Remember the outrage by liberals over the Patriot Act under President Bush? Consider this from the American Civil Liberties Union website:
In April 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union and an anonymous Internet Service Provider (ISP) filed a lawsuit challenging the FBI’s authority to issue “National Security Letters” (NSLs) ordering certain kinds of businesses to turn over sensitive customer records. Before the Patriot Act, the FBI could use NSLs to obtain records concerning suspected terrorists and spies. The Patriot Act amended the law to allow the use of NSLs to obtain information about anyone at all.
The ACLU’s legal challenge argues that the amended law violates the First and Fourth Amendments because it does not impose adequate safeguards on the FBI’s authority to force disclosure of sensitive and constitutionally protected information. The lawsuit also challenges the constitutionality of the statute’s gag provision, which prohibits anyone who receives an NSL from disclosing even the mere fact that the FBI has sought information.
In September 2004, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York issued a landmark decision striking down the NSL statute and the associated gag provision. In striking down the gag provision, Judge Marrero wrote: “Democracy abhors undue secrecy. . . . [A]n unlimited government warrant to conceal, effectively a form of secrecy per se, has no place in our open society.”
Boy, those were the days for the wacky liberal-left, weren’t they? Things sure have changed now that the chosen one is in the White House.
For those who may not know, the “World’s President” has just made another move toward relinquishing the sovereignty of the United States and turning it over to the United Nations.
A few weeks ago, under cover of a secretive Executive Order, Obama gave new powers to INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) that removed limitations that have been in force since Ronald Reagan. Those restrictions protected the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans and subjected INTERPOL records to the Freedom Of Information Act.
Such an action begs the question, why? In the words of Andy McCarthy at National Review Online:
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?
Considering the messiah’s disgust with the “negative liberties” of the U.S. Constitution – which I have documented in posts concerning Cap and Trade Tax and Health Care Reform Hijacking – it’s quite likely that Obama is using this decision as a first step to signing the U.N. treaty known as the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court.
Consider this analysis from ThreatsWatch.org:
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.
While previous Presidents have outright rejected membership, joining the ICC is something the Obama administration has given a great deal of thought to. 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.
With his track record of Apologist-in-Chief, along with his contention that no nation is above another and his citizen-of-the-world viewpoint, this latest action taken by the most liberal and inexperienced President in U.S. history is cause for great concern.
Is Obama moving us ever closer to embracing a New World Order? The answer to that question seems pretty clear.
What others had to say: