President Obama signs executive order allowing control over all US resources

[woo me with science]

This post by cags was just locked over in LBN, so I am bringing it over here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/101477180


President Obama signs executive order allowing control over all US resources

Source: Examiner

On March 16th, President Obama signed a new Executive Order which expands upon a prior order issued in 1950 for Disaster Preparedness, and gives the office of the President complete control over all the resources in the United States in times of war or emergency.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness order gives the Executive Branch the power to control and allocate energy, production, transportation, food, and even water resources by decree under the auspices of national defense and national security. The order is not limited to wartime implementation, as one of the order's functions includes the command and control of resources in peacetime determinations.


Read more: http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/president-obama-signs-executive-order-allowing-for-control-over-all-us-resources

[The Wielding Truth]

1. If this is true our energy problem could be solved.

[FarLeftFist]

26. I bet the reason is because the U.S. may have found out that an Israeli strike on Iran is imminent.

And I would MUCH rather our Govt control our Nation's prosperity than foreign controlled corps.

[vaberella]

63. That was the second thought that went through my head.

Immediately after the energy one. I was like gas prices or war.

[vaberella]

62. That's the first thing that went through my head! n/t

[Historic NY]

2. I hear lots of heads exploding ...

one they figure it out.

[Historic NY]

42. Well....

I suspect it was to reiterate what already exists. Perhaps as a gambit on the speculators.

[Vattel]

3. The founders roll over in their graves yet again.

[woo me with science]

22. More power to the executive branch.

Why?

[sofa king]

34. My guess:

It is an Executive Order, and since this President isn't G.W. Bush, we can probably safely assume that President Obama is not conferring some new power upon himself through an inexpertly written EO crafted by whatever hung-over Patrick Henry intern was in charge that day.

In fact, I know for sure there are no new powers being claimed here because for years now I've been writing about how President Obama can and possibly has been using these very powers to push Congress around behind closed doors:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sofa%20king/100

The key is that the powers were authorized by Congress in the Bush years, the legislation was terribly written, it was incompetently executed by a criminal cabal looking to use the power primarily as a way to politically manipulate the electorate through fear, and previous executive orders issued during the Bush years were quite likely flawed because of those Patrick Henry kids mentioned above. The "state of emergency" clause is also highly important, because the U.S. has quietly operated in such a state for most of the 20th Century and all of this one.

I suspect therefore that this EO is merely a re-write of previous EOs, adjusted to reflect changes in the bureaucracy and to correct any (likely numerous) errors from previous implementations.

If I am also correct that the President is getting what he wants in negotiations by threatening to drop the Dictator Obama shoe, this serves as a timely reminder to the oil industry that if they continue mucking about, the President can and will take over the business, whenever the hell he damned well pleases.

All thanks to the Republican-controlled Congress of the Bush years.

[onenote]

36. More power compared to when?

To what existed under the 1994 EO issued by President Clinton that this EO supersedes? More power than the various EOs, dating back to 1939, that the 1994 Clinton EO consolidated and superseded?

Please get back to us with details.

[Vattel]

50. Presidents have been claiming more power than they have under the Constitution

for a long time. Unfortunately Obama is no exception.

[vaberella]

64. I don't get your meaning. How is this a bad thing?

In most cases it's good. I don't see how this is being an abuse of power.

[ProSense]

4. I don't

"President Obama signs executive order allowing control over all US resources"

...understand. Is this Examiner RW fear mongering, or did President Obama finally nationalize the oil companies?

[freshwest]

9. Nationalizing oil is good. We've been going to war for oil, meaning all aspects of energy..

Should be debated within the public arena and not be determined in corporate boardrooms. If it's worth spending lives over, it should be under democratic process and we as a nation can make better choices about our energy future.

The energy giants have also been threatening Obama with 'consequences' if he doesn't allow Keystone or deregulate them more than they've gotten away with. They might want to get their dirty paws out of our elections, now.

[Logical]

5. LOL.....this almost seems like it has to be a joke, but it is not. Scary.

[Poll_Blind]

6. Link to the full text of the Executive Order here:

Here

PB

[woo me with science]

7. Thank you for posting it.

There's at least one new assault every day. Wake up, America.

[ProSense]

11. How

"There's at least one new assault every day. Wake up, America. "

...is the U.S. Government taking control of U.S. natural resources an "assault," and who is it an "assault" on?

If the U.S. nationalized the oil companies or the banks, would that be an "assualt"?

[FarLeftFist]

27. An assault? It's better than privatizing. We're nationalizing. Or are you afraid of self-dependence?

[vaberella]

65. Explain how this is an assault? It's lost to me. n/t

[razorman]

8. This is frightening, if true. I know a couple of conservatives who claim that President Obama plans

to declare a national emergency and cancel the election. The idea is ridiculous; but if this report is accurate, how do I argue against them? Looked at in certain ways, this could be one step toward a coup. And it would NOT be peaceful.

[peacebird]

10. I remember a few progressives who feared the same under bush/cheney....

[razorman]

19. I do not for one minute believe that President Obama would do such a thing. I have never actually

feared it from any of his predecessors, either. But, who knows what the future holds? If this 'martial law' report is true, and it goes through, it would also empower any future president, whoever that might be. I am just glad that I won't be around much longer to see it.

[Mojorabbit]

54. I am getting long in the tooth also

and I do not like this either. I know during WW2 there was a good reason and things were rationed etc but we are not in a place like that now. I can't see the need for this.

[razorman]

72. I agree. While I have doubts that this EO is all that its critics claim, I am also aware that there

is no such thing as a benevolent government. Therefore, I am always suspicious. There is no conceivable need for martial law in peacetime.

[ProSense]

14. You

This is frightening, if true. I know a couple of conservatives who claim that President Obama plans

to declare a national emergency and cancel the election. The idea is ridiculous; but if this report is accurate, how do I argue against them? Looked at in certain ways, this could be one step toward a coup. And it would NOT be peaceful.

...shouldn't "argue against them." The thought that Obama is planning a "coup" will scare them enough to turnout.

Seems the world has gone mad!

[MineralMan]

18. They argued the same about Clinton.

It's always the same argument. It's always wrong.

[razorman]

44. True. I also recall some folks here saying similar things about GWB. Thankfully,

as you pointed out, it has always been wrong. The difference now is this supposed executive order, and what it could mean for the future. I do not even know if these reports are true. I hope not.
While I am sure President Obama would not misuse the order, we have no way of knowing who might occupy the Oval Office in the future, and what they may do. That's why I support being a nation of laws rather than of men. Simply having "the right person in charge" is no real protection. One day, we will wind up putting someone there who will be a real danger.

[MineralMan]

48. As far as Executive Orders are concerned, any President can change them

in any way he or she sees fit. One President at a time. Each does what he or she wants with Executive Orders, so this doesn't really matter to the next President or any future President.

[razorman]

51. That's somewhat comforting. It is just an EO, not a law. It can be overturned more easily.

[Chorophyll]

12. The Examiner is not a resource for reliable journalism.

Anyone who wants to write can write for them. Just pointing this out.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Actual text is on whitehouse.gov

The OP looks to be accurate

[Chorophyll]

43. I did see that subsequently. Thanks. nt

[Avalux]

13. Good. Consider this scenario.....

Everything - all resources in this country are privately owned; many by foreigners (we are heading in that direction). There is a huge disaster (think BP). However, because everything is privatized, the president has no control over resources and is unable to coordinate, mobilize and direct.

I think it's a good move. Of course, it's up to Americans to elect presidents who won't abuse this power. THAT'S the scary part.

[ProSense]

15. You think

Good. Consider this scenario.....

Everything - all resources in this country are privately owned; many by foreigners (we are heading in that direction). There is a huge disaster (think BP). However, because everything is privatized, the president has no control over resources and is unable to coordinate, mobilize and direct.

I think it's a good move. Of course, it's up to Americans to elect presidents who won't abuse this power. THAT'S the scary part.

...that's the "scary part"? The scary part is watching a RW talking point scare the left.

[woo me with science]

16. We are anticipating a war,

which the corporate one percent will make billions from.

[ProSense]

17. Nonsense

"We are anticipating a war, which the corporate one percent will make billions from."

This is an update of an existing EO, and how exactly does the government taking control benefit "the corporate one percent," which has control of these resources?

[woo me with science]

21. Perhaps not a war. What could we be anticipating?

A terror attack?

Why the need for the "update" now, if the President has always had this power? I believe this extends the power to peacetime, doesn't it?

Nobody has answered, "Why does the President need more power?"

Why?

[randome]

24. Why are you so afraid?

That's the question that needs to be asked and answered. Do you really think parsing every single word out of every piece of legislation that is passed is worth your time?

This stuff gets old really fast. We have been on the verge of a police state for years, according to the conspiracy theorists. "Any day now", they keep telling us.

The world is ending. The sky is falling. Don't trust the government. They are evil.

[SidDithers]

45. FEMA camps!! FEMA camps!!...

Well said.

Sid

[vaberella]

67. You made ROFL!

My colleagues were like WTF!

[ProSense]

25. You're

Perhaps not a war. What could we be anticipating?

A terror attack?

Why the need for the "update" now, if the President has always had this power? I believe this extends the power to peacetime, doesn't it?

Nobody has answered, "Why does the President need more power?"

Why?

...pushing a RW talking point about government take over of something now controlled by the private sector.

Again, how exactly does the government taking control benefit "the corporate one percent," which has control of these resources?

What's wrong with the government controlling these? Most progressives have advocated nationalization of the oil companies and the banks. This is not a problem.

[girl gone mad]

53. You pushed that exact same right wing talking point when you opposed nationalizing banks.

Weird, huh?

[The Wielding Truth]

31. Controlling our national resources to lower gas prices?

[vaberella]

66. What are you on about?

Admittedly war is one thing. But if this is nationally owned and the government takes control of it how does the 1% make a profit from it. In actuality because this is government jurisdiction they shouldn't be getting their hands on it.

[MineralMan]

20. That order, in one form or another has been around for a

very long time. What does it mean? It means that the President has powers that can be used, but that never are.

In the right circumstances, it gives a President the ability to take action that might avert disaster.

I'm sure the right wing Internet is even more alarmed about this. Everytime something changes in this alarm is general.

What if President Obama used this to nationalize the banks, for example? Isn't that what people have been calling for through his whole term? He won't, but he could. Presidents don't use this power, but they have it, if it's absolutely necessary. They have for a long time.

[Mojorabbit]

56. What is the point in having legislators then? nt

[joy to the world]

28. Well, well, well

isn't that special?

I know there are shills, 'bots, and assorted in-denial peeps who will explain this away so I'll save my breath. But boy will I be satisfied to see the curtain get lifted.

[ProSense]

30. Well,

I'm satisfied!

[Bobbie Jo]

41. Oh look!

Another fan.

Leaving so soon?

The OP must be so proud.

[SidDithers]

46. Speaking of lifting the curtain...

Sid

[onenote]

29. Another example of someone twisting facts to suit their agenda

and gullible DUers accepting the claims made without question. Seriously, sometimes this place can be embarrassing.

Here are some of the claims made by the author of the story linked by the OP:

That this executive order "expands upon a prior order issued in 1950"
Uh, no. It updates and supersedes an executive order (EO 12919) adopted by President Clinton in June 1994; the Clinton EO itself was an update, consolidation and restatement of a series of policies adopted in Executive Orders dating back to 1939. (Source: Section 803 of the new Executive Order; Section 904 of the 1994 EO).


That this Executive Order changes prior policy by being applicable to "peacetime."
Uh, no. Here's a link to the 1994 EO. http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/12919.htm
Compare Section 102 and 103 of that EO to the language quoted in the article. See the references to "peacetime" in both.

That this Executive Order changes prior policy by assigning each cabinet office "specific powers when the order is executed, and include the absolute control over food, water, and other resource distributions."
Uh, no. Compare section 201 of the 1994 EO to section 201 of the new EO -- virtually nothing has changed (although, terrifyingly, the Secretary of Agriculture now has specific authority with respect to the allocation of veterinary services).

Finally, according the author of the linked article, EOs relating to national preparedness are nothing new, but every time one is issued it provokes a "Constitutional crisis."
Uh, anyone remember the Constitutional Crisis" of June 1994, when the previous version of this EO was issued? Probably not, since it would only exist in the imagination of the lying idiot who wrote the article linked in the OP.

So, you ask, if this is nothing new, why did the President issue a new version of the old EO? Well, for one thing, a number of things have changed since 1994, such as the consolidation of a number of government agencies under the Dept. of Homeland Security. The old EO makes no reference to DHS, so the new one updates several parts of the old one to reflect the current organizational structure of the government. There are other changes as well, but none are nefarious and none justify the lying bullshit foisted on us by the author of the article linked in the OP.

[The Wielding Truth]

32. Your name should be Voice of Reason.

[ProSense]

33. Well,

we're all Worldnut Daily now!

More RW drivel for everyone, on the house!

[OKNancy]

37. +1000

thank you!

[tammywammy]

38. Good post. +1 n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

40. This is getting ridiculous...

Thank you for the reality check.

[Mojorabbit]

58. What sort of changes does it make re homeland security? nt

[onenote]

59. here are the links

1994 Executive Order: http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/12919.htm
March 2012 Executive Order: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

[Broderick]

60. Thank you

[vaberella]

68. Have you read the OPs posts...

The poster is playing the role of chicken little on the thread. In any event..thanks for this post. It's super informative and kind of disappointing. I was hoping it would lead to something with the gas prices.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Did our constitutional Scholar read article 17

Of our neighboors to the south? Text reads awful familiar, except for emergency and wartime.

Oh and the US has had a command economy, once...during WW II. I have no idea what intel they got that drives the thinking we would even need to do this AGAIN. But modern day total war will make that total war look like a walk in the park. Nor will it not touch the US of A.

On the bright side, a draft will be innevitable.

For the record, I forgot, these EO's are revised regularly. If it's ever implemented we will have other things to worry about, that includes the possible peacetime reason to implement it.

[tammywammy]

39. Please read post 29 n/t

[indimuse]

47. oscillation to power ~

this is their method! goodbye america....
the truth behind this order ..tis far beyond the capacity for most here.. I logged in for the first time in almost a year after I heard, just to see how DU would translate this _______ .......still asleep i see... .. TIME TO WAKE UP!!!!!


thanks for post!

[onenote]

49. and yet another endorsement from the "I believe anything I read" faction

You might want to read the thread all the way through before thanking the OP for posting a link to a misleading, lie-filled article.

[indimuse]

61. i read the signing statement... 2...;)

you might wanna educate yourself on TRUTH.. about the ENTIRE PLANET..and beyond~*~ again..far beyond your capacity! love~

[vaberella]

69. You need to read post 29...seriously though. n/t

[indimuse]

71. hmmm..

usually when you put egg in the batter, you plan on using it! There has been alot of eggs added to this batter over the past 10 years... I stand by my first comment~Oscillation to Power~

[Canuckistanian]

52. The Unitary Executive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

[vaberella]

70. You also need to read post 29. n/t

[Odin2005]

55. This is RW "Black Helicopter" BS scaremongering.

[Ikonoklast]

57. And the first thing Obama is going to do is put up toll booths on every highway!

WE ARE ALL DOOOOOOOOMED!!!


Gads, some people here have lost all reason.