<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama Revokes Five Constitutional Amendments</title>
	<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/</link>
	<description>Blog-Fu for Prince William, Manassas and Manassas Park politics.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 18:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91057</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91057</guid>
		<description>http://www.examiner.com/x-27672-Portland-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m1d3-Interpol-American-sovereignty-climate-crisis-global-governance</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-27672-Portland-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m1d3-Interpol-American-sovereignty-climate-crisis-global-governance" rel="nofollow">http://www.examiner.com/x-27672-Portland-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m1d3-Interpol-American-sovereignty-climate-crisis-global-governance</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91034</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91034</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Political patronage:</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NoVA Scout</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91033</link>
		<dc:creator>NoVA Scout</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:16:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91033</guid>
		<description>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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 &#8220;five constitutional amendments&#8221; are being revoked?  Are Interpol&#8217;s police powers being expanded in any way?  Will this result in any change whatsoever in the powers or functions of Interpol?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91028</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:05:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91028</guid>
		<description>"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.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2649-obama-executive-order-on-interpol-gives-fatcats-full-tax-exemption

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)

http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael101.htm


Gene got it bass ackwards.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Information is a good thing&#8221; Especially when it comes from that well known genius  named Gene Masseth:</p>
<p>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.<br />
The original 1983 executive order designated Interpol as an international organization protected by some immunity laws, but Obama&#8217;s amendment granted all Interpol employees full exemption from U.S. taxes and customs inspections. Under provisions of Obama&#8217;s executive order, Interpol and its employees in the United States won&#8217;t have to any pay income taxes, property taxes, or Social Security taxes, in addition to customs duties.</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2649-obama-executive-order-on-interpol-gives-fatcats-full-tax-exemption" rel="nofollow">http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2649-obama-executive-order-on-interpol-gives-fatcats-full-tax-exemption</a></p>
<p>What this new EO provides is the ability of INTERPOL to be treated with consular like status with such privileges as:</p>
<p>• Freedom from searches or confiscation<br />
• The archives of the organization become inviolable – meaning free from violation or trespass, we cannot touch their documents. (Section 2c)<br />
• 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)<br />
• 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)<br />
• INTERPOL would be exempt from paying any Social Security or FICA taxes (Section 5)<br />
• And finally they would be exempt from all Property Taxes. (Section 6)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael101.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael101.htm</a></p>
<p>Gene got it bass ackwards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NoVA Scout</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91026</link>
		<dc:creator>NoVA Scout</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:02:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91026</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn&#8217;t  Gene Masseth&#8217;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&#8217;re supposed to get lathered up about?  Information is a good thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VA_Magoo</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91020</link>
		<dc:creator>VA_Magoo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:53:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91020</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>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 &#8220;excited&#8221; about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91018</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91018</guid>
		<description>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.


http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2010-01-02-241380.112112_Team_Obama_on_INTERPOL_no_change_no_news.html

(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."

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, &#8221; the question remains: Why was this amendment to Executive Order 12425 &#8220;needed&#8217;&#8221;? If it changed &#8220;nothing&#8221; why bother? &#8221;</p>
<p>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&#8230; except to insist that nothing has changed.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2010-01-02-241380.112112_Team_Obama_on_INTERPOL_no_change_no_news.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2010-01-02-241380.112112_Team_Obama_on_INTERPOL_no_change_no_news.html</a></p>
<p>(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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>“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. </p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force </p>
<p> &#8220;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.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/" rel="nofollow">http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NoVA Scout</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91004</link>
		<dc:creator>NoVA Scout</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:34:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-91004</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anon 0803:  not sure what &#8220;fussy&#8221;  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&#8217;s status in the US over what is was, say, in the Reagan years or at any time since.  I haven&#8217;t seen anyone take that on.  I don&#8217;t know the answer, but haven&#8217;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&#8217;s best not to get excited before you understand what you&#8217;re getting excited about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90997</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:34:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90997</guid>
		<description>"Does anyone know what the EO does to alter the status quo?"

You can bet Obama, Noble and Holder know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Does anyone know what the EO does to alter the status quo?&#8221;</p>
<p>You can bet Obama, Noble and Holder know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90996</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:03:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90996</guid>
		<description>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:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Interpol_Director_weeps_at_lack_of_1007.html



"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."

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18522



 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nova Scout doing his best Baghdad Bob impersonation:</p>
<p>&#8220;No I am not fussy, and neither should you be!&#8221; </p>
<p>&#8220;We are not afraid of the fussy Americans. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid&#8221; (dramatic pause) &#8220;and they are condemned.&#8221;</p>
<p> &#8220;Let the fussy American infidels bask in their illusion&#8221; </p>
<p>Watch Ron Noble fuss over a lack of Interpol money:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Interpol_Director_weeps_at_lack_of_1007.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Interpol_Director_weeps_at_lack_of_1007.html</a></p>
<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18522" rel="nofollow">http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18522</a></p>
<p> Fuss all you like over what you think anyone else should or should not fuss over.</p>
<p> Already emailed my Senators and Representative. I will call them this week. I recommend everyone do the same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NoVA Scout</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90991</link>
		<dc:creator>NoVA Scout</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 02:27:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90991</guid>
		<description>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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90986</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:55:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90986</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Once again a liberal injects the race card into a constructive argument, any goofy act they are challeged on&#8230;  But they must be concerned to be here, when they could be at the mailbox waiting on a check!  Aww shucks, no mail today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90983</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:42:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90983</guid>
		<description>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."


http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&#38;a=431847</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IOW, neither Nova Scout nor Gene Masseth  knows what the heck this is all about. The reasons for Obama&#8217;s executive  order regarding Interpol are not at all apparent.</p>
<p>&#8220;None of us knows why he signed this executive order amendment. Anyone who says he knows the truth surely doesn&#8217;t. Admittedly, I for one do not understand the logic of amending this longstanding order. </p>
<p>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.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&amp;a=431847" rel="nofollow">http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&amp;a=431847</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NoVA Scout</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90979</link>
		<dc:creator>NoVA Scout</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:42:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90979</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How can we tell that Gene Masseth is a &#8220;rabid socialist&#8221; 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&#8217;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 &#8220;Panic First, Figure Out What&#8217;s Really Happening Later (or Maybe Never)&#8221; approach is probably great fun for folks who like to run around in circles with their hair on fire, but doesn&#8217;t do anything for the country or public discourse)</p>
<p> 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&#8217;ve spoken to in the business believe that it provides a valuable information-linking and synthesis function for international law enforcement efforts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90977</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 05:26:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90977</guid>
		<description>WACO SIEGE "ENFORCER" HEADS GLOBAL POLICE FORCE: HAND-PICKED BY JANET RENO 

http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=18590

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. 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w112.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WACO SIEGE &#8220;ENFORCER&#8221; HEADS GLOBAL POLICE FORCE: HAND-PICKED BY JANET RENO </p>
<p><a href="http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=18590" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=18590</a></p>
<p>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. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w112.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w112.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90975</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 04:35:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90975</guid>
		<description>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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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</p>
<p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7183569.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7183569.stm</a>) He was removed when the South African government charged him with corruption.</p>
<p>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</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg L</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90972</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg L</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90972</guid>
		<description>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:
&lt;blockquote&gt;

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.

&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go figure that a rabid socialist like the above is going to peddle a bunch of lies about this.</p>
<p>For more information on this Executive Order, go to <a href="http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/" rel="nofollow">http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/</a></p>
<p>To wit:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.</p>
<p>    Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an &#8220;International Organization.&#8221; 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).</p>
<p>    And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.</p>
<p>Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.</p>
<p>    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. </p>
<p>Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens&#8217; Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (&#8221;unless such immunity be expressly waived.&#8221;)</p>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene Masseth</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90971</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene Masseth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 02:31:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90971</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you actually bother to read the Order, you&#8217;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&#8217;t already have (and they already didn&#8217;t have any power to being with).</p>
<p>More baseless fearmongering from Greg.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene Masseth</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90970</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene Masseth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 02:27:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90970</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At the risk of injecting some rationalism into your conservative paranoid fantasies, you do realize, don&#8217;t you, that Interpol isn&#8217;t a police force, right? It&#8217;s an organization that manages databases.</p>
<p>I really like the way you contards get all worked up over this. &#8220;Derp! Derp! Dey&#8217;s takin&#8217; away our raaaaahhghts!!!&#8221; 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.</p>
<p>You are truly, truly pathetic. I&#8217;m sorry the current President isn&#8217;t white enough for you all, but you really really need to lay off the paranoid nonsense.</p>
<p>Have a Happy New Year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: citizenofmanassas</title>
		<link>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90967</link>
		<dc:creator>citizenofmanassas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:34:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/12/30/obama-revokes-five-constitutional-amendments/#comment-90967</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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?   </p>
<p>This is just another act by a liberal who believes International law trumps our domestic laws. </p>
<p>Of course obama is hoping that only conservatives are affected by this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

