(h/t to the Rott for the idea…)

Since everyone’s going on about how ‘Historic!!!’ President Obama’s signing of the $1.2 Trillion debt-note is today, I just thought I’d make sure that the other important anniversaries for March 23rd don’t get lost in the shuffle…

- On March 23rd 1765, British Parliament passed the Stamp Act – a major grievance and watershed moment in the formation of the rebellion of the American colonies…

- On March 23rd 1919, Benito Mussolini founded the Fascist Party in Italy

- On March 23rd 1933, the German Reichstag passed the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation” (aka ‘The Enabling Act’), giving chancellor Adolph Hitler plenary powers through which he established his dictatorship… by granting the Cabinet the authority to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag(like Congress)-
(I suppose those laws were just ‘Deemed to have Passed’ - Ron)

- On March 23rd 1942, Japanese-Americans were forcibly moved from their homes along the Pacific Coast to inland internment camps.

And…

- On March 23 1775, In a speech supporting the arming of the Virginia militia, Patrick Henry declared, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

But don’t worry – I’m sure the date’s not karmically cyclical or anything…

Pure Coincidence…nothing to see here, folks…move along.

- Ron

…turns out, it really was ‘just a piece of paper’ after all.

The Slaughter Solution (Deem&Pass) has passed, 222-203.  

UPDATED & UPDATED Again…

This means that the House of Representatives will now vote (on Sunday) on a bill that makes ‘changes’ to The Senate Healthcare bill, while officially “Deeming that Senate Healthcare Bill to have already passed” in the House.

Which, in turn, means that the Senate Healthcare Bill itself will bypass the House of Representatives without a vote, going straight to the White House to be signed into Law.

Obama has already stated that he does not care HOW the Healthcare Bill gets to his desk, as long as it does - and he will sign it.

Our State Representatives will not be given the opportunity/responsibility of voting on the Senate Healthcare Bill - it will be signed into law without them.

Precedent for bypassing America’s bi-cameral system of legislation - for imposing Law on American citizens without that system of rules that was built into our … formerly… Representative Republic, is about to hit the books…

… and THAT will be far, FAR costlier that the >$1Trillion in debt that it represents on its face.

Congratulations, folks - we’ve just crossed the line from ‘The Governed’ to ‘The Ruled’.

I really had hoped I would have more time.

- Ron

UPDATE:

I’ve been hearing a lot of “Yeah, Well…the Repubs have used the Self-Executing Rule before, too!!”

While historically true - I. Don’t. Care. - I wasn’t writing this blog back when that happened - if I had been, I’d have reacted just the same way (albeit probably without the added sense of urgency commensurate with what else is on-the-line in this case).

While I realize that I’ve suffered from some editorializing mission-creep in the past few months, I started this blog as a way to point out and explain instances of legislative abuse - abuses with a very real chance of affecting the freedoms of American Citizens.

Dem-or-Repub, that’s what this is - in direct opposition to Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution:

“Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.”

Both houses of Congress vote - everyone puts their name on the line.

It’s written that way on purpose.

It’s the Constitution, Stupid.

UPDATE-the-Second:

Looks like President Obama’s take is more along the lines of “It’s The Stupid Constitution” - as, according to his mouthpiece, he wouldn’t rule out signing other legislation into Law that subverts the Constitutionally bi-cameral process.

It’s been a good run - this ‘freedom under a representative republic’ - hasn’t it?

Someone should write a book about it, so the kids can read about what it was like.

I had to read through this twice just to make sure it was real.

Apparently, Haiti will take our aid, our money, our military’s first-class manpower and technical proficiency…

But flying our flag over our base of relief operations – that would be offensive.

From the Army Times:

Flap flies in Haiti over U.S. flag absence

By Alan Gomez and Oren Dorell - USA Today
Posted : Monday Mar 15, 2010 15:35:11 EDT

The many nations helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake that struck there have set up their own military compounds and fly their flags at the entrances.

France’s tricolor, Britain’s Union Jack and even Croatia’s coat of arms flap in the breeze.

But the country whose contributions dwarf the rest of the world’s — the United States — has no flag at its main installation near the Port-au-Prince airport.

The lack of the Stars and Stripes does not sit well with some veterans and servicemembers who say the U.S. government should be proud to fly the flag in Haiti, given the amount of money and manpower the U.S. is donating to help the country recover from the Jan. 12 quake.

The Obama administration says flying the flag could give Haiti the wrong idea.

“We are not here as an occupation force, but as an international partner committed to supporting the government of Haiti on the road to recovery,” the U.S. government’s Haiti Joint Information Center said in response to a query about the flag.

Okay – Let’s Review:

Everyone’s okay with France flying their flag over their relief operations – France – with their role in Haiti’s history , but somehow seeing the American flag (for those taking notes, that would be the flag of the Country whose aid contributions have topped $1Billion - and that’s not counting the cost of the carriers routed to providing that aid) would constitute ‘Occupation’?

As has become expected in the face of natural disaster abroad, America sends the most money, men and equipment – but then it’s not the aftermath of a country-destroying earthquake that would be unsettling - but rather, seeing the American flag?

The absence of the American flag bothers former Navy man Arthur Herriford, national president of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association.

“It’s very improper,” Herriford said. “Our military people always engage and function under the American colors — always have and always will.”

The U.S. flag has flown in Haiti under circumstances that were not always friendly.

In 1915, Marines invaded Haiti to restore stability after several coups. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan pressured dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier to renounce his rule and leave. In 1994, President Bill Clinton sent troops to prop up President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In 2004, President George W. Bush’s administration eased Aristide out of office amid a brutal civil war.

Not clear on the ‘not friendly’ part – ‘Baby Doc’ was an unapologetic kleptocrat, Aristide was ‘propped up’ after a military coup (I thought those were bad) and years later removed from the country ahead marching opposition forces, defusing what would undoubtedly have been a spectacular bloodbath

…. But okay, ‘not friendly’  it is.

France, the former colonizer of the country, has its flag up at its base in Port-au-Prince. The Haiti flag is based on the French flag, turned on its side with the white stripped out.

Army Col. Billy Buckner, spokesman for Joint Task Force-Haiti, a group representing various Obama administration agency heads, said the decision not to fly the American flag was made out of respect as guests of the government of Haiti.

“It is no mystery that U.S. forces are on the ground, and we proudly wear an American flag on our right sleeve,” he said.

Why do I get the feeling that’s only because the “various Obama administration agency heads” have never seen a US military uniform - that wasn’t burning in effigy in Berkeley – to know that they missed those flags?

U.S. Air Force air operations specialists and FAA air-traffic controllers manage air traffic at Haiti’s main airport, where millions of dollars in aid from the United States has been arriving for weeks. More than 12,000 U.S. military personnel support relief operations.

“Our commanders are smart and intuitively understand their mission here in Haiti, and clearly the sensitivities that come with supporting the mission,” Buckner said.A U.S. flag went up at a temporary consular station set up in the first few days on the airport tarmac, according to Charles Luoma-Overstreet, a State Department spokesman in Haiti.

“Apparently, the prime minister (Jean-Max Bellerive) saw this” and thought it appeared as if the United States were taking over the airport, Luoma-Overstreet said.

Let’s go back over that part again:

“U.S. Air Force air operations specialists and FAA air-traffic controllers manage air traffic at Haiti’s main airport, where millions of dollars in aid from the United States has been arriving for weeks. More than 12,000 U.S. military personnel support relief operations.”

…but flying the flag over the consular station was what gave the impression that we were running things…

…and demanding that the flag be taken down – that makes the AF Ops, FFA Controllers and the 12K US military personnel..what? Become invisible?

He said Bellerive said something to U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Merten, who agreed that flying the flag wasn’t a good idea and told the consular officials to take it down.

The decision is not unprecedented, noted Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who says he is not bothered by the flag’s absence.

During the Gulf War in 1991, U.S. forces took control of the main airport in Kuwait and briefly flew the American flag over their installation, Davis said, but higher-ups ordered it taken down to avoid an impression that U.S. forces were conquerors.

Well of course! After all, a WAR and post-natural-disaster RELIEF EFFORTS are Just The Same!

Excellent analogy!

The missing American colors at Port-au-Prince airport were no problem to Don Hollenbaugh, a former Army Delta Force operator who received the Distinguished Service Cross for actions in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004.

“Everybody in the world knows the U.S. is there,” Hollenbaugh said. “So by not flying the flag, we’re not changing anyone’s mind about anything.”

Right.

Which brings us all-the-way back around to the question “Then why take it down?”

This wasn’t a matter of “respect for the government of Haiti” – it was a deliberate show of disrespect by the government of Haiti, for the country that has done more than any other in aid to their tiny, impoverished island.

Under what set of circumstances is that ‘okay’?

“The Obama administration says flying the flag could give Haiti the wrong idea.”

Yes - the idea that these are Americans coming to aid & rescue people in need… and I think we’ve got more than enough information by now to make an educated guess at how the Obama Administration would feel about that.

…wouldn’t really fit into the narrative of The One’s next World Apology Tour, would it?

Pops-In-FL made some interesting observations about current events and their effect on the Market yesterday:

- Barack Obama suddenly announced (with the release of the ’stimulus-effect’ report) that America would be adding an average of 95K jobs per month, every month, for at least the remainder of the year.

- Fears in the EU over the shaky status of the Euro are reported to have largely abated as it once again gained-ground on the US Dollar.

The effect on the markets was swift, decisive and … unfathomable.

Rick Santelli said live on CNBC that ‘nobody knows what happened and why’, explaining that he and others were asking the big traders, but that NOBODY actually could point to their clients doing buying.

BUT….Massive 30% purchases of securities were occurring by single sources…

Traders were calling this activity the “Treasury Plunge Protection Corporation” half making half-joking conspiracy-theory speculations that Timothy Geithner got a ‘buy signal’ from Obama and…well…both markets suddenly lifted, and lifted hard.

Whatever it was that so influenced the markets yesterday (hell, even Toyota upticked) - at whatever concentrations it might have occurred - my stance is that, if it didn’t happen evenly & across a statistically-significant sampling of regular stock-traders, it was artificial…

…contrived…

…engineered.

Once that’s been taken as ‘read’, it’s then safe enough - especially given the string of Scooby-Doo-level ** attempts at narrative-manipulation from the WH - to assume that it was deliberately timed to coincide with the “Stimulus-Effects” report release.

Here’s the thing though:

It doesn’t matter - it’s not going to work.

Like every other artificial, governmental propping-up of the economy, employment, etc., etc. - yesterday just won’t be enough, particularly past the short-term that they’re betting on.

The administration, et al can pump life-support in for a while, but what they’re supporting can’t turn around enough productivity to supply the power coming out of the wall that the life-support is plugged into, so eventually the lights will go out and the machine will shut off anyway.

Artificial inflation of the Euro won’t actually solve the problems being demonstrated in Greece

…or the economic problems & growing rejection from Ireland

Or that those issues threaten to eventually unravel the Euro (and the EU thereafter)

These “machiavellian-geniuses” are betting on a sound-bite driven, national-short-attention-span that I (personally) am beginning to believe may no longer exist.

Don’t get me wrong - I still think that People Are Stupid - I just also think they may be starting to pay closer attention, and I think that the rapid-fire string of easily-and-frequently-debunked lies coming out of the WH has much to do with it.

There’s been a good deal of dust kicked up over Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper’s comment that “a recession like this really is driven by people’s mental state.”

But he’s actually right - though clearly not in the ‘Don’t Worry, Be Happy’ way that he meant it…

Throughout history, Depressions/Recessions/Collapses have occurred whenever the people in a given time/place have lost faith in their Governmental & Economic systems - ‘runs’ and the like are reactions to corruption, fecklessness and other malfeasance - once people have looked up from their lives and realized how badly the underpinnings of the Web of Trust have been corroded.

(Avery Goodman did a great job of laying this out here )

The past year’s-worth of blatant, in-your-face, watch-the-graft-ramp-up-when-one-side-gets-the-reins chicanery has been like an ice-water slap in the face of We The People, and more and more folks are having to pull their heads out of the sand and acknowledge what’s right in front of them - there is no more ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain’.

…and a short-term ‘patch’ followed by a pat on the back and a “There-there, all better now” - isn’t going to last long enough to put everyone back to sleep.

The Bread & Circuses approach just isn’t going to cut it anymore - that the WH apparently continues to think that it will is just another glaring testament to how out-of-touch and dismissive of the American people they have become.

- Ron

(** - yes, of such complexity as to be regularly undone by a group of meddling kids and their speech-impaired dog)

I’ve been seeing references to this around my usual web-stalking-grounds and finally just went to Fox News to read the whole thing.

This is something I should’ve said - several times - by now.

Since I didn’t, it gets play here - in its entirety
====================================

America Betrayed President Bush

President Bush deserves our respect not our scorn.

It’s almost hard to believe but Wednesday, January 20 marks exactly one year since President Bush left the White House.

During his last public ceremony as commander in chief, he was booed by thousands of Americans who simutaneously cheered for Barack Obama as he was sworn into office on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

Except for a June 17 speech in Erie, Pennsylvania in which Bush defended his policies and criticized Obama’s, the former president has been remarkably silent about his successor. He has not fired back at Obama despite the new administration inappropriately blaming Bush for all of their failures.

One year after taking office however, Obama has done a total reversal on his isolationist, non-interventionist foreign policy, and is now pushing President Bush’s neo-conservative philosophy as a justification for starting a new war in Afghanistan. What the Democratic Party once criticized as an over-simplified good vs. evil argument has become the cornerstone of Obama’s reasoning.
“Evil does exist in the world,” Obama recently admitted. “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of man.”

In the wake of this stunning adoption of the Bush foreign policy doctrine, there is little, if any dissent. The same people who crucified Bush for liberating Iraq are hardly criticizing Obama for using force to promote democracy in Afghanistan.

Recent Gallup polls find that 62 percent of Americans think Obama’s war in Afghanistan “is the right thing” whereas only 39 percent of Americans think Bush made the right decision by sending troops to Iraq.

Any American who thinks that Bush was misdirected when he sent troops to Iraq in 2003 can’t possibly deny that renewing war in Afghanistan in 2009 to hunt Al Qaeda, eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks is, at the least, equally fallible.

Still, Obama is receiving the kind of public support that an American president, any president, deserves during wartime. Many anti-war activists, journalists and elected officials have been remarkably quiet, affording the new commander in chief the opportunity to launch a successful war campaign.

Very few Americans showed the same faithfulness to President Bush, including members of his own party. Republicans who favored non-interventionism to nation building abandoned Bush, and Democratic senators like John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton who voted for the war turned against it before the 2004 elections so they would have the ammunition they needed to criticize their incumbent opponent.

America quickly forgot about how President Bush charismatically lifted our spirits during some of the darkest moments of our nation’s history when the Twin Towers collapsed. After all, even Senator Kerry admitted Bush’s handling of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was “terrific,” during the 2004 presidential debates.

But after President Bush successfully secured America in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, he was rewarded with accusations of committing human rights violations and war crimes – an incredible irony since his policies were responsible for liberating tens of millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some Americans accused Bush of lying and starting a war under false pretenses simply because our troops never found actual weapons of mass destruction.

Despite what Michael Moore implied in his film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Congress did not base their 2002 authorization for the Iraq War solely on the premise that Saddam Hussein either had or was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Their legislation reads very clearly that America’s purpose in sending troops back to Iraq was to enforce U.N. resolutions, some of which were violated in the 1990’s and probably should have been enforced by President Clinton. Whether actual weapons were found or not, the war in Iraq was legally and morally justifiable, and necessary.

In addition to enduring criticism for his war policies, millions of Americans demanded the new Obama administration prosecute Bush for his decision to indefinitely holding detainees charged with war crimes. When President Obama signed an executive order in May that reinforced that same Bush policy, the far left was mute.

Almost no one said a word. Apparently, its acceptable for Obama to indefinitely hold detainees, just not Bush.

As Obama continues to make decisions that mirror the Bush doctrine, it is becoming apparent that the former president was not ignorant or irrational in his foreign policy decisions despite the harsh criticism and disloyalty he endured. He was in fact, ahead of his time, a visionary who understood politics and warfare in the modern age of terrorism.

That is why Obama is now following his lead.

It should be obvious now, even to Obama’s most passionate supporters that shielding the free world requires more than mere words like “hope” and “change.” Bush’s detractors should be embarrassed having arrogantly thought they could do it better, and those Republicans who abandoned Bush when he needed them most should take a moment to reflect on their fortitude or lack thereof.

Americans who chastised President Bush for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq should apologize and show him the same respect they are now showing President Obama as he neutralizes the Taliban in Afghanistan.

George W. Bush seemed to have an almost mystical understanding of what the American people needed when we needed it most. He reminded all of us of why we should be proud to be Americans at a time when there was a whisper that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks upon ourselves for promoting democracy abroad.

President Bush deserves our respect, not our betrayal.

(Amen, Brother - Ron)

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a journalist and lawyer who served on Senator John F. Kerry’s legal team during the 2004 election. He is currently organizing a nationwide effort called “Honor Freedom” to correct the historical record about President Bush and the Bush foreign policy doctrine, which can be reached at www.honorfreedom.com and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=41317929699&ref=ts or Twitter at http://twitter.com/honorfreedom.

Well, for starters we know that the actual outcome of Tuesday’s Senate election in Massachusetts…

…didn’t come out the way the Boston Globe tried to ‘Quantum Theory’ into existence…

Also we know that President Obama has gone from making fun of Scott Brown and his truck…

…to claiming kinship with him – blaming Bush (which somehow never seems to get old) for Brown’s victory and tacitly admitting that Coakley was part of the ‘establishment problem’, even though he stumped for her. (not quite sure if that makes him wrong, lying or foolish)

Okay, so that’s the ‘fun’ stuff that we know.

Then there’s the less-fun stuff that we’re going to admit we ALSO know…

The RNC still doesn’t get it.

If there could be a better example of a decentralized election campaign, driven by the enthusiasm of an attentive electorate than Scott Brown’s campaign, I would have a hard time imagining it.

From his success with online contributions, to the Tea Party support , to the simple fact of Brown’s impressive 120K-vote-margin win in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3:1

From the start, the RNC level of ‘support’ for Brown has been little-and-late , despite the obvious and glaring opportunity to win the Senate seat held by Ted “Swimmer” Kennedy for the past 47 years, in a race against an unmotivated Dem with delusions of entitlement and a lock-step approach to Barack Obama’s increasingly-unpopular Socialized Healthcare scheme.

Given the way the RNC got it’s helping of insult-and-injury from Dede Scozzafava - AFTER pumping upward of $1 Million into her NY-23 congressional campaign, I personally would have expected them to be eager to put that beclowning behind them and throw their efforts into – I dunno – an actually-conservative candidate for a change… but apparently, Steele & Co. saw that Senate seat with the same glow-of-Democrat-entitlement that had Martha Coakley wearing shades.

Scott Brown’s response to the GOP’s “hey-good-luck-with-that”?

‘Okay – No-Big’

“But even Brown has downplayed his lack of national GOP firepower in his race against Democrat Martha Coakley, saying, “We’re doing very, very well on our own, and I don’t want to be beholden to anybody at this point.”

“Don’t want to be beholden” – it has a nice ring to it, no?

Ah… but Michael Steele doesn’t think so:

”In a memo to RNC members today, Steele said the national committee has been “working very diligently behind the scenes” with the Massachusetts Republican Party for the past three months to make the race what it is today…”

“We have stayed out of the limelight while supporting the Brown campaign and the Massachusetts Republican Party,””

So, funding Brown to the tune of 1/20th of what they coughed up for the Margaret-Sanger-award-recipient is “Working Diligently Behind the Scenes”…

Leaving public support of Scott Brown to Sarah Palin (whose support I’d rather have any day & twice on Sunday) – that’s just “Staying Out of the Limelight”…

And watching the wind and polls and waiting until the momentum seems unstoppable, to come out and say “If-it’s-a-win-or-even-close-it’s-all-because-of-us”…

What is that, then?

I do have to admit that the Good Chairman is right about one thing though:

”This is a model for campaigns of the future.”

Yes - Yes Sir,  it is…

Campaigns by conservative candidates, supported Tea Party Groups, 912 Coalitions and groups of alert, engaged citizens working in support of their country and economy…

…and left free of the influence of a paralyzed, confused, feckless and wind-testing RNC.

You’re absolutely right, Mr. Steele – this IS the model for campaigns of the future…. which begs the question:

Why do we need you?

- Ron

Tom in FL dropped me this one…

Ga. activists kick off push for immigration reform

By The Associated Press
NORCROSS, Ga. - Immigration activists in Georgia have kicked off a week of activities to signal the start of a concentrated push for immigration reform.

Leaders of several activist groups on Tuesday announced a “week of action” to draw attention to immigration reform.

Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, said they plan to visit and make phone calls to the district office of each member of Congress from Georgia over the next week. They also plan community roundtables around the state, a rally at the Capitol and a prayer service.

The Georgia effort comes as immigration advocates nationwide try to gather support for a bill introduced last month in Congress by Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, a Chicago Democrat.

Okay now, nevermind that “Immigration Reform” really means ‘Amnesty for Illegals’ since no-one is seriously proposing real reform to the existing immigration-system (unless you count ‘Fling-Open-The-Gates’ as ’serious reform’) - honestly, take “Amnesty” completely off the table, and their interest in ‘Reform’ will dissolve into screams.

…and nevermind that these are people whose chosen side in this debate demonstrates an intent & desire for the dismissal of the Rule of Law in our country.

Here’s the part I have a problem with :

“Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials”

…this demonstrates one of the most insidious societal problems we face in the US today.

Now, maybe I’m missing something, so please - someone help me out here - Do these Elected Officials preside over constituencies made up ENTIRELY of Latinos, so that their overt display of loyalty to their ancestral ethnicity should not interfere with their decision making in their Elected capacity?

On the other hand, if the people in this ‘Association’ are going to self-identify like this, it seems like that any ‘racial profiling’ on anyone else’s part would be redundant - since they’ve proudly pasted the label on themselves, it seems only obvious, reasonable and prudent that everyone should treat with them from the position of understanding that their loyalties are to their ‘race’ first and to the duties of their Elected Office only Second, and base expectations accordingly.

I still hold with this simple rule-of-thumb:

If your organization would become ‘offensive’ by replacing your self-identifying-modifier with the word “White” - then it’s inherently bigoted and should not exist…

…and especially not in public office.

- Ron

Okay – let me lead in with the following disclaimer:

I don’t care for Harry Reid… at all.

I find him to be petty, small, vindictive and far, FAR too quick to call other people out publicly as ‘Racist’ when it suits his political whims, and even when the stretch to do so turns into a full-on sprain.

I think he’s completely wrong-headed on the role of government and its relation to FAR too many of the basic premises upon which our country was founded - and largely clueless when it comes to understanding the bedrock morals, principles and priorities held by the majority of US citizens.

That said, I am having a little trouble getting my head around this whole ‘Reid-Is-Racist’ thing.

Let’s Review:

The Atlantic hit this first, so let’s pull Reid’s quote from over there:

”He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.”

So – because Reid feels that Obama’s light-skin and White-Grandparents-and-Harvard-University diction would make him more acceptable to the American voting public than if he were darker and tended toward ebonics …

That makes him a racist?

I thought it sounded more like an indictment of the American people than any sort of slam on blacks-in-general-or–Obama-specifically.

Seriously – let’s walk that back – so what Reid said was that if Obama had been Darker and prone to fits of Ebonics, the racist American voters would have been less likely to vote for him.

I think that makes him an ass, but I can’t see how it makes him racist… unless you mean racist against White people, in the sense of ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations’.

(…”racist against white people” - *snort* seriously, sometimes I just crack myself up…)

So those are the “Reid” and “Racism” parts, so let’s get on to the ‘Double Standards’ section…

I was in the truck this afternoon and I happened to catch part of Sean Hannity’s show on the radio, and he was talking about this ‘Reid is a Racist’ thing.

The word “Offensive” seemed to have been stuck to his soft-palate – “offensive words”, “offensive comments” “offensive sentiments” etc. etc. etc.

“Offensive Words”

The closest thing to an ‘offensive word’ that I can dredge out of his comment is ‘Negro’… and that’s just archaic, not something used as a racial slur – and, like Joe Biden not knowing the “website number” to Recovery.gov , Harry Reid is roughly 500 years old and might actually be expected to refer to things in an archaic fashion.

Hell, I’m a little surprised we haven’t heard of Reid having trouble parking his palanquin in front of the Senate.

Hilarity aside, when did Conservatives formally jump onto the Political Correctness train?

Don’t we usually roll our eyes and say ‘Get a Life, Loser’ whenever Al & Jesse fly into town and start a riot-edged protest over the use of the word ‘niggardly’ in the odd budget meeting?

Weren’t more than a few of us bewildered when Trent Lott was forced to resign over what was (if we’re being honest) nothing more than some kind words to an old man on his 100th birthday (‘We’da’ been better off if you got to be president, old fella – happy retirement!’)

Aren’t we the ones who close our eyes, shake our heads and sigh “Get over yourselves” when people start seeing ‘Racism’ in movies about blue-skinned aliens?

“Offensive Words”

Why is it ‘mean-spirited’, ‘thin-skinned’ or ‘blatant politicizing’ when Reid & the gang start shouting ‘RACISM’ over – really – nothing…

But somehow, not stooping-to-their-level when our side does it?

How do Hannity, et al. manage to avoid the ‘chilling effect on discourse’ when they force people to tiptoe around their own words, for fear of giving ‘Offense’? (answer: They Don’t)

“Offensive Words”

Guys – Words aren’t offensive, People are offensive.

We really, really need to NOT lose sight of that.

WE are not supposed to be the proponents of “Shut Up”

- Ron

This is absolutely the best, most powerful video message since the Day of Great Darkness began our downward spiral on 04NOV2008.

…and even moreso, because it was clearly produced by the PUMAs and other Dem-leaning independents that helped elect The One in the first place.

Are you paying attention Harry? Nancy? Barney? Bob? Barack?

I sure hope all those backroom-deals are letting you feather those nests of yours - thick & deep - because it’s really looking like that’s all you’re going to have left, come this time next year.

- Ron

P.S. - I’ve embedded this from my Youtube page because it’s a bit big for a straight download to the C-A site library all-at-once.

I have the video as a WMV-file - if you want it, use the ‘Contact Me’ link @ the top of the page and I’ll send it to you - Ron

On December 16th, 2009 President Barack Obama wrote into existence an amendment to Executive Order 12425, which was written by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 and had been subsequently amended by President Bill Clinton in 1996, by way of Executive Order 12971 .

See? Simple…

Okay – no, not really.

In order to make any sense of this we first have to acknowledge that all of the Executive Orders referenced above were really ‘amendments’ of one sort or another – including Reagan’s – all in reference to the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) of 1945, the purpose of which was to provide a diplomatic vehicle (by way of executive order) “to extend certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities to international organizations and to the officers and employees thereof, and for other purposes.”

Bear in mind that this was immediately following The Great War, when everyone in the world was trying to get regular international trade and communications back on track and get back to their lives.

Following the 1981 case of Steinberg v International Criminal Police Organization, where the District of Columbia Federal Appellate Court upheld its jurisdiction over Interpol because of doubts about the status of Interpol as an International Organization and because it had not yet had specific IOIA immunities conferred upon it,… as well as in an apparent move to demonstrate better international cooperation and perhaps grant an extra level of legitimacy following their time-of-dark-associations, in 1983 Ronald Reagan used his Presidential Executive-Order power to grant IOIA-status to INTERPOL.

BUT…

Because of the nature of INTERPOL’s structure “Each INTERPOL member country (including the US – Ron) maintains a National Central Bureau staffed by national law enforcement officers. The NCB is the designated contact point for the General Secretariat, regional offices and other member countries requiring assistance with overseas investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives.”

- so what you have are effectively American Law Enforcement agents – working within the US – with all associated local LE rights and privileges … but working for INTERPOL.

Mindful of both the legal (see: taxation) conflicts and the potential for abuse inherent in granting various ‘international immunities’ to a law enforcement agency existing and possessed of the freedom to operate within the US, President Reagan built into Executive Order 12425, the following limitations:

“…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 ensured that, while INTERPOL would be an officially-recognized International Organization, local INTERPOL agents & operations would not be granted Immunity from US law under those sections, to wit:

Section 2(c) – “Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”

The portions of Section 2(d) relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes – “Insofar as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation, and the procedures in connection therewith… the privileges, exemptions, and immunities to which international organizations shall be entitled shall be those accorded under similar circumstances to foreign governments.”

And Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes – “…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.”

Sections 4&5 – These address the minutia of exemptions/amendments to the US Tax code for the purpose of exempting non-US-citizens, working for a recognized foreign organization, from taxation or Social Security payments on gross income, either from US investments or job/wages.
(It’s long, just trust me on this…or go read it from the link. – Ron)

…and Section 6 – “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.”

Okay, now stop – take a deep breath – and say to yourself ‘Those are the immunities/exemptions that Reagan chose NOT to extend to INTERPOL.’

- Immunity from search and confiscation
- Immunity/exemption from customs/importation taxes
- Immunity from income taxes

Onward…

In 1995 President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12971, which amended President Reagan’s 12425, to the extent that :

”…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.”

- Became –

”…conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act.”

- which granted recognized International Organization INTERPOL exemption from customs-duties and importation taxes under the IOIA.

And there it sat for the next 15 years – until December 16th, 2009 – when President Barack Obama drew up Executive Order 13524 , which states:

“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.”

Thereby sweeping away those checks and protections originally placed by Ronald Reagan (to whom President Obama has likened himself on any number of occasions).

Now, while I believe that the tax exemptions now granted to employees of INTERPOL in the US will be a sources of debate, division and litigation for years to come, the vast majority of what you’re going to read on the blogs for the foreseeable future (and the part with the greatest potential for abuse) concerns the granting of immunity/exemption under “Section 2(c)”:

“Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”

Keeping in mind that INTERPOL is the ONLY law enforcement agency recognized under the IOIA, let’s restate that sentence, the way Barack Obama intended in his Executive Order:

‘Property and assets of INTERPOL, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless INTERPOL decides otherwise, and from confiscation. The archives of INTERPOL shall be inviolable.’

Consider what exists now:

An International Law Enforcement Agency…

That uses US Law Enforcement Officers and their US police powers…

That is beholden ONLY to their own multi-national General Assembly and Executive Committee (on which the US has no representation)…

And regularly acts on behalf of the International Criminal Court (with which Presidents Clinton and Bush have both declined to participate)

…and the records, files, evidence, etc., etc of that Law Enforcement Agency….

- Are now completely beyond the reach of US Law – search, seizure, subpoena, Freedom of Information Act – NONE of it now applies to the operational records of INTERPOL operating in the US.

Which (as ever) leads us to the question of ‘Why?’

Why would Barack Obama suddenly decide to use an otherwise obscure, 26-year-old Order to place an international law enforcement agency above-and-beyond US Law?

The answer is plain to anyone listening – consider:

- Barack Obama’s first year in Office - a great deal of it spent travelling the world, apologizing for America’s tendency to be …American.

- Barack Obama’s stated support for CIFTA – a proposed treaty I’ve written about before, that would erode the sovereignty of US Law.

- Barack Obama’s desire to subject the US to the rule of “international law” under the ICC - which would give that body the authority to try Americans in instances where the US court system has declined to do so

Barack Obama has, time and time again, demonstrated his desire to see American sovereignty capitulate to some utopian vision of a ‘world-government’ – to move the US from the position of Exceptional World Leader to a go-along-to-get-along, one-among-many ‘World Citizen’ – to bend America’s knee in apology for what he sees as our ‘sins’ and ‘crimes’ – has even entertained the notion of putting the prior administration on trial to ingratiate himself to world leaders who have long held America in contempt for her actions, while being simultaneously unwilling to commit to any actions themselves.

His intentions to subject the US to ‘international authority’ are clear – he has spoken them over and over.

How better to move toward his goal, than to start by place the enforcement-arm of that ‘international authority’ beyond the reach and accounting of US Law – and then offer up America to the body that directs them?

- Ron