Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Obama Revokes Five Constitutional Amendments

By Greg L | 30 December 2009 | National Politics | 24 Comments

And when will the first American Citizen be seized on U.S. soil, denied his Constitutionally-protected rights, and rushed away to face charges as a “war criminal” in some foreign court?  Any day now, according to the DC Examiner.

…the Obama order reverses a 1983 Reagan administration decision in order to grant Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization, two key privileges. First, Obama has granted Interpol the ability to operate within the territorial limits of the United States without being subject to the same constitutional restraints that apply to all domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. Second, Obama has exempted Interpol’s domestic facilities — including its office within the U.S. Department of Justice — from search and seizure by U.S. authorities and from disclosure of archived documents in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. citizens.

The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth Amendments in the Bill of Bights have hereby been revoked by The Anointed One, with nary a whimper and the slimmest of notice.  Presidential edict buried in bureaucratic minutiae can now trump the supreme law of the land. 

Just for nostalgia, here’s the kind of government we used to have.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

How long will the evils delivered on our liberties on a seemingly daily basis remain sufferable to us?  After how many assaults on our freedom do light and transient reasons become deeply serious and perpetual in their duration?  Would our founders have muttered angrily about at injustices such as these while taking no action, or would they have risen up to overthrow such tyranny?  I’m not so sure. Questions like this become ever more difficult to satisfactorily answer.

If the intent of President Obama is to foster an insurrection in this nation during his first term, he’s doing a darned fine job of laying the groundwork.

UPDATE: Also covering this: UCV, which brings up the point that Article 2, Section II of the Constitution may have been violated since the treaty that Obama is implementing in this Executive Order hasn’t been ratified by the Senate.  Heck, if you’re going to throw away half of the Bill of Rights, why not throw away Constitutional provisions regarding the ratification of treaties as well?  It sure will make international “global warming” mandates easier to implement if international treaties can be adopted through Executive Order rather than having the Senate, as incapable as it currently is at making rational decisions, have some oversight powers as part of the “checks and balances” our Constitution enacted.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. anon in dale city said on 31 Dec 2009 at 12:23 am:
    Flag comment

    Interesting reading this immediately after reading the headline “Conservatives Attack Obama for Upholding the Constitution” check it out. I sometimes like looking at things I don’t agree with, maybe you do too. http://progressivenation.us/2009/12/29/conservatives-attack-obama-for-upholding-constitution/

  2. Johnson said on 31 Dec 2009 at 10:35 am:
    Flag comment


    may you be the first person to bear the brunt of this order.

    Happy Holidays!

  3. Cynic said on 31 Dec 2009 at 12:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Interpol - When operating in the US, would it be legal to apply the policy of persona non grata to their personnel - like we do to diplomats - if such action is warranted?

  4. Ron Homan said on 31 Dec 2009 at 12:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    If you want to fully understand the “progressive” movement, you have to read some history on its inception in the 1880’s in Europe and England, and how Woodrow Wilson used the precepts to introduce those concepts into the U.S. government. The Islamists terrorist apologists in the current progressive, (read liberal), movement in the U.S. are as dangerous as the terrorists.

  5. citizenofmanassas said on 31 Dec 2009 at 3:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Does anyone see the irony of obama wanting to extend rights under our Constitution to terrorists, but is in favor of taking away the same rights to Americans?

    This is just another act by a liberal who believes International law trumps our domestic laws.

    Of course obama is hoping that only conservatives are affected by this.

  6. Gene Masseth said on 31 Dec 2009 at 9:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    At the risk of injecting some rationalism into your conservative paranoid fantasies, you do realize, don’t you, that Interpol isn’t a police force, right? It’s an organization that manages databases.

    I really like the way you contards get all worked up over this. “Derp! Derp! Dey’s takin’ away our raaaaahhghts!!!” But when the Bush Administration was pumping out warrantless wiretaps and National Security Letters faster than Rush Limbaugh tossing back the Oxies, you just stuffed your head in the sand.

    You are truly, truly pathetic. I’m sorry the current President isn’t white enough for you all, but you really really need to lay off the paranoid nonsense.

    Have a Happy New Year.

  7. Gene Masseth said on 31 Dec 2009 at 9:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    If you actually bother to read the Order, you’ll see all it really does is remove the exemption on INTERPOL from paying taxes (something Reagan, interestingly enough, put in place). It does not give INTERPOL any additional immunities or power that they didn’t already have (and they already didn’t have any power to being with).

    More baseless fearmongering from Greg.

  8. Greg L said on 31 Dec 2009 at 10:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Go figure that a rabid socialist like the above is going to peddle a bunch of lies about this.

    For more information on this Executive Order, go to http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/

    To wit:

    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.

    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.

  9. Anonymous said on 31 Dec 2009 at 11:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Interpol does not have any rights of enforcement, prosecution or investigation anywhere in the world. It has a tiny staff and a relatively tiny budget ($70 million). It acts strictly as an information clearing house for the member forces. Unless he is a French police officer, the head of Interpol in France does not have the power of a village constable. Interpol has no right anywhere to get involved in local matters concerning its own citizens unless it crosses any border or involves foreigners and only at the request of a government. If Interpol collects a certain number of pieces of a puzzle which seems to tie together they will give that information to the police forces of the countries involved and ask them to investigate and they will coordinate between the various police forces.

    Every member country designates a central contact for Interpol. In the US it is the department of justice. The only employees it has are American civil servants and American law enforcement officers. Interpol does not own any property in the US and the only records it has are those sent by Interpol to every other police force in the world, those requested by the US from other police forces via Interpol and those collected by US law enforcement at the request of Interpol. In other words, the American Interpol is an American department of Law enforcement dealing with international crime.

    It just so happens that the current head of Interpol is not only an American, but a brother at that. The last head was another brother, from South Africa( This guy, South African National Police Commissioner Jackie Selebi

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7183569.stm) He was removed when the South African government charged him with corruption.

    In other words, a US government department with US government employees dealing with crime by or against Americans has just been given complete immunity from American laws. There are some similar instances in the convoluted world of politics, both the SS and the KGB

  10. Anonymous said on 1 Jan 2010 at 12:26 am:
    Flag comment



    Ronald K. Noble is the first American citizen ever to head Interpol. A former Clinton Administration appointee in the Treasury Department, he authored the official report on what went wrong in the 1993 Waco, Texas, conflagration.


  11. NoVA Scout said on 1 Jan 2010 at 8:42 am:
    Flag comment

    How can we tell that Gene Masseth is a “rabid socialist” from his two comments? Maybe Greg knows him in another context and has reasons for hanging this label on him. However, I find nothing in the two comments that reveal anything about Mr. Masseth’s economic philosophy - nothing about state ownership of means of production or any other indicator that he is either a socialist, libertarian, capitalist, communist, or anything else in the spectrum. Although his first comment seems gratuitously taunting in its tone (although nothing outside the bounds of the usual standards of discourse at this site, and understandable in view of some of the Chicken Little stuff that gets tossed around here), he appears to be making a point about the content of the action and the nature of Interpol. On those two points, to my knowledge, he is factually correct. Does anyone have any information indicating that Interpol has powers of arrest or has ever used such powers directly against American citizens in the United States? It would surprise me if that were the case. Can anyone pinpoint what expanded rights or capabilities in the US Interpol was granted by the EO that did not already exist? The Examiner piece is extraordinarily vague about what changes were actually effected by the EO. Masseth contends that the only impact was to remove some tax exemption that had been in place for Interpol since the Reagan presidency. Can anyone pin this down? It seems that before everyone goes running around gobbling about civil liberties being infringed, we ought to have that information. The “Panic First, Figure Out What’s Really Happening Later (or Maybe Never)” approach is probably great fun for folks who like to run around in circles with their hair on fire, but doesn’t do anything for the country or public discourse)

    My experience (admittedly limited) with Interpol is simply that US authorities would, like law enforcement authorities elsewhere in the world, get data, notices, and bulletins and, in some situations, these data would lead to an arrest by our authorities under our law. I have met law enforcement authorities in the US who have questioned whether Interpol is as useful as its advocates claim, but, on balance, most people I’ve spoken to in the business believe that it provides a valuable information-linking and synthesis function for international law enforcement efforts.

  12. Anonymous said on 1 Jan 2010 at 12:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    IOW, neither Nova Scout nor Gene Masseth knows what the heck this is all about. The reasons for Obama’s executive order regarding Interpol are not at all apparent.

    “None of us knows why he signed this executive order amendment. Anyone who says he knows the truth surely doesn’t. Admittedly, I for one do not understand the logic of amending this longstanding order.

    We need to ask our members of Congress to find out from the president why he did this. We deserve a straight forward answer so that there is no government secret agenda at work here or unfounded conspiracy at play.”


  13. Anonymous said on 1 Jan 2010 at 3:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Once again a liberal injects the race card into a constructive argument, any goofy act they are challeged on… But they must be concerned to be here, when they could be at the mailbox waiting on a check! Aww shucks, no mail today.

  14. NoVA Scout said on 1 Jan 2010 at 9:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    We know as much as anyone else, Anon 1242. Which is apparently is close to zero and therefore not worth a fuss from anyone. Does anyone know what the EO does to alter the status quo?

  15. Anonymous said on 2 Jan 2010 at 8:03 am:
    Flag comment

    Nova Scout doing his best Baghdad Bob impersonation:

    “No I am not fussy, and neither should you be!”

    “We are not afraid of the fussy Americans. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid” (dramatic pause) “and they are condemned.”

    “Let the fussy American infidels bask in their illusion”

    Watch Ron Noble fuss over a lack of Interpol money:


    “It should interest hard-pressed Americans that by giving immunity to Interpol, all its top US personnel can rake in vast sums of money without being taxed by the USA. They will not be subject to customs searches, nor to tax demands. Nor will Interpol open its archives to US searches. Like Obama, they are only ‘transparent’ on paper and in speeches, with no intention of giving out information that will incriminate themselves. No doubt Obama is left alone for that very reason.”


    Fuss all you like over what you think anyone else should or should not fuss over.

    Already emailed my Senators and Representative. I will call them this week. I recommend everyone do the same.

  16. Anonymous said on 2 Jan 2010 at 8:34 am:
    Flag comment

    “Does anyone know what the EO does to alter the status quo?”

    You can bet Obama, Noble and Holder know.

  17. NoVA Scout said on 2 Jan 2010 at 2:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon 0803: not sure what “fussy” has to do with it. But, my question is whether the EO that was the subject of the Examiner article in the original post changed Interpol’s status in the US over what is was, say, in the Reagan years or at any time since. I haven’t seen anyone take that on. I don’t know the answer, but haven’t seen anyone here who has begun to pinpoint exactly what the problem is. Once I understand that, I can decide how excited I should be about it. So can you. But it’s best not to get excited before you understand what you’re getting excited about.

  18. Anonymous said on 3 Jan 2010 at 10:54 am:
    Flag comment

    Yes, ” the question remains: Why was this amendment to Executive Order 12425 “needed’”? If it changed “nothing” why bother? ”

    What’s troubling is Obama did not and now will not explain or answer any questions as to why he drafted and signed the order… except to insist that nothing has changed.


    (New York Times, 10/11/09) Interpol and the United Nations are poised to become partners in fighting crime by jointly grooming a global police force that would be deployed as peacekeepers among rogue nations riven by war and organized crime, officials from both organizations say.

    On Monday, justice and foreign ministers from more than 60 countries, including the United States and China, are gathering in Singapore for a meeting hosted by the two international organizations.

    It is the first step toward creating what Interpol calls a “global policing doctrine” that would enable Interpol and the United Nations to improve the skills of police peacekeepers, largely by sharing a secure communications network and a vast electronic trove of criminal information, including DNA records, fingerprints, photographs and fugitive notices.

    “We have a visionary model,” said Ronald K. Noble, secretary general of Interpol and the first American to head the international police organization, which is based in Lyon. More than 187 member nations finance the organization.

    “The police will be trained and equipped differently with resources,” Mr. Noble said. “When they stop someone, they will be consulting global databases to determine who they are stopping.”

    Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force

    “If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many of people have recognized this goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”


  19. VA_Magoo said on 3 Jan 2010 at 12:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Granting foreigners (non-us citizens) the same rights as US citizens is NOT upholding the Constitution! Inviting foreign police into our lands is NOT upholding the constitution.

    When Interpol walks into your house and carts you away with no warrants, and then per chance carts you to a foreign nation to be put on trial, then maybe you might see what we are getting “excited” about.

  20. NoVA Scout said on 3 Jan 2010 at 5:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Didn’t Gene Masseth’s second comment state that the change was to restrict some tax exempt aspects of the original Interpol deal? In other words, Masseth indicates that the EO had the effect of restricting (at least in a minor way) privileges granted Interpol by previous administrations. Does anyone know more than that? Is that what we’re supposed to get lathered up about? Information is a good thing.

  21. Anonymous said on 3 Jan 2010 at 7:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Information is a good thing” Especially when it comes from that well known genius named Gene Masseth:

    President Barack Obama amended Reagan-era Executive Order 12425 on December 17, which granted agents of the global police database Interpol full immunity from U.S. tax and customs laws, as if they were full ambassadors from other countries.
    The original 1983 executive order designated Interpol as an international organization protected by some immunity laws, but Obama’s amendment granted all Interpol employees full exemption from U.S. taxes and customs inspections. Under provisions of Obama’s executive order, Interpol and its employees in the United States won’t have to any pay income taxes, property taxes, or Social Security taxes, in addition to customs duties.

    The executive order also notes that Interpol employees and their property “shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”


    What this new EO provides is the ability of INTERPOL to be treated with consular like status with such privileges as:

    • Freedom from searches or confiscation
    • The archives of the organization become inviolable – meaning free from violation or trespass, we cannot touch their documents. (Section 2c)
    • The officers, families, servants, employees, or representatives shall be admitted into the country free from customs duties and from of IRS importation taxes. (Section 3)
    • This would grant INTERPOL freedom from ALL IRS taxes for wages, fees, salary, employment taxes, communications taxes (like on your phone bill), transportation taxes for persons or property, (Section 4)
    • INTERPOL would be exempt from paying any Social Security or FICA taxes (Section 5)
    • And finally they would be exempt from all Property Taxes. (Section 6)


    Gene got it bass ackwards.

  22. NoVA Scout said on 4 Jan 2010 at 6:16 am:
    Flag comment

    The last comment (the first in the thread to really try to explain what the EO does) indicates that Interpol is being granted tax treatment analogous to that which Embassies and diplomatic personnel (and international organizations like the World Bank and IMF) enjoy. So is that how “five constitutional amendments” are being revoked? Are Interpol’s police powers being expanded in any way? Will this result in any change whatsoever in the powers or functions of Interpol?

  23. Anonymous said on 4 Jan 2010 at 7:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Political patronage:

    The use of state resources to reward individuals for their electoral support. The term may refer to a type of corruption or favoritism in which a party in power rewards groups, families, ethnicities for their electoral support using illegal gifts or fraudulently-awarded appointments or government contracts.

  24. Anonymous said on 6 Jan 2010 at 6:21 am:
    Flag comment


Comments are closed.

Views: 2264