Sure they have churches and even some Christians who are required to keep their opinions to themselves.  Kind of like animals kept behind a gate in a zoo.  Speak out about any sin and find yourself in prison: you Christian dog.

Islam, radical murdering bastards in your community; how dare you speak out against them why don’t you know they are loving and kind hearted apart from the man they beheaded last night.  Oh, poor King Richard I, how his Lionheart must ache for men of God to rise up in his nation: he must surly be planning a cou de tat in his grave.

So many Muslims setting up camp in his nation; so many communities stolen intentionally to destroy England.  Yet the English sit and do nothing: can the Christian enter Muslim lands surely not with their heads, but England and its foolish Parliament of jesters kindly lets Muslims enter into the kingdom with a smile.

The English Parliament says, but, but we have order and new hate crimes laws that we can force upon the Christians because they don’t fight back: we are sure the Muslims will abide by them too because they said they were honorable when then came to our lands.  Surely the Muslims are honorable: right?

Just the other day I was reading an English website and it spoke of how the police had arrested a Christian street preacher in Workington, Cumbria because he said that Homosexuality was a sin.  Well, actually he was just quoting God, but that didn’t matter.  He had violated the sacred Public Order Act which apparently says that anything that God says is against the law: they thew the poor man in jail.

Now,  this happens quit frequently in merry old England and even Prime Minister Brown will not look into such a travesty, after all the poor Christian minister was likely a bigot.

So, in reading this article I decided to make a comment and register my complaint with the people and the English web site.  I had wrote a wonderful rebuttal to such an offence of freedom that I felt even King Richard would be proud.   Sadly, as I tried to post my comment the website required me to click on their policy button that demanded I surrender all my freedoms as a Christian.

Surly you say not, but yes and to my surprise it said that I could not comment on anything that would offend anyone and not speak badly of homosexuals under penalty of the lash: well maybe a lawsuit.  Interesting, that this English web site is allowed their legal bigotry.  Oh, this wasn’t only one English web site but the majority that have such requirements: England, does surly not like a Christian with a tongue.

Freedom oh freedom, you are under such an attack from those who hate the truth.  When a gay man calls you a homophobe it is because he wants to murder you, but he can’t, so he will instead frighten you with a word.  A fear that yearly leads many employers to fire or layoff many Christians.  A fear that is so powerful in England that street preachers are placed in jail for uttering Gods word.

In the same manor do the Muslims use the word Islamophobe to spread fear in the hearts of the English and the Crown.  Fortunately, in the United States these two words are fast becoming words of honor.  I am proud to be a homophobe and an Islamophobe for it means that I am a watchmen on the wall protecting children and families in the free world.  So, I encourage everyone who reads this article to no longer be frightened of local ordinances or laws that limit speech, but instead vote out those who support such bigotry such as Priminister Brown.

Take to the streets in mass and speak as your fathers spoke and if necessary bring your sword: The Lionheart would be proud of you, but possibly not his kin.

Nevertheless, from the point of view of the U.S. political cycle and the risks we face in Iran, I’m thinking that now is probably a good time for Israel to “pull the trigger.” Among Republicans, I’m pretty sure they will be cheered by the Israeli strike and pleased to see that force is used to put down the Iranians who obviously wish us ill.

In fact, a large majority of us – conservatives and independents – would applaud this action.   For example, a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of 900 registered voters on April 6-7, 2010 shows 61% support in response to the question worded: “Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?”

Among prominent Democrats, however, I think we can safely predict that “pulling the trigger” will not be a popular option. As far as I can tell, liberal Democrats are always against war and it does not matter who the bad guys are or what kind of weapons they have on the launch pad.

Ironically, even foreign wars have a way of dividing us up along partisan lines. Given this context, the natural question would be when is the right time to “pull the trigger?” For example, from the standpoint of U.S. politics, is the time to pull the trigger now, just prior to November, after November, or in the Spring (or later) of 2011?

If Israel pulled the trigger now, I think it is safe to say that this action would energize Republicans and independents, while – at the same time – it would stoke a heated debate about whether or not Israel did the right thing. Such a debate, in my view, would assist Republicans in contrasting themselves with the Democrats who would be busy attacking Israel for making a pre-emptive strike.

Consequently, the debate would provide Republicans with a nationalized public issue that broke in their favor.

Ironically, if Israel waited to “pull the trigger” just prior to November, then it would create a temporary rally-around-the-flag effect for President Obama that might impact the mid-term elections. Obama’s popularity would rise temporarily as he took normal actions to insure that the conflict between Iran and Israel did not escalate into World War III.

Right now, we have a lot of military strength in Afghanistan, right near Iran, so it would be difficult for Russia or China to do much to defend Iran – if that was their objective.

If Israel attacks just prior to the November elections, then it would strengthen the military image of Obama, and – perhaps – give him an excuse — if he wishes to temporarily gain support by demonstrating a modest level of allied defense for Israel’s actions. I do not see how Obama could do anything to harm Israel under this timing scenario without making things worse for his Democrat party.

If Israel pulls the trigger right after November, then Obama will have almost total freedom – electorally speaking – to do whatever he wants included issuing a strong attack on Israel and potentially supporting sanctions against Israel as part of a larger effort to distract people from the poor U.S. economy. This would be the best option for Obama because he would build his ties to his base, long before he needed to pretend to be a centrist again in time for the 2012 Presidential election. From the point of view of Israel, this looks like the worst time to pull the trigger to me.

If Israel attacks in the Spring of 2011, the issue will not have too much of a partisan electoral impact within the U.S. Israel would be facing a less conservative Congress, and would still be in the doghouse with President Obama. This analysis would be particularly poignant if, as Defense Secretary Gates suggests, Iran could expedite matters and have a nuke by the Spring of 2011. So, my conclusion is that the sooner Israel pulls the trigger, the better it will be for her in ending an existential threat from Iran and for assisting her true and loyal friends in the United States.

After Reagan’s famous speech to Gorbachev calling for the tearing down of the Berlin wall, it seemed that our adversary would end up a great new ally of world peace and harmony.  The relationship between Reagan and Gorbachev let one to believe that our nations would end up very close.

However, as it seems, the United States may have squandered this opportunity by redefining Gorbachev’s decision to release Russia’s iron grip on the east.   Weather Gorbacheve’s decision to tear down the wall was because of their loosing the arms race; being fearful of Reagan’s new space toys, or even just a measure of solidarity for peace, the United States, after Reagan left office, began to hail it as a Cold War victory.

This, I can only imagine immediately became a lingering thorn in the side of every proud communist in Russia; every aging KGB agent and certainly never forgetting the American Communist Party of which our President has been so enamored with.  Gorbachev must have felt like an idiot, especially after Reagan left office and this idea of a cold war loss took shape.

As time moved pass the tearing down of the wall and other eastern state collapses, the concept inside America that we had won the cold war was being herald: sadly and primarily by my party the Republicans.  We used it, as a war prize, and flaunted it in front of the Democrats.  However, even they used it when it was advantageous.

Now look, I am not saying that Reagan didn’t do a great job: he did.  I am saying that I wonder if Reagan would have rubbed it in, leaving the Russian people feeling, as if, they had been defeated militarily.  No, I don’t think he would have.  I believe he wanted the wall down for freedoms sake and to hell with who won the cold war. Reagan was a man of principle and simple truths.  Now, I don’t have all of Reagan’s writings in front of me, so he may have brought up a cold war victory with Russia and if so please let me know.

I personally believe that a good deal of the communist nationalism we see emerging today is directly driven by the shame of being reminded repeatedly by the west that they lost the cold war.

Sadly, I believe the United States lost the opportunity to develop a greater relationship with Russia when it decided to continually bring up a Soviet cold war loss.

This lack of good  judgement on the part of the those in power within the United States could have, yes possibly, just pissed off some unemployed hard line communist old KGB farts who might have had nothing to do but to design and partner with American sympathizers a way to bring America to her knees: Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac.

This certainly makes one think about how powerful the old Soviet Union may still be.

Having old and cranky KGB  agents around who’s loyalty to Stalin is unwavering even makes the death of the Polish President look suspicious.

Now, I am not saying Putin would be involved in any KGB retribution, as he seems to be truly trying to change his nation for the better, but under his watch, just possibly, world destruction may have possibly been designed.

Could it be, that very soon, under our Pentagons watch and an interesting Presidential Administration that the tables of victory might be secretly turned on its head: might the cold war never have ended until today?

Interesting thought huh?

Why is the EU and UN so desperate to force Israel to give up the land they captured prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreements?

EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherin Ashton, recently visited Gaza and reiterated  the view that “East Jerusalem is occupied territory, together with the West Bank.” Her support for the Palestinian cause is not difficult to spot, nor her disdain for the Jewish state.  Shortly after Ashton arrived in Gaza, a rocket fired by Palestinians  killed  a Thai farm worker within the Israeli border.  Ashton’s comment was not a condemnation of  those Palestinians responsible, but instead  a well crafted politically generic statement “I condemn any kind of violence”  that would insure no perceived support for the Zionist.  This callous comment represents, as a whole, the European Unions outwardly expressed public policy toward the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  

To solidify this  anti Jewish message  UN Chief Ban Ki-moon arrived just a few days later to tour both the West Bank and Gaza  and again demand that all occupied land be handed over to the Palestinians and that Hamas be given full access to Egypt.  No mention of the violence that may ensue from this action, instead Palestinian violence has been all together ignored.  Both visits seemed to have been well coordinated and focused upon placing heavy pressure upon the evil actions of the Zionist State under the control of  Benjamin

Netanyahu  who dared defy Europe’s elite.

Interesting enough, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  at the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said that

“New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need.”

Hypocrisy has never been so deep.  The Arab nations and their allies the Palestinian land owners forfeited the West bank and East Jerusalem when they decided to destroy Israel and then failed.  Every county demanding that Israel not build on occupied lands have, to their own territory, lands taken from conquest: usually as the aggressor not the defender.  Therefore, in all rights, these disputed lands belong to Israel.

So, why is Israel always being targeted as the aggressor?  The truth is simple, God blesses them and because of this they draw attention to themselves.  Atheists, certainly will disagree with this, so  lets just say that the Jewish people have a propensity to uncommon success.  Granted, on occasion, they over react to a terrorist event or two and create their own bad press.

I dare say that few of those who condemn Israel really can understand their own reasoning for anger.  It seems to be out of a shared psychotic disorder that this anger arises where a small minority influences the collectives beliefs.  This is easily evidenced by studying the rise and fall of the Nazi state.  The sad conclusion here is that Nazism was not extinguished with Hitlers death, but is alive and well within Europe today.  Europe’s leadership would fiercely Deny this claim, by playing down their own unbalanced and biased treatment of Israel while at the same time desensitizing their own people again to blatant Jew hating.

Netanyahu certainly has a fight on his hands, and his only defence is to remain firm and resolved in the face of a perceived overwhelming set of odds.  Recently his brother-in-law made a seemingly tack-less accusation that Barack Obama was antisemitic and hatted Israel, Netanyahu distanced himself from the comment.  Sometimes political tack needs to be surrendered in order to expose the truth.

President Obama and his Secretary of State often note how strong ties are with Israel, but in a well let room it is easily observed that those strong ties were not built upon the Democratic Party, but by the people who now reject Obama.  It would be in Israel’s best interest to take advice from established friends and not those who now seek to diminish the State of Israel.  Israel’s right to exist is directly tied into its right to defend, grow and act as a sovereign state without molestation from its neighbors or any world power.  Israel’s only hope to survive is to rule its land in its best interest, by embracing their right to say NO!

This information rocked the scientific community this week, although the American press never mentioned a word about it:

Scientist at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.

The Information Commissioner’s office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.

But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago.

Amid all the hoop-la concerning this continually-unfolding scandal is one central truth–if a scientist’s hypothesis can be verified by the hard data using the ‘scientific method,’ there is no need whatsoever for hiding information from the public and from other scientists, much less manipulating data to prove one’s point.

The very fact that these things were done serves to immediately and irrefutably nullify the notion that climate change is ‘man-made.’

But in this case the scientists involved broke the law.  However, as the article cited above points out, they will not face prosecution due to a hoophole in that law.  How convenient.  Crimes of this magnitude should be prosecuted vigorously and the perpetrators, if found guilty, should do serious jail time.

This is not the only bombshell news involving Climategate, however.

The Times of the U.K. published explosive information just yesterday showing that before the U.N.’s Copenhagen summit on climate change in December, the organization’s climate chief Rajendra Pachauri was informed that the widely-distributed claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was false.

Pachauri, however, proceeded with business as usual during the summit and took a full 2 months to acknowledge the glaring error:

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”

In addition, a science journalist, Pallava Bagla, had asked Pachauri about the error last November, to which Pachauri replied, ‘I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.’

Perhaps someone should inform the good doctor that the issue is not whether or not he has anything to add.  He has ‘added’ quite enough.  The issue at hand is whether or not he will delete grossly erroneous information–false data that has cost governments billions.

The individuals who have engaged in this scandal of historic proportions–perpetrating a hoax on the entire world that has polluted minds and resulted in needless concern and panic–are criminals who should be tried in a court of law and sent to jail.  The United Nations is quick to condemn individuals and nations who veer from its pie-in-the-sky prescriptions for humankind.  Where is the outrage over Climategate?  Why are there no calls for criminal investigations although these scientists broke the law?

The answer should be clear.  As long as one lies on behalf of the ‘approved agenda’ no harm is done.

Although, he was possibly the first to really push it on a population.

His argument was orchestrated to place the mantle of guilt squarely, on the Banking industry, proclaiming to the public that he was:

“to recover every single dime the American people are owed.”

This might seem very noble, but the truth of the matter is, that those targeted banks have either previously paid, or are rapidly already paying those funds.

Therefore, Obama’s statement had little to do with repaying any of America’s borrowed stimulus cash.

The truth was, as it seems, a trial and error scenario designed to test the will of the American populace.

If President Obama could successfully implement this deceptive income tax on the American population via the banking establishment,  it would generate billions in revenue and a world banking tax would be possible.

Last year Great Briton’s Gordon Brown proposed a national banking  tax called the Tobin Tax. Gordon had hope that it would be accepted easily.

It seems likely, that this idea was embraced by Obama and likely became the basis for his current effort.

Now just a month after Obama floated his proposal,  Gordon Brown wants all World Banks to be required to pay a new tax.

What authority does the European community have to Levey a tax on American citizens?

The last taxes from England come from the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act, both ended up in bloodshed and I am sure England doesn’t want to go through that again.

Yet,  if they, the European Union and the United Nations  persist,  Americans will have little choice but to spread Tea Parties throughout Europe.

A taxing global body is exactly what Hitler, Genghis Khan, Julius Cesar, Napoleon, and Muhammad would have all wanted.

Any global tax, in any way is an attack on the freedom of man, nationalism and patriotism.

One thing is true, most of the time good information is hard to come by and what  is provided is often convoluted with contradiction and half truths.

Therefore, in order to truly understand the situation, it is important to not only write the truths, but expose them in action.

The Gaza Strip is now controlled by Hamas after months of violent confrontations with Fatah.

Currently, the United States and England consider Hamas a terrorist organization, with Hamas denying the allegation.

The Palestinian people have no choice, but to tolerate Hamas, weather they want to or not.   Eveidence of kidnapping, murders and tourture seem to be common place.

The truth of he matter is, that in all likely hood, Hamas is really an Arab lead organization, with one true goal: destroy or remove as much strategic land from Israel regardless of the consequences to the Palestinian.

Hamas is able to get away with this, likely because the Palestinians, as a people, have never really understood what good leadership is; therefore, they have been forced into a symbiotic relationship with Hamas.

WARNING GRAPHIC - CHILDREN SHOULD NOT WATCH

Fatah being executed by Hamas!

This relationship is not unlike what would be found in the Stockholm syndrome, but in a massive scale.

This could not have ever occurred, on such a scale, except that would be found in refugee camps were the desperation was so great that to survive whole families could easily be convinced of what ever an authority suggested.  Therefore, hate, war, blood shed and a fleeting life  all become as expectant to the Palestinian as death.  Songs of joy and hope are long lost, born out of the Palestinian in place of usefulness.

This is the only explanation for why a mother would strap a bomb onto her child and then be glad for his death.

The manipulation of he Palestinian people by Hamas may not be why Israel, the United States, England, Australia or Japan recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization, but for this article it is sufficient enough.

The Palestinian people will never be free of violence until Hamas is asked to leave.

Remember the the truth is often a causality of political or ideological gain and its death often comes through excessive explanation that become much to complicated to follow: if your truth isn’t simple it may not be the truth.

To make matters worse, as if we didn’t have enough hyper socialist economics in the United States, many European nations are instead of cutting taxes and allowing the free market to set economies right have decided that spending is again the best way to solve this problem.

At one point European nations cellebrated Germany for not following the stimulus path as the United States did, but somehow they have forgotten that a nation does not need to go into debt in order to successfully manage the economic crisis.

Do I even dare speak of cutting national budgets any longer?

Will a common sense approach to balanced budgets ever gain traction as it should?

Will  socialist ideologies drag the word into another middle ages or will right thinking conservatives around the world take the lead and address the situation.

As it seems, there is no time for debate.

Those who are pushing these socialist economic policies of government growth and spending are also the same ones endeavoring to remove personal freedoms.

Who will stand up for freedom and name Socialism and its elitists prophets for who they are?

It is time to do away with this form of government and its personal imprisonment that forces  government intrusion into the  lives of all good men and women.  Granted there are aspects of socialism that may be beneficial, but as a system of government it often moves to restrict freedoms much to easily.

There isn’t a day that passes where either the EU or individual nations are not attempting to remove individual freedoms; monitor personal movement or communications.

This must be stopped and personal freedoms returned.

It is important that supporters of capitalism and socialism who are reasonable men or women not become polarize to one another, but rather seek a common truth that personal freedom within each form of government is essential.

Those who are found within each form of government selling the idea that personal freedom can only come with more government control need to be identified and removed from their seat of power.

If this does not occur soon the world will inevitably be caught up in civil and or world war.

Articles sored throughout the Internet about how the children were stolen by potential smugglers without regard to accuracy.

Granted, their are fresh concerns for the children’s safety in Haiti, due to the earthquake and and inability for police forces to monitor illegal activity.

however, when this incident broke, news agencies rushed to fed upon what little information there was and unscrupulous reporters  began to embellish the story with an evil bent.

Hillary Clinton should have known better to come out with such a comment, but instead it looks as if she has been sucked into the mass hysteria of the matter.

These baptist missionaries who were arrested  are part of a group called *new life children’s refuge* who have been working in Haiti for some time and have not shown a history of  illegal activity.

After the earthquake they felt that the Dominican Republic would be a safer place for the children, most courts and public buildings were destroyed and documentation to remove the children likely impossible to gain: they took the children anyway.

Although seemingly criminal, this act was likely heroic.  The fact that the Haitian Government can not process the Christians in custody is a testimony that the children would have likely never gained the proper documentation to leave.

Right now there are thousands of Christian’s in Haiti doing tremendous work feeding, clothing, comforting, providing medical attention, and very likely starting the building process.

You will likely not have a CNN reporter cover their great work; although, they continue day after day after day rescueing and protecting those in need.

Their infrastructure for logistics, much of which is funded from Christians around the world, were on the ground well before any of President Obama’s Marines hit the beaches with 5.62 ammo to distribute.  Their intentions are not for political points nor photo opportunities.

The truth of this matter is that those Americans in custody could have easily been processed and their guilt or innocence determined within  a day or two by Hilliary Clinton becoming involved, yet she stayed out.

The likelihood that these missionaries had criminal intentions are very low and most understand this, but for some reason Hillary Clinton and the Haitian Government feel the Christians are better behind bars.  This just may, very well be, not a case of smuggling at all, but of who gets the credit.

Eh, maybe, maybe not. Perhaps we’re not looking at this story objectively. In fact, there is too much emotion involved in how people are reacting to the possibility that this international law enforcement organization could become a centralized police power. Unless there is such a drastic plan in place, it just isn’t feasible but some things are always worthy of investigation. INTERPOL’s purpose is to serve as a hub for information sharing, intelligence, training of law enforcement agencies worldwide. It’s no different than cops back home; when a call takes them to another jurisdiction they call ahead and ask the guys at the other end to be on the alert. INTERPOL is pretty much like that; it helps agencies track statistical data as well, assists in the search for fugitives and their apprehension. INTERPOL in that context is not a bad thing. The fact is that amending EO-12425 is not as significant in itself because there are some other elements missing at this time.

Let us look at INTERPOL from a different perspective on the role of this international agency. One of the agency’s accomplishments in 2009 was the successful introduction of the INTERPOL passport, which was perfected and is being introduced into use. This passport is designed to function just like any other passport however it has been enhanced to afford expediency for teams or individuals who are invited to any of the member countries, all 188 of them, to pass through customs and passport control without interference. I suppose these individuals must be thoroughly vetted before being given such easy access into a country. The US sends plenty of FBI people overseas to assist in counterterrorism investigations all the time but I am sure that these teams can get expedited passage with their credentials. Still, law enforcement travel is tricky so countries track these individuals. Does such a passport mean fast entry but how about monitoring movement in country? Maybe there is something in the language of INTERPOL’s Secretary General that got me thinking:

“When member countries ask INTERPOL for assistance to prevent, investigate, or respond to any terrorist act, serious crime or natural disaster, the safety and security of their citizens may depend on INTERPOL being in place as fast as possible,” said Secretary General Noble.

“That a person is travelling with an INTERPOL passport for official business should be all the information a country needs in order to grant them access. By agreeing to waive visas for INTERPOL passport holders, member countries will ultimately be assisting themselves,” added Mr Noble.

INTERPOL is entering the much needed aspect of police peacekeeping and peace-building operations. You’ve probably heard the term peacekeeping more in relation to police actions such as the intervention in the Balkans of the 1990s. I am saying ‘much-needed’ for a legitimate reason. The importance of an international police force that will help military elements establish and maintain the rule of law in occupied countries has been debated and suggested for many years. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 at first appeared to be beneficial and it was expected that the population would be cooperative. The intention is always to establish the rule of law as soon as combat operations are stable or stop in order to assist the local people re-enter a period of rehabilitation. War is stressful and disrupts the normal lives of people; that’s a given.

Stability operations in Iraq went awry five weeks after Coalition troops invaded. Forget the search for Saddam Hussein; in the absence of a stable environment, Iraqis were left with the euphoric feeling of freedom without the benefit of a well-established law enforcement presence. It is also the stuff the U.S. is attempting to do in Iraq and Afghanistan; to rebuild their countries from the bottom up. The International Criminal Court – which seeks jurisdiction in the U.S. as it has in other countries – would be more involved in American law and order at all but then it needs an enforcement branch in order to be effective. At any rate, something is missing in the equation.

The ICC goes hand in hand with the UN (under war crimes tribunal, not for the persecution – prosecution of individual parties but of countries) and INTERPOL is wrapped nicely inside that circle. The question is how realistic is the possibility of these forces deploying to the U.S. To have a foreign police force deploy to the U.S. it must be due to an invitation by that country or international police authority for them to come. What is different here is the absence of a crisis big enough to warrant such an invitation. Scattered incidents involving violence or civil disorder may give the perception that we are in such trouble that we must outsource our security from others but this poses an even more troubling question.  If such a police force is vetted to have passports that allow them to enter any member country easily, does the U.S. have any input or access on their background? Are we sure those cops are really who they say they are?

Just wondering.