and – who else? – “Zionists.” So much for the Obama administration’s assurance that engagement has made it “difficult to demonize the United States and say it has been the root of all evil.” Modern Iran may have few exports, but it boasts an oversupply of anti-American conspiracy theories.

Small indeed are the wages of inaction. There is little indication, meanwhile, that the action that the administration is prepared to take, such as targeted sanctions against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard [6], offers a realistic solution to regime’s threat, foreign or domestic. However defensible in themselves, sanctions will neither make the regime more pliant on nuclear matters nor relieve pressure on the embattled opposition. By contrast, meaningful support for the opposition – including but not limited to financial aid – could provide the kind of existential threat that Iran’s ruling powers have learned to discount from the international community. It would be a grim coda to 2009 if the administration that has presided over the largest government spending spree since the Great Depression was prepared to use taxpayer dollars to bail out all but the desperately needy.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

2.  No Tenure / No Pension:

    A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

     All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately.

    All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned  citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.


6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/

    The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned  citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

If you agree with the above, pass it on to all in your address list.