Has anyone herd about Obama made an executive order to give immunity to Interpol? What the heck is up with that mans head?

section 2c of the US International Organizations Immunities Act (passed in 1945):

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.

mhmmm....well then how do you explain this
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...ve-order-12425 ?

or this
http://threatswatch.org/analysis/200...r_sovereignty/


or even this
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...mQ0NmJiZDNmMDY

Notice the first one is a Government website which means its the most accurate and backs up the other 2.

Dude, chill out. I posted that because you didn't seem to know the principle on which Obama reversed Reagan's EO. I'm a political science major in college, I already knew about Obama's EO. I'm showing you the probable reason behind it.

I didn't mean to sound like I was spazing just proving my points. It really doesn't seem like a very good reason if you ask me, and whats up with him wanting to replace our food sources with Trees.

And what point did you exactly prove? That you disagree with Obama granting Interpol immunity? That was pretty clear from your original post.

Also, that part of the climate change bill won't "replace our food sources with trees". Texas A&M's model of how it would work out (if that's what you're going on) is inaccurate because it didn't take into consideration other parts of the bill. The actual amount of land that would be converted to forest because of the bill is actually way less than their projected 59 million acres. The price of food would rise by a grand total of 4.5% by 2050. Also, the revenue the farmers would make from the sales of emissions credits would offset any rise in fuel and fertilizer prices.

Yes I disagree which is my right, simple lodgic dictates, we should plant tree's Right! Oi Vay, Why not plant them in area's which are not farm land?
Why? Not?
And why allow immunity to Interpol when even former democratic presidents haven't even went so far. Why?
Again I have a right to disagree and ask questions at this point in time. Now exactly! what part of this Amsterdam Agreement have I not been informed of?
And Why haven't I been informed?

And who exactly told you that you have no right to disagree with Obama's policies? Who said you shouldn't question his decisions?

The purpose of planting the trees on converted farmland is so that the farmers have the emissions credits that they can sell to major carbon emitters year after year. Again, that will help offset any rise in fuel and fertilizer prices that the farmers might see.

Did I ever say I agree with giving Interpol immunity? Nope. I showed you the principle on which the executive order was probably based.

What I really don't understand is why you would get so angry when presented with these facts. All you've really said is that you disagree with Obama and "what's up with that?" to various policy decisions. So I gave you facts, and you just started going on about how it's your right to disagree. But whats your reason for disagreeing in the first place?

I am not angry, I just simply expressed my feelings on the subject. Do not feel like debating this subject. You are way to smart for me. Shalom.