Obama Signs Executive Order Giving Him Pretty Much All Power

[Abstract]

You're limited to internet forums which really result in nothing more than jacking off.

So you are jacking off right now?

uhhhhh...huh...uhhhhh...huh... she said jaking off...

[lizbethrose]

I really hope y'all have jacked off your tensions enough to listen to what we all look for here--some sort of reason (meaning measured truth seeking) to arrive at some sort of decision on your part, then I think you should accept opposition. If you can't, of course, then you can't.

If you don't vote, you don't have even the smallest voice in anything. You're limited to internet forums which really result in nothing more than jacking off. How will that change anything?

Why not accept political fact? Why try to derive truth from manipulated cum?

No one has to read my posts--although I complain if I get no response--even the government says, "Thank you for your comment."

Calrid, I'm not a puissant knight in tarnished armor--although I often think I tilt at windmills. That's my 'problem,' no?

You cling onto it like it's some sort of divinity that has the solutions to everything.

Such arrogance and gullible naivety.

I know my posts on the internet do not count for much but at least I have the ability here to talk to other similar minds along with reaching out to people who are mentally undecided in their perceptions of the world around them. I also like pointing out the flaws of other people's thinking and watching them squirm under harsh scrutiny.

At any rate I am sitting on the sidelines with a bowl of popcorn and a refreshment waiting for your beloved system to collapse on it's own weight.

By my own projections such a implosion is not so far away where me and my anarchist brethren will take full advantage of the situation when it does happen.

I would only ask that you government supporters keep doing a great job in fucking up everything which you are proficient at doing so that my aspirations of anarchy keeps moving along very nicely.

What is so great about the bullshit deceptive political system that you admire?

I like it because its foundation, as a republic, incorporates many of the values I believe in; I like it because it's flexible, even though it's based on the Rule of Law; I like it because it's lasted for over 200 years with only one insurrection--there isn't another young country in the world, that I know of, that can say the last.

You cling onto it like it's some sort of divinity that has the solutions to everything.

I don't think so; I disagree with a lot that goes on in the government and I disagree with it (and make my thoughts known.) This just doesn't happen to be one of those times. I've said it earlier, but I'll say it again if I must: Every major democratic country has a contingency plan to be put into place in case of a national disaster. The US has had such a plan since Truman was President--the current plan is based on Truman's and, as worded, has been in place since the Clinton Administration. The changes President Obama signed off on had to do with changes needed as the result of GWB adding Homeland Security as a Cabinet position and putting FEMA under DHS. They were word changes only--and I gave references.

Such arrogance and gullible naivety.

I may be arrogant, gullible, and naive--and a lot of other things, as well--but I really don't like it when untruths and/or skewed half-truths find a life on the internet. That's attempted manipulation, imm, and I oppose it. Everyone should listen to all sides of an argument.

I know my posts on the internet do not count for much but at least I have the ability here to talk to other similar minds along with reaching out to people who are mentally undecided in their perceptions of the world around them. I also like pointing out the flaws of other people's thinking and watching them squirm under harsh scrutiny.

Then you shouldn't mind when other people point out the flaws of your thinking. I don't like watching people squirm, but I dislike untruth even more. I'm not being mean, or anything, I'm just being no fun....

[lizbethrose]

In a stunning move, on March 16, 2012, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense.

Not only that, but the authority claimed inside the EO does not only apply to National Emergencies and times of war. It also applies in peacetime.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order exploits the “authority” granted to the President in the Defense Production Act of 1950 in order to assert that virtually every means of human survival is now available for confiscation and control by the President via his and his Secretaries’ whim.


link is in my link thread.

I just want to make a possible ambiguity clear. He is giving every president from now on this power. It will likely, though not necessarily be another one who actually puts this into play. And as you no doubt know, former presidents racked up all sorts of power for future presidents with other executive orders. Personally, I don't think Obama is expecting to be King, but rather the oligarchy behind him expects to openly have total power in the not so distant future.

The 'funny' thing about this order is that it is basically a kind of national martial law and could have been called into play already if there was some enormous disaster or plague. It shows how much this is about making it seem fair when it happens.

I apologize, Moreno, but you're incorrect in your assessment. 1.) it applies to times of National Disasters. 2.) Every President since Truman had has this power. If there's an opinion to the contrary, can you please reference your sources?

[lizbethrose]

I really hope y'all have jacked off your tensions enough to listen to what we all look for here--some sort of reason (meaning measured truth seeking) to arrive at some sort of decision on your part, then I think you should accept opposition. If you can't, of course, then you can't.

Not sure if I was included in this rather condescending-seeming 'analysis' but perhaps you could explain it more clearly.

If you don't vote, you don't have even the smallest voice in anything.

There have been all sorts of societal changes through actions other than voting. Voting also legitimizes the system and most people are done at that point. I do vote, but consider it all theater. Keep on thinking that your hope rests in getting 'your' candidate in in four years and your voice has effectively been used against you.

You're limited to internet forums which really result in nothing more than jacking off.

So you are jacking off right now?

First, I have to admit that even I was rather startled by my post--I really don't talk like that, normally. I think it oozed out of my finger-tips simply to show myself I could.

Yes, there have been a lot of societal changes through actions other than voting--and I go along with the non-violent ones. I hope the Occupy protests may have done something--the TEAParty protests certainly have. (I was ready to join the Occupy protests until I read about the police pepper-spraying an 84yr old woman in the face, btw.)

The problem, if there is a problem, is that there's not often an accepted backing for a lot of the peaceful protests. (Please note: I'm an Independent.) The Republican party took on the TEAParty cause and backed them and their candidates. The Occupy protesters had no political backing--they were individual voices in the wind.

I said I look for:

some sort of reason (meaning measured truth seeking) to arrive at some sort of decision on your part, then I think you should accept opposition. If you can't, of course, then you can't.

I don't mean to be condescending, but didn't your Mama ever tell you that there are two things you shouldn't try to discuss with people--religion and politics (unless you've been married to that person for 182 million years--even then, be careful?)

Politics and religion are so ingrained that, if you can't accept opposition in either area, you simply can't! That's a non-philosophic way of looking at the realities of life.

[Moreno]

I apologize, Moreno, but you're incorrect in your assessment. 1.) it applies to times of National Disasters. 2.) Every President since Truman had has this power. If there's an opinion to the contrary, can you please reference your sources?

I'm not sure what 'it' stands for here. Do you mean Obama's executive order that's mentioned in the OP or the specific power it grants Presidents? If you mean this, then it would be very odd for Obama to waste his time putting into effect a rule that is already in effect. if you meant the power to declare martial law in disasters, well I said that has already been in place, so you seem to be agreeing with me here.

[Moreno]

First, I have to admit that even I was rather startled by my post--I really don't talk like that, normally. I think it oozed out of my finger-tips simply to show myself I could.

Yes, there have been a lot of societal changes through actions other than voting--and I go along with the non-violent ones. I hope the Occupy protests may have done something--the TEAParty protests certainly have. (I was ready to join the Occupy protests until I read about the police pepper-spraying an 84yr old woman in the face, btw.)

The problem, if there is a problem, is that there's not often an accepted backing for a lot of the peaceful protests. (Please note: I'm an Independent.) The Republican party took on the TEAParty cause and backed them and their candidates. The Occupy protesters had no political backing--they were individual voices in the wind.

I said I look for:

some sort of reason (meaning measured truth seeking) to arrive at some sort of decision on your part, then I think you should accept opposition. If you can't, of course, then you can't.

I don't mean to be condescending, but didn't your Mama ever tell you that there are two things you shouldn't try to discuss with people--religion and politics (unless you've been married to that person for 182 million years--even then, be careful?)

Politics and religion are so ingrained that, if you can't accept opposition in either area, you simply can't! That's a non-philosophic way of looking at the realities of life.

I guess the assumption in the above seems to be Moreno can't accept opposition. I don't know why this is the assumption. I expect and notice opposition regularly, in politics and religion, but in fact even in dry, boring topics like epistemology. Here I experience opposition every time I post. So far I seem not to have crumpled into a foetal postion, however much some posts can annoy me. What makes you think I can accept opposition? And you seem to have succeeded in being condescending, again, despite whatever your intentions were.

[lizbethrose]

I apologize, Moreno, but you're incorrect in your assessment. 1.) it applies to times of National Disasters. 2.) Every President since Truman has had this power. If there's an opinion to the contrary, can you please reference your sources?

I'm not sure what 'it' stands for here. Do you mean Obama's executive order that's mentioned in the OP or the specific power it grants Presidents? If you mean this, then it would be very odd for Obama to waste his time putting into effect a. rule that is already in effect. if you meant the power to declare martial law in disasters, well I said that has already been in place, so you seem to be agreeing with me here.

'It' stands for the EO. President Obama's changes were WORD CHANGES ONLY! THAT REPLACED FEMA WITH HOMELAND SECURITY!

I really don't care who agrees with whom. The idea that President Obama has done anything heinous by signing an amended EO is untrue.

I've been a technical writer--When a test plan is changed, I've had to change the documents to reflect that change. It's really NO BIG DEAL!

The President didn't "waste his time"--he simply signed a redacted document to reflect Cabinet changes that had been made in the interim since it's last edition.

Why is this so hard to understand?

I've made the font size smaller to indicate a certain amount of humbleness on my part,

[Duality]

At any rate I am sitting on the sidelines with a bowl of popcorn and a refreshment waiting for your beloved system to collapse on it's own weight.

Sit on the sidelines and observe the comedy as it unfolds my amigo and then get easy pickings of everything that is left once all the fools have destroyed themselves. Oh is this the heavenly banquet we have been promised?

[lizbethrose]

At any rate I am sitting on the sidelines with a bowl of popcorn and a refreshment waiting for your beloved system to collapse on it's own weight.

Sit on the sidelines and observe the comedy as it unfolds my amigo and then get easy pickings of everything that is left once all the fools have destroyed themselves. Oh is this the heavenly banquet we have been promised?

I've got to say it--sigh--what heavenly banquet has government ever promised you or any one else? Are you getting religion and politics a bit mixed up here?

[Duality]

I've got to say it--sigh--what heavenly banquet has government ever promised you or any one else? Are you getting religion and politics a bit mixed up here?

No dude I was referring to what will be left of the world once all the fools have destroyed themselves.

[James L Walker]

At any rate I am sitting on the sidelines with a bowl of popcorn and a refreshment waiting for your beloved system to collapse on it's own weight.

Sit on the sidelines and observe the comedy as it unfolds my amigo and then get easy pickings of everything that is left once all the fools have destroyed themselves. Oh is this the heavenly banquet we have been promised?

[James L Walker]

I really hope y'all have jacked off your tensions enough to listen to what we all look for here--some sort of reason (meaning measured truth seeking) to arrive at some sort of decision on your part, then I think you should accept opposition. If you can't, of course, then you can't.

If you don't vote, you don't have even the smallest voice in anything. You're limited to internet forums which really result in nothing more than jacking off. How will that change anything?

Why not accept political fact? Why try to derive truth from manipulated cum?

No one has to read my posts--although I complain if I get no response--even the government says, "Thank you for your comment."

Calrid, I'm not a puissant knight in tarnished armor--although I often think I tilt at windmills. That's my 'problem,' no?

You cling onto it like it's some sort of divinity that has the solutions to everything.

Such arrogance and gullible naivety.

I know my posts on the internet do not count for much but at least I have the ability here to talk to other similar minds along with reaching out to people who are mentally undecided in their perceptions of the world around them. I also like pointing out the flaws of other people's thinking and watching them squirm under harsh scrutiny.

At any rate I am sitting on the sidelines with a bowl of popcorn and a refreshment waiting for your beloved system to collapse on it's own weight.

By my own projections such a implosion is not so far away where me and my anarchist brethren will take full advantage of the situation when it does happen.

I would only ask that you government supporters keep doing a great job in fucking up everything which you are proficient at doing so that my aspirations of anarchy keeps moving along very nicely.

What is so great about the bullshit deceptive political system that you admire?

I like it because its foundation, as a republic, incorporates many of the values I believe in; I like it because it's flexible, even though it's based on the Rule of Law; I like it because it's lasted for over 200 years with only one insurrection--there isn't another young country in the world, that I know of, that can say the last.

You cling onto it like it's some sort of divinity that has the solutions to everything.

I don't think so; I disagree with a lot that goes on in the government and I disagree with it (and make my thoughts known.) This just doesn't happen to be one of those times. I've said it earlier, but I'll say it again if I must: Every major democratic country has a contingency plan to be put into place in case of a national disaster. The US has had such a plan since Truman was President--the current plan is based on Truman's and, as worded, has been in place since the Clinton Administration. The changes President Obama signed off on had to do with changes needed as the result of GWB adding Homeland Security as a Cabinet position and putting FEMA under DHS. They were word changes only--and I gave references.

Such arrogance and gullible naivety.

I may be arrogant, gullible, and naive--and a lot of other things, as well--but I really don't like it when untruths and/or skewed half-truths find a life on the internet. That's attempted manipulation, imm, and I oppose it. Everyone should listen to all sides of an argument.

I know my posts on the internet do not count for much but at least I have the ability here to talk to other similar minds along with reaching out to people who are mentally undecided in their perceptions of the world around them. I also like pointing out the flaws of other people's thinking and watching them squirm under harsh scrutiny.

Then you shouldn't mind when other people point out the flaws of your thinking. I don't like watching people squirm, but I dislike untruth even more. I'm not being mean, or anything, I'm just being no fun....

I like it because its foundation, as a republic, incorporates many of the values I believe in; I like it because it's flexible, even though it's based on the Rule of Law; I like it because it's lasted for over 200 years with only one insurrection--there isn't another young country in the world, that I know of, that can say the last.

Well, aren't you a great patriotic American!

I don't think so; I disagree with a lot that goes on in the government and I disagree with it (and make my thoughts known.) This just doesn't happen to be one of those times. I've said it earlier, but I'll say it again if I must: Every major democratic country has a contingency plan to be put into place in case of a national disaster. The US has had such a plan since Truman was President--the current plan is based on Truman's and, as worded, has been in place since the Clinton Administration. The changes President Obama signed off on had to do with changes needed as the result of GWB adding Homeland Security as a Cabinet position and putting FEMA under DHS. They were word changes only--and I gave references.

There is nothing democratic about the United States my "freedom" worshipping patriot.

There is no "freedom" in the United States either. Different topic.

Honey, I don't know if you are aware of this or not but our country is waving the banner of world war III.

You put too much faith in these institutions but I suspect you do so because you benefit from it the most.

Then you shouldn't mind when other people point out the flaws of your thinking. I don't like watching people squirm, but I dislike untruth even more. I'm not being mean, or anything, I'm just being no fun....

By all means point out my flaws and let us compare them to yours.

[Calrid]

Well, aren't you a great patriotic American!

I think the greatest leap the Merkins have made in the last 20 years is not being patriotic to idiots.

As some wise men said a wise man is not someone who burns the flag, it is someone who is so offended by his flag that he disputes the need for it when it does wrong. A patriot is not someone who sucks governmental cock, it's a person who is prepared to say when a government is wrong, because he or she actually cares enough to criticise it.

That wise man was in fact George Washington, could of been Benjamin Franklin but the point is clearer than Mark Twains nose.

[James L Walker]

Well, aren't you a great patriotic American!

I think the greatest leap the Merkins have made in the last 20 years is not being patriotic to idiots.

As some wise men said a wise man is not someone who burns the flag, it is someone who is so offended by his flag that he disputes the need for it when it does wrong. A patriot is not someone who sucks governmental cock, it's a person who is prepared to say when a government is wrong, because he or she actually cares enough to criticise it.

That wise man was in fact George Washington.

Here in the United States a patriot is whatever flag waving idiot that is around willing to suck the government's knob.

A patriot here is somebody that unquestionably goes along with everything the government does and then says, 'God' bless our freedoms!

[Calrid]

Well, aren't you a great patriotic American!

I think the greatest leap the Merkins have made in the last 20 years is not being patriotic to idiots.

As some wise men said a wise man is not someone who burns the flag, it is someone who is so offended by his flag that he disputes the need for it when it does wrong. A patriot is not someone who sucks governmental cock, it's a person who is prepared to say when a government is wrong, because he or she actually cares enough to criticise it.

That wise man was in fact George Washington.

Here in the United States a patriot is whatever flag waving idiot that is around willing to suck the government's knob.

A patriot here is somebody that unquestionably goes along with everything the government does and then says, 'God' bless our freedoms!

Not all Americans obviously.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Howard Zinn

"No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots."

Barbara Ehrenreich

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain

"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher plain."

George McGovern

"The tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Lyn Nofziger

"The very idea of true patriotism is lost, and the term has been prostituted to the very worst of purposes. A patriot, sir! Why, patriots spring up like mushrooms!"

Robert Walpole

[Moreno]

'It' stands for the EO. President Obama's changes were WORD CHANGES ONLY! THAT REPLACED FEMA WITH HOMELAND SECURITY!

I really don't care who agrees with whom.

I never suggested you cared about it. I was pointing out that if what you meant was option B, then we were in agreement, in which case I did not understand your response or, even less, the condescension.

It is also not a minor shift moving from a FEMA that is not law enforcement and not remotely as free as Homeland Security to claim that any information regarding its actions need to be secret.

The idea that President Obama has done anything heinous by signing an amended EO is untrue.

I've been a technical writer--When a test plan is changed, I've had to change the documents to reflect that change. It's really NO BIG DEAL!

This is a very poor argument. I could argue: I have a friend who is a lawyer and she has told me even small changes to a legal document can have huge effects. Nor would that argument be a good one,in and of itself, without regard to specifics, though it goes the other way.

Executive orders are a non-democratic form of legislation and they have been used by dem and rep admins going back many administrations and have given the executive branch incredible power that it did not have. Setting aside the disagreement about this specific EO, skepticism about EOs is healthy.

The President didn't "waste his time"--he simply signed a redacted document to reflect Cabinet changes that had been made in the interim since it's last edition.

Why is this so hard to understand?

I've made the font size smaller to indicate a certain amount of humbleness on my part

So in the old versions it was in force in non-emergency situations also as it is in this one....?

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

it seems like the old wording was...

(b) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the heads of those departments and agencies specified in subsection 201(a) of this order, shall administer the Defense Priorities and Allocations System ("DPAS") regulations that will be used to implement the authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act as delegated to the Secretary of Commerce in subsection 201(a)(6) of this order. The Secretary of Commerce will redelegate to the Secretary of Defense, and the heads of other departments and agencies as appropriate, authority for the priority rating of contracts and orders for all materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order. The Secretary of Commerce shall act as appropriate upon Special Priorities Assistance requests in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand.

I could have misunderstood something related to this specific EO, but my reaction comes from studying previous ones over a long period. There has been a concentration of power in the Presidency, one that is reflected by enormous power concentration trends in the private sector also. To me it is a good thing to be cautious and to err on that side on such issues.

So let's look at the potential consequences of these two changes, which are a shift over to Homeland SEcurity from FEMA and that all these powers can be in force in non-emergency situations. First the the two organizations:

FEMA
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, initially created by Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 and implemented by two Executive Orders. On 1 April 1979.[1][4] The primary purpose of FEMA is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the United States and that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities. The governor of the state in which the disaster occurs must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the president that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster.

Notice how FEMA gets called in in specific situations, basically by disasters at the behest of governors. So it responds to a call from a local or state government in specific types of situations THAT ARE CURRENTLY happening. The disaster is present, easily tracked and verified by all media, even by amateurs.

Then we have Homeland Security...

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet department of the United States federal government, created in response to the September 11 attacks, and with the primary responsibilities of protecting the United States of America and U.S. Territories (including Protectorates)[vague] from and responding to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters. In fiscal year 2011 it was allocated a budget of $98.8 billion and spent, net, $66.4 billion.

Whereas the Department of Defense is charged with military actions abroad, the Department of Homeland Security works in the civilian sphere to protect the United States within, at, and outside its borders. Its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism.[5]

Now we include terrorism and prevention and there is no call in by any local authority. The problem does not need to be current or something readily demonstrable. The agency can say it is acting to prevent a future terrorist act. And given that the new EO explicitly states that it does not need to be an emergency situation, this is reinforced. The agency does not have to wait to respond, it can act on its own initiative. IOW centralization of power in the executive.

So how does this change things. All those same powers, where the President and the Cabinet take over any private citizen or company or resource can now take place via Homeland security without the presence of an ongoing emergency. Explanations for the actions can be based on potential future problems, such as terrorist acts. And all of this can be partly or more kept secret under national security concerns.

Instead of a civilian organization in charge, you have a neo-military, law enforcement agency in charge. Notice how the department of defense is in charge or threats abroad and Homeland SEc is in charge of domestic threats, which highlight the military nature of the organization.

These are significant changes. And ones any democracy lover can be concerned about.

[lizbethrose]

Moreno, my friend, You said:

It is also not a minor shift moving from a FEMA that is not law enforcement and not remotely as free as Homeland Security to claim that any information regarding its actions need to be secret.

I don't disagree. All I'm saying is President Obama didn't create the DHS nor did he make it a Cabinet position--former President G. W. Bush did both--under Executive Order--and to the surprise and horror of those of us who understood how Homeland Security could violate the rights of individual citizens of the US.

I know of no SOP that gives guidelines on how to dissolve a government department or rescind a Cabinet position, do you?

Btw, where did you get your quotes?

[lizbethrose]

James L. Walker wrote:

There is nothing democratic about the United States my "freedom" worshipping patriot.

There is no "freedom" in the United States either. Different topic.

Honey, I don't know if you are aware of this or not but our country is waving the banner of world war III.

You put too much faith in these institutions but I suspect you do so because you benefit from it the most.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'democratic' and 'freedom,'--unless, course, your skin hasn't been paled over centuries by the lack of intense sun light--or you wear a hoodie. I can understand where you're coming from, if that's the case.

I don't agree with laissez faire capitalism or free market capitalism--I don't see how either works equitably for the American consumer. As you say: Different topic.

I would like to know how you think our country "is waving the banner of world war III." I don't know how to say this without sounding either patronizing or condescending--but could you explain that to me, please?

[Moreno]

I don't disagree. All I'm saying is President Obama didn't create the DHS nor did he make it a Cabinet position--former President G. W. Bush did both--under Executive Order--and to the surprise and horror of those of us who understood how Homeland Security could violate the rights of individual citizens of the US.

This doesn't really work as a response, Obama extended their powers via this EO, and he certainly gave the powers Bush already gave them his stamp of approval. He formalized in to law powers that before could only have been used in times of national crisis, a crisis that would have been easy for the media to document was real. These are now locked in in law, something Bush only partially did by setting of DHS. This document enacts things, it is not simply an approval of what has gone before, or it would not be necessary.

The issue is not is Obama better or worse than Bush. The issue is what is the EO doing and what have presidents done with their EOs. This is not simply a matter of Obama following in Bush's footsteps. If so, he would have needed to update the EO in this manner much earlier in his term or actually Bush should have done it. He is fixing in place via the EO, DHS - thanks for the acronym - as having unbelievable powers, and, unlike former EOs on this issue, in times of non-emergency also. If he was against this or thought citizens should weigh in, he could have raised the issue, suggested Congress or the Supreme Court look at it or just done nothing. The changes are fairly small in word count, as far as i can see, though I did not go through the whole documents, but the changes in centralization of power are huge. Will these be used, I don't know.

I know of no SOP that gives guidelines on how to dissolve a government department or rescind a Cabinet position, do you?

Again, not the point. He did not have to make this EO, he certainly could have raised objections and he had no reason to expand the purview to non-emergency situations. Or perhaps his staff did this and he didn't read the fine print. To me the issue is not Obama per se, as in somelike he is bad or a Muslim antichrist or a commie, Bush was better. My political beliefs are closer to Obama's, or better put, are closer to what Obama at least pretends to have for political beliefs. To me the issue is, what does this EO do, and what have previous EOs done. Most people don't know these things exist. Even somewhat informed people, who think of the executive branch as not being able to simply make laws, especially one this incredibly broad and important, tend not to be aware of these things.

Btw, where did you get your quotes?

The EO are online, I think I went to the white house sight. I googled the number in any case, then looked back in time to find the relevent predecessor.

If Obama was not aligned with this order, he could have done a number of things he did not do. If somehow, legally, he has to sign the thing, right near the end of his term, he certainly could have voiced his reservations and encouraged debate and future changes.

I just did a little research online and I can find nothing indicating that he would have been forced to sign and edit the older versions, even though Bush added DHS. So he has gone along with a change and even extended it, by giving DHS carte blanche even in non-emergency periods. Now of course, DHS needs to do preventative work, so of course it needs to do things even in non-emergencies, but a careful look through this EO will show that it can basically do anything short of killing people, even if they have not committed a crime or are not suspected of having committed a crime. This also holds for their properties and businesses. It even allows them to demand the person work for them without pay doing what they want that person to do. They could have been allowed to do preventative law enforcement like other law enforcement agencies do and in fact how they have been, for the most part, doing it up until now.

That EO is just ridiculous. It basically allows the agency to declare local to national states of martial law at any time and control the lives and businesses of any citizen, regardless of their status - considered innocent, suspected, guitly of some crime.

And note: this act, Obama's signing of the EO and whatever participation he had in the process of making it, will extend into future terms. IOW someone like Bush will come into office and have these powers whenever he wants them (or she, since I think it would actually be easier for an American 'Thatcher' to come in than an American, well, Clinton).

This is at least on the level of the Patriot acts changes and seems pretty unconstitutional to me, though I'm sure the Supreme Court will never take a look at it.

You couple this EO with the Patriot Act and the ever smaller group of corporations that control most markets and have powerful lobbying machines and I see a danger. We are not simply paranoid people. and perhaps some other people here are looking at the issue in a partisan way - anti-liberal - but I think actually most are fairly skeptical of Republican's (and their EOs). There is a worldwide concentration of power, in the West due to changes like this in the US and via the EU in Europe. Law enforcement is getting greater and greater power all across the board in the West. Corporations are getting more and more power and more and more influence on governments in the West. The whole good cop, bad cop routine with the DEMs and REPubs misses the fact that under all recent administrations there has been an increasing concentration of power in the executive and in law enforcement, an erosion of rights of privacy and due process and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. If some people react skeptically to this, other people assuming this is merely partisan and stupid is getting in the way of healthy scrutiny of government.

This is not good and anyone not a little paranoid, it seems to me, is asking for history to repeat itself.

[lizbethrose]

moreno wrote:

You couple this EO with the Patriot Act and the ever smaller group of corporations that control most markets and have powerful lobbying machines and I see a danger. We are not simply paranoid people. and perhaps some other people here are looking at the issue in a partisan way - anti-liberal - but I think actually most are fairly skeptical of Republican's (and their EOs). There is a worldwide concentration of power, in the West due to changes like this in the US and via the EU in Europe. Law enforcement is getting greater and greater power all across the board in the West. Corporations are getting more and more power and more and more influence on governments in the West. The whole good cop, bad cop routine with the DEMs and REPubs misses the fact that under all recent administrations there has been an increasing concentration of power in the executive and in law enforcement, an erosion of rights of privacy and due process and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. If some people react skeptically to this, other people assuming this is merely partisan and stupid is getting in the way of healthy scrutiny of government.

This is not good and anyone not a little paranoid, it seems to me, is asking for history to repeat itself.

I agree with you on most counts.

I can't, however, do full justice to your post, at this time. I went to a friend and co-worker's memorial Sunday. I had lunch today with another co-worker who also has cancer. I called a third co-worker at the hospital this evening. He had a heart valve replaced this past Wednesday. I've given thought to a couple of posts so far, tonight.

Now it's time for me to be either bad-ass, if I can, or to go to bed.--BUT--I'll be back!

[Moreno]

I am done making my case that Obama's EO is a serious problem and not just one with cosmetic changes, but just to add a bit of context.....

Homeland Security has purchased 450 million hollow point rounds
(and this is not their only ammunition purchase. What kind of war are they expecting to fight on US soil that the US military would not be the appropriate authority?)

The following is an excerpt from the official press release about this deal between ATK and the Department of Homeland Security....

ATK announced that it is being awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement from the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS, ICE) for .40 caliber ammunition. This contract features a base of 12 months, includes four option years, and will have a maximum volume of 450 million rounds.

ATK was the incumbent and won the contract with its HST bullet, which has proven itself in the field. The special hollow point effectively passes through a variety of barriers and holds its jacket in the toughest conditions. HST is engineered for 100-percent weight retention, limits collateral damage, and avoids over-penetration.

'We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS, ICE,' said Ron Johnson, President of ATK's Security and Sporting group.

But this is not the only kind of ammo that the DHS is placing an order for.

Business Insider is also reporting that the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to buy 175 million rifle ammunition rounds....

We've also learned that the Department has an open bid for a stockpile of rifle ammo. Listed on the federal business opportunities network, they're looking for up to 175 million rounds of .233 caliber ammo to be exact. The 223 is almost exactly the same round used by NATO forces, the 5.56 x 45mm.

[James L Walker]

Liz:

I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'democratic' and 'freedom,'--unless, course, your skin hasn't been paled over centuries by the lack of intense sun light--or you wear a hoodie. I can understand where you're coming from, if that's the case.

I don't agree with laissez faire capitalism or free market capitalism--I don't see how either works equitably for the American consumer. As you say: Different topic.

I would like to know how you think our country "is waving the banner of world war III." I don't know how to say this without sounding either patronizing or condescending--but could you explain that to me, please?

Are you fucking kidding me with those racial undertones?

I have been poor all my life along with being homeless off and on.

I am white. You think white people have it any better?

Get out of here with that bullshit along with that hoodie comment.

Guess what? I wear a black hoodie all the time. Boo-hoo.

How is the United States waving the banner of world war III?

One word. Iran.

Pay attention to current events for once. I know it's not as entertaining as American Idol but it actually helps knowing in the long run for these types of conversations.

[lizbethrose]

Liz:

I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'democratic' and 'freedom,'--unless, course, your skin hasn't been paled over centuries by the lack of intense sun light--or you wear a hoodie. I can understand where you're coming from, if that's the case.

I don't agree with laissez faire capitalism or free market capitalism--I don't see how either works equitably for the American consumer. As you say: Different topic.

I would like to know how you think our country "is waving the banner of world war III." I don't know how to say this without sounding either patronizing or condescending--but could you explain that to me, please?

Are you fucking kidding me with those racial undertones?

I have been poor all my life along with being homeless off and on.

I am white. You think white people have it any better?

Get out of here with that bullshit along with that hoodie comment.

Guess what? I wear a black hoodie all the time. Boo-hoo.

How is the United States waving the banner of world war III?

One word. Iran.

Pay attention to current events for once. I know it's not as entertaining as American Idol but it actually helps knowing in the long run for these types of conversations.

Dear Joker, I apologize if I've offended you with my intended sarcasm. Or maybe it was irony--I tend to get the two confused sometimes.

What I was trying to say with my "racial undertones" was that, as prehumans walked out of Africa, the farther North they went the less eumelanin, or dark melanin, was needed. Eumelanin absorbs the UV rays that can cause melanoma in lighter-skinned people. That's, to me, the only difference among "people of color." In effect, we're all people of color. And we all face injustice at one time or another. The 'hoodie' comment came because I'd just watched the Congressman being ejected from the House for making a statement about the Trayvon Martin killing. BTW, I don't know much about 'hood gangs, but I don't think a black hoodie is a gang badge. I'm probably wrong--it's probably too generalized a statement.

I disagree with you about Iran. As I said in another thread, when NATO troops invaded Iran, we were still technically at war because Desert Storm was ended with a cease-fire rather than either a truce or a surrender. It's strategically important to the world because it abuts the Persian Gulf and Iraq. If Iraq goes nuclear, it poses a threat to the world--and you can't have a world war without the rest of the world's participation.

Japan has made it known that if N. Korea--a country still technically at war with the US--aims a missile at Japan, it will intercept and attempt to destroy that missile. Have you read about that?

I watch about an hour of TV a day--NCIS re-runs, usually--sometimes a CSI re-run.

[lizbethrose]

I am done making my case that Obama's EO is a serious problem and not just one with cosmetic changes, but just to add a bit of context.....

Homeland Security has purchased 450 million hollow point rounds
(and this is not their only ammunition purchase. What kind of war are they expecting to fight on US soil that the US military would not be the appropriate authority?)

The following is an excerpt from the official press release about this deal between ATK and the Department of Homeland Security....

ATK announced that it is being awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement from the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS, ICE) for .40 caliber ammunition. This contract features a base of 12 months, includes four option years, and will have a maximum volume of 450 million rounds.

ATK was the incumbent and won the contract with its HST bullet, which has proven itself in the field. The special hollow point effectively passes through a variety of barriers and holds its jacket in the toughest conditions. HST is engineered for 100-percent weight retention, limits collateral damage, and avoids over-penetration.

'We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS, ICE,' said Ron Johnson, President of ATK's Security and Sporting group.

But this is not the only kind of ammo that the DHS is placing an order for.

Business Insider is also reporting that the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to buy 175 million rifle ammunition rounds....

We've also learned that the Department has an open bid for a stockpile of rifle ammo. Listed on the federal business opportunities network, they're looking for up to 175 million rounds of .233 caliber ammo to be exact. The 223 is almost exactly the same round used by NATO forces, the 5.56 x 45mm.

It's probably just as well you're " done making my case that Obama's EO is a serious problem and not just one with cosmetic changes,..." because all I could find in post after post was that there was no difference between what President Obama signed earlier the month and what former President Clinton signed in 1994, which was a revision of what former President Kennedy had signed, which was a revision of what ... and so on. The revision is exactly what I said it is--a needed change in documentation due to DHS being added as a Cabinet department. Your quotes came from conservative blogs, for the most part, as does your current post.

I don't mind if you, personally--the man(?) who calls himself Moreno, is a conservative. Where would we be without conservatives? What I do care about is fear-mongering from either side of the aisle--particularly in an election year--and particularly when such posts aren't acknowledged as nothing more than opinion pieces.