Yesterday I shared an article from the Pajamas Media website about this subject.

Here’s the link if you’d like to read the article.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/government-grab-of-retirement-accounts-a-matter-of-social-justice/

Yesterday on the show I shared an email written by a Physician detailing just how far down the road we are towards having the government control your health care.

Here’s the email I received.

OBAMACARE’S LETHAL THIRD RAIL SHOCK TO COME
By: ©Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.
 
Subway riders know the adage – The third rail is deadly –it carries the current that can kill you.  Avoid the third rail.
 
We are about to get that “third rail” for government-controlled healthcare. Then comes the death blow to your medical privacy, your freedom to choose medical treatment options, and your ability to control the cost of any private health insurance you may want to buy.
 
Democrats, working in the shadows away from public view and using devious “divide and conquer” strategies, have already laid two tracks for a complete government control of your healthcare.  They only have one more rail to go.
 
The first two rails were craftily hidden in the Stimulus Bill of February 2009.  While the public thinks healthcare bills are still “out there” and not yet passed, the Democrats have been celebrating the anniversary of the Stimulus Bill, knowing that their “Stimulus” stealth tactics already laid those first two healthcare tracks for government control.
 
Populist rhetoric hides the lethal third rail.  It is called “insurance reform.”
 
It’s brilliantly deceptive and diabolical in its 3-step simplicity:
1.      Control medical records and private health information of every person in the United States, and penalize health professionals who refuse to release your personal information. ALREADY PASSED into law February 2009. Come 2014, YOU no longer control YOUR medical records.
2.      Control delivery of all health services under the guise of “comparative effectiveness research” and the “complete lives system” that decides a person’s value based on age. The federal health czar’s panel of bureaucrats and computers will decide whether or not you are “worth” the cost of treatment, and what treatment you will be approved to obtain.  ALREADY PASSED into law February 2009.
3.      The Missing Third Rail: Insurance “Reform.” Control of all private insurers in the country. The rhetoric goes this way: These “bad” insurance companies must be reined in. Government must protect people.  Government will dictate what insurance plans must cover, what they cannot exclude.  Government dictates mean dramatic prices increases if companies are forced to give up using their risk-based approach to underwriting, which helps keep premium costs down.  Then the private insurance market collapses.  We lose our freedom to choose our plan.
 
Once this third rail is in place, you will have lost all control of your healthcare. Done deal.
 
This third rail will kill private healthcare as we know it.  This is the only remaining part of the massive Senate and House healthcare bills that the Democrats know is critical to get passed in order to achieve their goal on government control of your healthcare. 
 
I think this is the next stealth strategy for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid team: seduce you into thinking that insurance “reform” is actually going to protect you, and that’s “all” they really need to pass now.  The protectionist subterfuge hides the dangers of the third rail shock until it is too late. 
 
Charles Krauthammer wrote on January 15, 2010:  “Then… the federal government will regulate in crushing detail one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  By essentially abolishing medical underwriting (actuarially based risk assessment) and replacing it with government fiat, ObamaCare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators.”  Federal bureaucrats will make decisions about your treatment, not your doctor or other health professional.
 
Members of the House and Senate who voted for the massive Stimulus Bill, without reading it, already put the federal government in control of your personal medical information.  The Stimulus Bill already sold out your medical privacy.  The Stimulus Bill already put the federal health czar in control of what treatment options you will be allowed to have.
 
The third rail, euphemistically called “insurance reform,” (really insurance controls) will deal the lethal blow to private health insurance.  Laying the third rail trap, the politicians will rob you of your privacy, your medical treatment options, and now, your choice of how to pay for care. 
 
This “third rail” must be stopped before the best medical care in the world is destroyed.
 
The problems we face in healthcare today are not caused by doctors, insurance companies, drug companies, or medical device makers.  The problems we face are caused by politicians creating more and more big government regulation, more and more government intrusion into the patient-doctor relationship.   Their solution is a political one, but it is not in patients’ best interests.  We must get the politicians OUT of healthcare. 
 
Ronald Reagan warned in 1961: “Socialism begins with government control of medicine.” Reagan also said, “Socialized medicine is always presented as a great emergency, and if you challenge it, you are attacked with accusations that you lack compassion.”  This is exactly what we are hearing from progressive Democrats today. 
 
Insurance controls become the third rail, a lethal assault on your Constitutionally guaranteed unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  This third rail is the final shock that can kill you.  Politicians cannot save you. 
 
Doctors and patients across the country must join to stop this third rail.  Then we have to start ripping up traps from the other two healthcare tracks they have laid. 
 
Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. ©2-20-2010

Interesting that the Army and DoD have kept such a low profile on the 5  Muslim translators suspected of plotting to poison the food supply at Ft. Jackson. This was the blog posted at CBN news site with some more background on the case.

 CBN News has learned exclusively that five Muslim soldiers at Fort Jackson in South Carolina were arrested just before Christmas. It is unclear whether the men are still in custody. The five were part of the Arabic Translation program at the base.
Patrick Jones, the Deputy Public Affairs Officer for Fort Jackson, confirmed for CBN News yesterday afternoon that an investigation was ongoing .

Prior to this posting, CBN News learned that these details were also confirmed by a government official with knowledge of the investigation.

The men are suspected of trying to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson.

A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators suspect the “Fort Jackson Five” may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, DC area Muslims that traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas.
Why the secrecy?
Jen Rubin:

I spoke with a source knowledgeable about the Army’s anti-terrorism training and the progress of the Fort Jackson investigation. He makes several key points. First, while Army spokesman Chris Gray pronounced that “there is no credible information to support the allegations” in the poisoning case, this is bellied by the fact that five individuals were arrested. So my source asks, “If that’s true, then this was a miscarriage of justice!”
Second, had the Fort Jackson incident come to light before release of the Fort Hood review, it would have been very difficult to give such short shrift to the jihadist motivation of Major Nadal Hasan. Nor would it be possible for the arrest of five Muslim individuals accused of poisoning fellow soldiers to have gone unnoticed at the “highest levels” of the Department of Defense. The only rational conclusion is that the Army worked furiously to keep the Ford Jackson incident under the media radar and to proceed with the Fort Hood whitewash. He says bluntly, “I think the DOD culpability and involvement at the highest levels is much more direct. I’m told they were directly keeping a lid on this to prevent derailing what they were doing with the Fort Hood report.” The source predicts that the Army will continue its “nothing to see here, move along” reaction to the Fort Jackson incident.

Intelligent speculation - but that’s all it is.
I would think we have a right to know if there is an active terrorist cell in the United States army. But then, that would contradict everything the Obama administration has tried to do with regard to domestic terror cells. And the military obviously, as shown by the Fort Hood report, simply does not want to deal with the problem.

I fear the only way this will change is if an attack is carried out by Muslim soldiers on civilians. And then, of course, it will be too late.

Note: The original headline to this piece and a reference in the body of the post mentioned that the soldiers were “arrested.” This is not the case. They were never detained, only under investigation.

Here is what the man who flew his small plane into a building where the IRS had it’s office in Austin wrote. Not safe for family viewing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/joseph-andrew-stacks-insane-manifesto-2010-2

Lots of discussion on the show today about HR 875, a piece of legislation that has been introduced, but not passed, giving the FDA more power over how Americans grow food.

Rose passed along a story from a website about an Amish farmer who had a run in with some FDA agents who invaded his Pennsylvania farm to “investigate”.

Here’s the link to that story.

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/fda-agents-invade-amish-farm-in-pa/

And here’s a link to the blog talking about HR 875.

http://thefinalhour.blogspot.com/2009/03/hr-875-end-of-organic-farming.html

Best,

Bob

That’s the title of a piece published in the Wall Street Journal today. I read parts of it on the show in the 5 o’clock hour and several callers asked to be able to see it in my blog…here’s the link.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029110104772360.html

Here are some of your comments regarding the Andre Bauer dust-up.

   I just listened to Mr. Bauer and there is no way that he can make me believe that what he said was not directed at poor people and more specifically blacks. With that being said I agree 100% with his statements. You stated that there are more whites on welfare than blacks..well, that is because there are more white people. If you look at the percentage of blacks on welfare, they by far outnumber whites. I am not intending for this to be racist, but it is what it is. There have been blacks on welfare for generations with no plans to reverse the trend. When you mentioned Memphis and the 44 year old grandmother, were they white? I suspect not. With this being said, I think the biggest threat to our future social programs is going to come from illegal Hispanics. Not only are they wanting the financial benefits from welfare, but they are also dropping “anchor babies” everyday. This is killing our social programs and it will bankrupt the country as well as put most of the burden on middleclass taxpayers like myself. Again, I am not a racist, my wife is not even white, she is a legal Korean immigrant. I just felt I had to write this letter to say what everyone already knows, but because of their public positions, cannot say aloud.
Sincerely,

P****d off in Simpsonville

Bob,
Thanks for having Andre on today. When I heard his statement yesterday, it was obvious what he was trying to say.
He asked you a good question, ”how did race get into his statement?”
In our world, everything said has racial overtones. To avoid this we will have to stop talking. But wait a minute, they’ll say we are thinking something racial!!

Charlie

Once someone is on welfare they may continue to keep themselves on welfare through their vote.  Why not, help folks acquire jobs.  If you take the welfare you must report to a Temp. Job where you develop a skill and possibly turn it into a full time job, drug testing is fine and since you give up free will while on welfare, you also should forfeit your vote until 1 year after you quit welfare.  

Robert

It is evident,  Andre Bauer  is insensitive to the poor>check the Bibilical view on that.
 
He is insensitive to poor animals.  Blame that on his upbringing.( It is good to have someone to blame.)
 
But he, like all politicians,  HEFEEDS AT THE PUBLIC TROUGH. (and I guess that is just fine.) 
 
But he can condemn others without  PRESENTING a single solution; OTHER THAN FREE LUNCH PARENTS GO TO PTA. What if they are at work.  
 
Perhaps he needs to live for a year or two with a single mother trying to care for her children while trying to extricate her family from poverty.  Maybe he could be of help.
 
Perhaps he needs to live with a terminally ill cancer patient, denied by SS and trying to survive. Perhaps he could be of help. 
 
Perhaps he just needs to live in the real world and stop getting ‘Political Welfare.”
 
This guy is an embarrassment to SC, Republicians, and Humanity. 
 
I really do not wish him any good will.
 
Anne Holliday
A Conservative
 
“Dang I missed that one can’t beleive somebody would compare another human being to a stray animal guess thats the kind of man he is, cant think of anything else to say to get his point across but to use name calling. He is really despicable human being it is not the child’s fault their parent may be lazy or just on hard luck take care of the children don’t put them at risk because of the decisions their parents make.” Tyler

We can learn a lot from animals. God often compares animals to humans, both in negative and positive ways.   Are these verses to be banned also? This is just a small sample.

Pr 11:22 ¶ As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.

Pr 6:6 ¶ Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:

Pr 26:11 ¶ As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Pr 26:17 ¶ He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Mt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Pr 11:22 ¶ As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.

Isa 56:11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.

Isa 56:10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.

Mt 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.  Mt 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

Php 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Pr 28:1 ¶ The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.

Gary

 Thanks for taking time to write, I appreciate hearing your opinions.

Bob

Here is the funeral information for PFC Geoff Whitsett.

Cheryl Stottle Childers sent a message to the members of Services for Pvt. First Class Geoffrey Whitsitt.

Subject: Geoff Whitsitt’s Homecoming Arrival to GSP with Military escort to be announced. ** Funeral service will be Saturday, January 23 at North Hills Community Church in Taylors 11 am (receiving at 10am) with the burial to follow at Woodlawn Cemetery. ****If you want to help, please do not send food. Please buy flags for the route Geoff will take from GSP to Woods Funeral Home, then from NHCC to Woodlawn. Contact Bill Cady @ hovercop@hotmail.com or send $ to The American Legion Post #3 at 430 N. Main Street, Greenville, SC 29601. More details to follow, please check this page for any changes or additions. 

~~PLEASE NOTE IF YOU ARE TRAVELING FOM AFAR: I-40 in NC is closed due to a rockslide. You may need to check and make alternate route changes. She is offering discounted rates at the Country Inn and Suites, Antioch, TN 37013, off of I-24 going east. it is 10mins south of Nashville……If you need a room call her at 865-936-4662. Thanks Jenniffer!!! Jeniffer Sparks as also offered the following to any who may be traveling through the TN area: ALSO I385 N is closed coming from Columbia to Greenville, there are detour signs through Spartanburg. Takes you about 20 minutes out of the way, but detour is clearly marked.——————–

Today Sen. Shane Martin was on the show and he talked about the cloture vote in the Senate . This was a move to end the Dems filibuster on an amendment that would keep South Carolina from Obamacare, should it pass in Washington.

Sadly, some RINO, er GOP, Senators voted to adjourn at lunchtime.

Here’s who voted how…

The Good (Republicans voting against adjournment)

Lee Bright
Kevin Bryant
Chip Campsen
Ray Cleary
Tom Davis
Mike Fair
Larry Grooms
Shane Martin
Shane Massey
Mick Mulvaney
Harvey Peeler
Mike Rose
Phil Shoopman
David Thomas
Danny Verdin

The Bad ( Rino’s voting for adjournment)

Thomas Alexander
Paul Campbell
John Courson
Ronnie Cromer
Wes Hayes
Jakie Knotts
Hugh Leatherman
Glenn McConnell
Billy O’Dell
Greg Ryberg

The Ugly is that conservatives are not only having to battle the Dems, but some in their own party as well.

Let these guys voting for adjournment know how you feel about it.

Stay tuned, this ain’t over by a long shot.

Lots of calls asking for more information on these 2 important issues.

Here’s the first, an extensive blog with background on President Obama’s Executive Order involving the Council of Governors.

With the less than opaque veil shrouding the current White House actions, Obama’s latest unheralded EO on Jan 11th, establishing the Council of Governors, sent the blog world into a tizzy. The extremes of reaction ran the gamut.

When Shutking broke out the “martial law” headline, commenter John Erickson, who’s blog profile says he works in government in Lincoln, Nebraska, tut tutted that view, saying they were only a federal advisory committee.

PropagandaMatrix comes thru with less sensationalist perspective, noting the other blog fears, but not casting it’s own lot into the more extreme theories. They did, however, note this “..clearly represents another assault on Posse Comitatus, the 1878 law that bars the military from exercising domestic police powers, which was temporarily annulled by the 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act before parts of it were later repealed.”

As with most government powers, there is always the potential for abuse. In this case, there is cause for serious concern because every bit of this entails expanding traditional Command in Chief powers to the DOD, spreading troops around the US (potentially not American troops at that…) and deciding who has ultimate tactical command over reserves and Guard in the event of “emergencies”, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters.

Since we can’t expect much in clarification from this transparent administration, it’s up to us to sort out the intent, and inherent dangers to our founded Republic. And we sure we don’t need yet another head scratcher, like Obama’s INTERPOL executive order before Christmas. So I’m here to connect a few more dots on the Council of Governors.
A SERIES OF EVENTS LEADING TO EXPANDED DOD POWERS
The Council of Governors is not a complete bolt out of the blue, but another step in a series of events. The first recommendation of the Council came in a May 2007 commissioned report on the National Guard and Reserves by Arnold Punaro. The review noted that the Guard was short almost $40 bil in supplies and equipment due to committments since the 911 attack, and that individual governors had been “slighted”. The commission recommended a creation of the Council of Governors so that “… governors could provide direct input on National Guard issues to the executive branch.”

Month’s later, it’s creation was mandated by Congress, with no specific timeline to do so, via The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This was a bill first introduced by Ike Skelton in the House Jan 2008, and sailed thru both chambers with almost unanimous bi-partistan support. It was signed into law Jan 28th, 2008 by then President Bush, and became Public Law No: 110-181.

Buried in the 602 pg bill (pg 498) was Section 1822 – aka the mandate:

SEC. 1822. COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS.
The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.

President Bush never created the Council, and neither had President Obama… until yesterday, that is. The question is, did Obama create this council for it’s original purpose? From what I’ve put together so far, it’s not looking that way. Keep reading.
US AND CANADA SIGN MILITARY AGREEMENT

Flashback, April 4th, 2008: News hits that a month and a half earlier, Feb 14th, 2008, the US and Canada enter into a military agreement between NORTHCOM, NORAD and Canada COM, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan:

In a political move that received little if any attention by the American news media, the United States and Canada entered into a military agreement on February 14, 2008, allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis, according to a police commander involved in homeland security planning and implementation.

It is an initiative of the Bi-National Planning Group whose final report, issued in June 2006, called for the creation of a “Comprehensive Defense and Security Agreement,” or a “continental approach” to Canada-US defense and security.

The law enforcement executive told Newswithviews.com… that the agreement — defined as a Civil Assistance Plan — was not submitted to Congress for debate and approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

“This is a military plan that’s designed to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act that traditionally prohibited the US military from operating within the borders of the United States. Not only will American soldiers be deployed at the discretion of whomever is sitting in the Oval Office, but foreign soldiers will also be deployed in American cities,” warns Lt. Steven Rodgers, commander of the Nutley, NJ Police Department’s detective bureau.

Canada Free Press’s Sean Osborne reported on it within weeks of the agreement. At that time, Osborne thought it sniffed of a EU type political union. And while he thought it was prudent to plan for a united defense if necessary, he also saw the need for a careful eye on this new military union, and it’s purpose.

Note the timing of this new CAP… February 14th, 2008. Just a few weeks after the passage of Public Law No: 110-181… and Section 1822 that mandated the creation of a Council of Governors.

Coincidently, the preceding Section 1821 of that same enacted Public Law dealt happened to deal with another mandate concerning NORTHCOM. Section 1821 ordered the Chairman and Chief Joint of Staff to review the adequacy of NORTHCOM’s manpower, and any need for increased components, reporting to the DOD no later than one year’s time.

SEC. 1821. UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND.
(a) MANPOWER REVIEW.—
(1) REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF.— Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a review of the civilian and military
positions, job descriptions, and assignments within the United States Northern Command with the goal of determining the feasibility of significantly increasing the number of members of a reserve component assigned to, and civilians employed
by, the United States Northern Command who have experience in the planning, training, and employment of forces for homeland defense missions, domestic emergency response, and providing military support to civil authorities.

Within 90 days of receipt of that review, the Defense Secretary was to present a copy of that review to Congress, along with recommendations on achieving the reports recommended goals.

This put the timeline deadline at the end of May, 2009…. Obama’s 4th month in the Oval Office. Still no creation of the Council of Governors.

Still awake? Hope so, because now it gets really interesting….
NORTHCOM REQUESTS DOD POSSESS CiC POWERS

One month later, June 2009, NORTHCOM sends a Legislative Proposal to Congress, requested amending Title 10 of USC, expanding the Secretary of Defense’s powers to mobilization of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve to assist civil authorities in disasters and emergencies… “…thus enabling a truly Total Force approach to disaster response.” Currently, only the Commander in Chief can call up the Reserves – and only in an emergency involving “a use or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction” or “a terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack in the United States that results, or could result, in significant loss of life or property.”

The Federal Reserve forces represent a significant capability, embedded in thousands of communities throughout our nation, which, with the exception of national emergencies, cannot be ordered to active duty to assist the primary Federal agency’s response to major disasters or emergencies, even in circumstances when Reserve units may be closest to the disaster area and thus the most timely and cost-effective response.

This proposed new Title 10 section would also implement the recommendation of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves that the “mobilization authorities for Federal Reserve forces to respond to emergencies should be expanded” to “provide the authority to involuntarily mobilize Federal Reserve components for up to 60 days in a four-month period and up to 120 days in a two-year period.”
ASSISTANT DEFENSE SECRETARY LAYS GROUNDWORK

Somewhere around the end of July 2009, Paul Stockton, Obama’s appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense ( formerly with Stanton’s CISAC) is pitching the Council of Governors creation to Congress as a means to “reclaim” balance between federal and state authorities. From his testimony,

As the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, I hope to contribute to a more inclusive effort, one that involves State and local partners as partners aforethought and not as an afterthought. Congress, in section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), has provided a valuable vehicle through which to accomplish this goal: the “Council of Governors,” which would provide a forum for Governors, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to exchange advice, views, and recommendations on the National Guard, DSCA, and other matters of mutual interest. I will make it a top priority to implement this congressional objective.

This certainly has morphed in scope from the original recommended intent to provide Governors with “…direct input on National Guard issues to the executive branch.”

By August 12th, Matthew Rothschild at The Progressive is reporting that the Pentagon is now asking Congress to allow the Defense Secretary to park almost 400,000 military personnel from throughout the United States.

So the new proposed legislation would greatly expand the President’s power to call up the Reserves in a disaster or an emergency and would extend that power to the Secretary of Defense. (There are other circumstances, such as repelling invasions or rebellions or enforcing federal authority, where the President already has the authority to call up the Reserves.)

The ACLU is alarmed by the proposed legislation. Mike German, the ACLU’s national security policy counsel, expressed amazement “that the military would propose such a broad set of authorities and potentially undermine a 100-year-old prohibition against the military in domestic law enforcement with no public debate and seemingly little understanding of the threat to democracy.”

Add to above the vague definition of “emergency”… generally left up to the President to determine… and we have a serious power grab in the making.

Dave Mundy at the Texas National Press isn’t so subtle with his last summer’s headline… “Military asks Congress to set aside Posse Comitatus”.

An Aug. 12 article in The Progressive, a liberal news journal, by reporter Matthew Rothschild reports that the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) has asked Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post up to 400,000 troops in North America “in times of emergency or natural disaster.” If granted, the move would further erode the authority of the states and would minimize the role played by the states’ militia, the National Guard, in handling domestic issues.

More ominously, nothing in the Pentagon’s request specifies that the troops to be posted in U.S. cities would necessarily be Americans.

Sept 2009: NORTHCOM releases the 32 pg initial framework for the “Tri Command”. It lays the foundation for how NORAD, NORTHCOM and Canada COM operate and interact to accomplish their missions and goals, including organizational charts, and sharing of both information and intelligence. NORTHCOM and Canada COM are both national forces, reporting to Defense Secretary (US) and CDS (Canada), while NORAD is set up as a bi-national force. Commanders have the flexibility to set up Joint Task Force in areas for the duration of the military operation.

The Commanders of these three organizations are directed to establish three plans for the combined defense of the US and Canada. The CAP, mentioned above, is unclassified. The other two, the Canada-US Combined Defense Plan and NORAD Concept Plan are classified.

~~~
Governors, however, cannot be left out of the mix. A couple of months early, when Stocken was testifying before Congress and NORTHCOM was requesting distribution of units across the US, Asst. Defense Secretary Stockton, had sent a letter to the National Governor’s Association INRE their plans. The governors were having nothing of the sort without some serious guidelines in authoritative boundaries. Indeed they reminded Mr. Stockton that a similar proposal in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 was nixed due to gubernatorial concerns.

In their reply on August 7th reply, they recommended setting up the Council of Governors to facilitate discussing the division of tactical command for the NORTHCOM/Defense Department’s expanded powers and military authority.

Governors and their Adjutants General would welcome the opportunity to work with you and others at DoD and the National Guard Bureau to discuss tactical control during disasters and to identify legislative and operational opportunities to improve our response to such events. The best way to facilitate such consultation and communication is for DoD to quickly establish the Council of Governors as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Doing so will provide an appropriate forum to address these issues and other aspects of defense support to civilian authorities.

Jan 11th… Obama creates the Council.

~~~
We now know the two fold intent…

1: To achieve the NORTHCOM Legislative Proposal goals by giving the Defense Secretary powers to call up the reserve units, and stash them across the US in preparation….

2: To get the Governor’s blessing on that power, and suss out who gets to command what, and under what circumstance.

It’s Stockton’s task to liaison between the governors, DHS and the National Guard.

What remains to be seen is what powers can be conferred upon the 10 gubernatorial council members, and what State authorities they cede… either willingly, or hoodwinked out of.

What questions come to mind is why now? What does Obama know to take these extraordinary steps, or… from the conspiratorial angle, just what does he have planned?

But there’s one guarantee… Gibbs sure isn’t going to tell us, and this is another round table of negotiations that won’t be making it to C-SPAN.
 
 Now, here’s some information on the other EO, the one involving Interpol.

Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?
By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton | December 23, 2009
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 whose 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.