» Politics

Obama, Who Ended D.C.’s Voucher Program, Talks About Improving Education for Children ‘Born in the Wrong Neighborhood’

admin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:26:47 +0000

Friday, July 30, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration is phasing out a program that allows underprivileged children to get scholarships to expensive private schools in Washington, D.C., such as Sidwell Friends, the school the Obama girls attend, where tuition runs about $31,000 a year.

Nevertheless, Obama on Thursday spoke about his “obligation to lift up every child” to help them achieve a quality education.

In addressing the National Urban League’s 100th Anniversary Convention, Obama touted his education reform initiative called “Race to the Top.” The $4.35 billion education initiative encourages states to reform their education laws and policies by making them compete for additional federal grant dollars.

Obama said it has been a success. But the National Urban League and even a major teachers’ union have criticized “Race to the Top” for leaving minority students behind.

On Thursday, Obama said education reform is a top priority for his administration because the “status quo is morally inexcusable, it’s economically indefensible, and all of us are going to have to roll up our sleeves to change it.”

On a personal note, he invoked his days as a community organizer and a state senator, when he represented struggling communities with poor schools:

“I remember going to a school back in my organizing days and seeing children — young children, maybe five or six — eyes were brimming with hope, had such big dreams for the future,” the president said. “You’d ask them, what do you want to be when you grow up? They’d want to be a doctor; they’d want to be a lawyer.

“And then I remember the principal telling me that soon, all that would change,” Obama continued. “The hope would start fading from their eyes as they started to realize that maybe their dreams wouldn’t come to pass — not because they weren’t smart enough, not because they weren’t talented enough, but because through a turn of fate they happened to be born in the wrong neighborhood. They became victims of low expectations, a community that was not supporting educational excellence.”

Obama called it heartbreaking and said it reinforced in him “a fundamental belief that we’ve got an obligation to lift up every child in every school in this country, especially those who are starting out furthest behind.” The mostly black audience applauded.

Despite his words on Thursday, the Obama administration’s actions tell a different story.

The administration ended funding for the District of Columbia’s Opportunity Scholarship Program in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget. But, after protests from parents and school choice advocates, the administration eventually relented, agreeing to let children already receiving scholarships continue to do so until they graduate from high school.

In the Fiscal Year 2011 budget, the administration proposes to cut funding for the program by $4 million, from $13 million to $9 million. (See earlier story)

“The ‘Race to the Top’ is better than nothing,” said Clark Neily, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a legal group that advocates school choice.

Neily told CNSNews.com it’s a good thing that states have to demonstrate improvement to get federal education dollars. “Unless you put choice in the direct hands of parents, school systems are going to game the system by lowering the bar,” he said.

The Washington, D.C. voucher program began in 2004 to allow poor children to attend high-performing private schools. The program designates $7,500 scholarships to about 1,700 students to attend one of 55 private schools in D.C., including Sidwell Friends.

The private schools would accept the $7,500 payment to cover the much higher costs of tuition. In the case of Sidwell, tuition for “lower school” costs $31,069, while middle and upper school costs $32,069

The Education Department’s 2008 Digest of Education Statistics shows that for the 2005-2006 school year, $18,339 was spent per pupil per year for average daily attendance in the D.C. public schools – more than double what it costs for a child to attend a private school through the Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Despite that spending, the public schools in the District are consistently ranked as some of the worst performing schools in the nation.

Obama Creating Back-Door for Amnesty of Illegals?

admin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:19:41 +0000

The Washington Times

by Stephen Dinan

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants – what a draft government memo said could be “a non-legislative version of amnesty.”

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to “reduce the threat of removal” for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

“In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear,” the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.

Chris Bentley, a USCIS spokesman, said drafting the memo doesn’t mean the agency has embraced the policy and “nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions.”

“As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system,” he said in an e-mail statement. “We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.”

He said the Homeland Security Department “will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”

The memo does talk about targeting specific groups of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Grassley said it confirms his fears that the administration is trying an end-run around Congress.

“This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a backdoor amnesty plan,” Mr. Grassley said.

The memo acknowledges some of the tools could be costly and might even require asking Congress for more money.

At one point, the authors acknowledge that widespread use of “deferred action” – or using prosecutorial discretion not to deport someone – would be “a non-legislative version of ‘amnesty.’ ”

The authors noted several options for deferred action, including targeting it to students who would be covered by the DREAM Act, a bill that’s been introduced in Congress.

In testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 11, Mr. Mayorkas first said he was unaware of discussions to use these kinds of tools on a categorical basis, then later clarified that officials had talked about expanding the use of those powers.

“I don’t know of any plans. I think we have discussed, as we always do, the tools available to us and whether the deployment of any of those tools could achieve a more fair and efficient use or application of the immigration law,” he said.

He acknowledged, though, that he was not aware that those powers had ever been used before on a categorical basis.

Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who queried Mr. Mayorkas on the subject, warned him against pursuing that strategy.

“I think it would be a mistake for the administration to use administrative action, like deferred action on a categorical basis, to deal with a large number of people who are here without proper legal documents to regularize their status without Congress‘ participation. I will just say that to you for what it’s worth,” Mr. Cornyn, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary immigration, border security and citizenship subcommittee, told Mr. Mayorkas.

“The American public’s confidence in the federal government’s ability and commitment to enforce our immigration laws is at an all-time low,” Mr. Cornyn said in a statement. “This apparent step to circumvent Congress – and avoid a transparent debate on how to fix our broken immigration system – threatens to further erode public confidence in its government and makes it less likely we will ever reach consensus and pass credible border security and immigration reform.”

After reports earlier this year that the agency was working on these sorts of plans, Senate Republicans, led by Mr. Grassley, have sent letters to President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking for details.

In one letter, the senators warned the president against making an end-run around congressional authority to write immigration rules, and asked for Mr. Obama to promise that he would not use the rules to grant mass pardons.

Rosemary Jenks, government relations manager for NumbersUSA, an organization that advocates for stricter immigration limits, said the memo is “an outrageous usurpation of congressional authority. It is unconstitutional, and a slap in the face to the American people.”

She said that the memo could explain why the push for an immigration bill has faltered in Congress.

“This makes sense of the fact that [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and Obama are sitting back calmly content with not moving immigration reform this year – because they know Obama is trying to take care of it for them, without Democrats having to be tied down to a vote before the election,” she said.

On the other side of the political spectrum, immigrant rights groups have demanded that Mr. Obama halt deportations until he secures a broad legalization bill from Congress – legislation that supporters call “comprehensive immigration reform” because it would tackle enforcement, some aspects of legal immigration and the status of illegal immigrants at the same time.

Two senators earlier this year wrote asking the administration to use its powers to stop deporting students who might be eligible for the DREAM Act, which would allow illegal immigrant college students brought to the U.S. at a young age to gain legal status. The legislation has not been passed by Congress.

Mr. Obama has rejected halting deportations, but his administration has been more careful about whom it pursues.

According to new figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the administration has stepped up its efforts to deport illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, but removal of “non-criminal” illegal immigrants has slowed so far in fiscal 2010.

Ethics chairwoman disputes reports that she met privately with Rangel

afrederick — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:00:06 +0000

By Susan Crabtree and Molly K. Hooper | The Hill

House ethics committee chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) on Tuesday disputed media reports stating she met privately with Rep. Charles Rangel to negotiate a deal with the embattled New York Democrat.

Republicans are privately threatening to derail any deal after several media accounts reported that Lofgren met with Rangel and his attorney Monday night without any GOP members of the ethics committee present. Lofgren denied the reports, although staffers on the committee hired by Lofgren met with Rangel’s attorneys Monday.

On Monday evening, Rangel and his chief of staff were meeting in H-122 of the Capitol, which is the Speaker’s dining room.

Lofgren was seen poking her head into the meeting, then quickly departed. That meeting followed one in which Rangel conferred with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who serves as the assistant to the Speaker, as well as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“Contrary to Fox’s reporting, Chair Zoe Lofgren did not privately meet with Rep. Rangel and his attorney on Monday night,” her office said in a written statement. “When the investigative subcommittee transmitted a Statement of Alleged Violation to the Committee, she designated members to serve on an adjudicatory committee and gave notice of the fact to the respondent – both steps that are required by Committee rules…Due to Committee confidentiality rules, we are unable to comment further other than to correct this false statement at this time.”

During votes Monday evening, House Majority Whip Clyburn (D-S.C.) was seen in discussions with Rangel, Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) and Rangel’s chief of staff George Henry along the back of the House chamber. After more than 10 minutes, Clyburn made a bee line to Lofgren, who sat in the front row of the chamber. Clyburn spent 5 minutes talking quietly with the ethics committee chairwoman. Clyburn then conferred with Rangel and Henry for a shorter conversation. Clyburn was late spotted ducking into an room off the House floor with Lofgren for a 15-minute private conversation.

Republicans on the ethics committee huddled during floor votes on Tuesday.

There are no committee rules barring Lofgren from discussing the matter with Rangel directly, according to ethics experts, but any deal would require at least one GOP vote to be ratified.

A Republican source said, “You can’t have one side of the committee cutting a deal with the defendant in the case. Can you imagine if Republicans had negotiated secretly with Tom DeLay or Newt Gingrich?”

[article originally appears at thehill.com]

Only in Washington Is This Transparency

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:12:46 +0000

Debra J. Saunders

The Senate Democrats’ “DISCLOSE” Act — “DISCLOSE” stands for “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections” — represents perhaps the baldest, if failed, power grab attempted this year. But you wouldn’t guess it reading news stories on the bill.

As The New York Times reported, “The Senate on Tuesday refused to take up a bill that would require more disclosure of the role of corporations, unions and other special interests in bankrolling political advertisements, after Democrats failed to persuade even one Republican to support it.”

The Washington Post began, “Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation requiring fuller disclosure of the money behind political advertising, derailing a major White House initiative and virtually ensuring an onslaught of attack ads during this year’s midterm election season.”

So … it’s the Republicans’ fault if there are attack ads in November?

The leads to these stories have one thing right. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., failed to garner a single Republican supporter and hence failed to reach the 60-vote mark needed to bring it to a floor vote. Thus, it died with 57 votes in favor and 41 against.

But don’t let the first paragraphs fool you. The bill isn’t simply a spending disclosure reform; the DISCLOSE Act also would bar “electioneering communications” by corporations that have government contracts worth more than $10 million, received TARP funds or are controlled by foreign entities. So it’s not simply about disclosure; it’s also about suppressing free speech.

You also would not know that while proponents frame the bill as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 Citizens United ruling, which lifted restrictions on independent political advertising by labor and corporations, the House version of the bill imposed restrictions on the above corporations — with no parallel restrictions on labor.

On the disclosure front, Schumer made a nod toward fairness. Unlike the House bill, Schumer’s measure would require that union heads, like CEOs, disclose contributions to political ads or mailers. Hence his claim that the bill promotes transparency. Quoth Schumer, “All we’re saying is that if you attack us, put your name on the ad.”

Facing the same spotlight that Schumer would shine on corporations, the AFL-CIO now “reluctantly” opposes the bill.

Other special interests fared better. Both the House and Senate bills exempted powerful special-interest groups, including the National Rifle Association and Sierra Club, from their disclosure rules.

Perhaps the most naked provision in the bills was language that would have made the DISCLOSE Act federal law within 30 days of President Obama’s promised signature. Clearly, the Dems were trying to skew the rules before the November elections.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, hit it when she said, “We have not had hearings, no vetting, no attempt, I think, to bring people together to work on an issue that responds to the Supreme Court’s decision.”

The Democrats tried to sneak this so-called reform onto the books like a midnight pay raise.

Debra J. Saunders’s Biography

Pro-Life Groups Seek Probe Into Kagan’s Clinton-Era Role in Partial Birth Abortion Debate

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:10:42 +0000

Thursday, July 29, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

Washington (CNSNews.com) – More than 30 pro-life organizations are calling on senators to investigate Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s record with regards to partial-birth abortion while serving as a Clinton administration attorney.

The Senate Judiciary Committee already sent Kagan’s nomination to the full Senate for a vote, which is expected next week. President Barack Obama nominated Kagan, the U.S. solicitor general, to be an associate justice on the high court in May.

“The undersigned organizations are writing today to express our strong opposition to the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court,” the letter sent to all 100 senators on Wednesday said.

“We also join Americans United for Life Action in their call for an investigation into the discrepancies between Kagan’s testimony before Congress and written documentation of her undue influence on medical organizations while advising President William J. Clinton on partial-birth abortion,” the letter added.

Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action, first called for a probe.

Pro-life organizations that backed her up included the Family Research Council, Human Life International, Liberty Counsel, March for Life Education and Defense Fund, Priests for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Students for Life and the Traditional Values Coalition. Numerous state organizations also signed on.

Kagan served as associate White House counsel from 1995 to 1996 and as deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy and deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) from 1997 to 1999.

As CNSNews.com reported last month, in 1996 she lobbied the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to oppose a ban on partial birth abortions. This came after she learned that a select committee of ACOG determined, “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial-birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.”

Memos and other documents pertaining to Kagan’s White House work were released by the Clinton Presidential Library.

In a Dec. 14, 1996 memo, Kagan stated it would be a “disaster” if ACOG stated this.

The Kagan memo said. “1. Todd Stern just discovered that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is thinking about issuing a statement (attached) that includes the following sentence: ‘[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure … would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.’ This, of course, would be disaster – not the less so (in fact the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. It is unclear whether ACOG will issue the statement; even if it does not, there is obviously a chance that the draft will become public. (The AMA last week decided to continue to take no position on the partial-birth issue.)”

She then drafted an amendment to ACOG’s statement, which stated that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

On Jan. 12, 1997, ACOG publicly released its statement on partial birth abortion, medically termed intact dilatation and extraction abortion. It included a passage that tracked – verbatim – the “suggested option” from the handwritten notes found in the Kagan file released by the Clinton Library.

The final ACOG statement included the words: “An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman…” These words were not in the previous draft.

Advising President Clinton in an April 10, 1997 memo, Kagan said the ACOG statement was the “most reliable.”

“President Clinton and numerous courts (including the United States Supreme Court) ultimately relied on the ACOG statement to justify opposing the Partial Birth Abortion Act,” the letter from pro-life groups said.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart, which declared Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion unconstitutional.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion stating, “The District Court also noted that a select panel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that D&X ‘may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.’”

Blocking confirmation seems unlikely as Democrats, who favor Kagan, have a 59-41 majority in the Senate and some Republicans are expected to vote for her. Asked Tuesday if the White House expects a confirmation vote next week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “The confirmation that the vote will happen and that we’ll have a new Supreme Court justice, yes.”

During her confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said, “Well, I’ll tell you this bothers me a lot, because I know that there were plenty of doctors at ACOG that did not believe that partial birth abortion was an essential procedure, and who believe that it was really a brutal procedure and it was a custom conflict there, and as you know, many in Congress came to the conclusion that it was a brutal procedure too and that it was really unjustified.

“That bothers me that you intervened in that particular area in that way. And that’s all I’ll say about it, but I just want you to be aware that that bothered me,” Hatch added.

Kagan responded, “Sen. Hatch there was no way in which I would have or could have intervened with ACOG, which is a respected body of physicians, to get it to change its medical views on the question. The only question that we were talking about was whether this statement that they were going to issue accurately reflected the views that they had expressed to the president, to the president’s staff, to Congress, and to the American public. I do agree with you, this was an enormously hard issue.” (See Earlier Story)

The letter stated, “The statement conflicts with her account of her June 1996 meeting with ACOG.”

“These discrepancies in Kagan’s statements cast doubt on her respect for scientific evidence as well as her ability to serve as an unbiased justice on our nation’s highest court,” the letter stated. “We urge you to conduct a thorough investigation before casting your vote on her confirmation.”

On July 19, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop sent a letter to the Senate calling for Kagan’s nomination to be rejected based on her actions regarding ACOG and partial-birth abortion. AUL released a report detailing the memos days before Koop’s letter.

“A nominee to the highest court in the land must meet our nation’s absolute highest standards of integrity and impartiality,” Yoest said in a statement Wednesday. “With serious outstanding questions clouding Ms. Kagan’s nomination, we are leading a united effort to ask that the Senate investigate discrepancies between her Senate testimony and the written record on partial-birth abortion before proceeding to a floor vote.”

Michelle Obama’s Request for Birthday Wishes for Her Husband Links to Donation Page

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:09:21 +0000

Wednesday, July 28, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) – It seems like a nice gesture – an e-mail message from a loving wife, urging thousands of people to join her in wishing her husband a happy 49th birthday by signing an electronic birthday card.

But in Washington, D.C., nothing is that simple.

The wife, in this case, is First lLdy Michelle Obama, and the message is being sent by the Democratic Party to people on its list nationwide. And underlying the birthday wishes, the message is political: The electronic card to Barack Obama also is a Democratic Party fundraiser.

“Every year, our family tries to come up with a fun way to wish Barack a happy birthday,” the message from Michelle Obama says. “And this August 4th, when he turns 49, I have something new in mind.”

Her message, which went out Tuesday, is being sent out by Democrats.org, the online presence of the Democratic National Committee.

The first lady, meanwhile, acknowledged that her husband has been “busy.”

“This has been a big — and hectic — year for him,” she wrote. “After signing the Affordable Care Act and Wall Street reform into law — and completing his first year as president — I think it’s safe to say we will remember it for a long time.

“And I know full well how much he credits this movement, and the work of supporters like you, for the change that we’ve accomplished,” reads the message.

“So I’m putting together a birthday card that I would like you to sign,” it says. “Together with supporters — and me, Malia, Sasha, and Bo — we’ll wish him a happy birthday and let him know that we’re ready to take on the year ahead alongside him.”

Clicking on the link — “Will you wish Barack a happy birthday with me?” – sends you to “MyBarackObama.com,” the Organizing for America Web site, which describes itself as “a project of the Democratic National Committee.”

But typing in your name, address and E-mail, and hitting “Sign the Card” takes you directly to another page — a donation page, which states:

“Thank you for standing alongside us, with the President. Now can you make a donation to help us take on the year ahead?” — and a disclaimer that funds would not go to political candidates.

INTERPOL Now Has Police Power over YOU

admin — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:22:56 +0000

By Marilyn M. Brannan, Assoc. Editor

IRN/USA News

July 23, 2010

Last December, when a majority of Americans were caught up in holiday preparations (and probably paying less attention than usual to the political machinations in Washington), President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), operating on our soil, immune from the restraints of American law.

The signing occurred almost clandestinely—“dead of night,” so to speak—on December 16, 2009. And the shocking fact is, the transfer of power accomplished in that surreptitious action is nothing less than the authorization for an international law enforcement body to operate with complete immunity on American soil, beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and immune from Freedom of Information Act requests and even the authority of the United States Congress!

INTERPOL was established in 1923, and operates in roughly 188 countries. By executive order #12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. However, INTERPOL is also an active law-enforcement agency; therefore, critical privileges and immunities (Section 2[c] of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld by Reagan’s order. Specifically, property and assets of INTERPOL remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It has been the constraints of Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution and federal law that have protected the liberty and privacy of Americans and prevented law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.

But no longer.

On December 16, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order that removed the Reagan limitations. INTERPOL’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. “Property and assets” could conceivably include human assets—Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers. This international police force (headquartered in the Justice Department in Washington) will, by order of Barack Obama, be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States; it also affects Americans and American interests outside the United States.

INTERPOL works closely with international tribunals—such as the International Criminal Court, which the U.S. has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions—but which the Obama administration wants the U.S. to join. INTERPOL works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities, such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported “war crimes”—in other words, actions taken in America’s defense.

Why Are the Media Silent?

This action by Obama was unlike the “legislative triumph” of ObamaCare in March, endlessly extolled in the controlled media (despite the fact that roughly 65 to 70% of Americans opposed its enactment). Readers will remember a smiling but defiant Nancy Pelosi, surrounded by her entourage, carrying her huge gavel through a sea of Tea Party attendees to send a message to the American people: the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Triumvirate will force Obama’s agenda on you—whether you like it or not.

Tens of thousands of pages of hard copy “news” and months of radio and television coverage preceded the historic ObamaCare signing event, when press and photographers swarmed around the president for the “changing of the pens” ritual. At that point, America lost her freedom to decide what health care in this country will consist of, how it will be paid for, and who will get it.

Our organization first reported on Obama’s quiet change to EO 12425 in January of 2010. But why wasn’t this front-page news all across the nation? Why has so little about this egregious power shift been published or aired on radio or television?

What Is Behind This?

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? Those are questions asked by former federal prosecutor, Andrew C. McCarthy, writing at National Review Online.[1]

At least one answer to these questions is very clear. A coup is underway in the United States of America, the goal of which is to establish complete, unquestioned authority over the citizens—a ‘fundamental change’ to the United States where citizens have no legal recourse against an authoritarian central government.”

By the stroke of his pen, Barack Obama removed all legal authority that American citizens formerly had to demand documentation concerning any charges brought against them. Forget habeas corpus. Forget Constitutional protections. Forget the Bill of Rights.

The liberal media—which are increasingly revealing themselves to be the propaganda arm of the far Left and this current administration—have been appallingly silent.

The American people have reason to be alarmed about this.

They should be contacting their representatives in Congress, asking pointed questions, demanding to know why this stealth action, which has virtually put all of us under international police power, has not been exposed.

[1] Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, co-chairs the Center for Law and Counterterrorism. While an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, he led the prosecution against the jihad organization of “The Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, in which a dozen Islamic militants were convicted of conducting a war of urban terrorism against the United States. That war included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Mr. McCarthy is a contributing editor at National Review Online. His articles on the subject of Obama’s clandestine action on EO 12425 are available there (www.nationalreview.com). McCarthy is the author of Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad.