Obama Executive Order would seize US infrastructure, citizens for nat'l defense

[ProSense]

Obama Executive Order would seize US infrastructure, citizens for nat'l defense

On Friday, President Obama signed a sweeping Executive Order that would effectively nationalize everything - including food, water and U.S. citizens - in order to prepare for national defense.

<...>

Finance Examiner Kenneth Schortgen, Jr., notes that previous administrations have taken actions limiting individual rights in the past. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and Woodrow Wilson used an Executive Order giving him authority "over businesses, industry, transportation, food, and other economic policies" during World War 1.

"In both cases," Schortgen wrote, "it was only after the death of each President that full Constitutional powers were restored to the citizens of the United States."

This order, however, goes far beyond what either Lincoln or Wilson did, and if invoked, would basically turn the United States into a totalitarian regime with Obama as its dictator.

-more -

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/obama-executive-order-would-seize-us-infrastructure-citizens-for-nat-l-defense#ixzz1pURegzk7

Explanation, thanks to DUer onenote

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 a 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.

[woo me with science]

1. When executive power is continually expanded,

citizens should be concerned. Period.

And, no, this order has not been merely "updated" because of new governmental departments and structural changes. It grants NEW powers to the President, expanding powers that previously could be seized only in wartime or national emergency, to peacetime, as well.

The constant admonitions to relax and trust the government grow very tiresome. We have learned from the past 12 years just how critical it is to question, and to remain vigilant about, the steadily increasing powers being claimed by first Bush, and now Obama.

[onenote]

2. Please cite specific examples of expanded powers.

And did you bother to read the prior EO (12919) that was issued in 1994? I provided a link, but for your convenience I'll do it again: http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/12919.htm

See the references to "peacetime" in Sections 102 and 103 of that EO? Same as the references to "peacetime" in the "new" EO.

Somehow, I just have a feeling that (a) this isn't going to convince you and (b) you aren't going to be able cite specific examples of the expansion of executive power that you claim the new EO represents.

[randome]

3. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

[jeff47]

13. List them

It grants NEW powers to the President, expanding powers that previously could be seized only in wartime or national emergency, to peacetime, as well.

List them.

The articles I've seen so far talk about all sorts of new powers, but fail to actually list any powers that are new.

[Honeycombe8]

24. Please check sources. That is a conservative article, and it's a lie.

Don't just automatically believe everything you read.

It's against the rules to cite conservative articles as source of information, which is what that article is. It's on Fox News, too. But other sources tell it like it is. It's merely an administrative rehashing of a prior order, to add references to the newly formed Homeland Security, and things like that. It doesn't enlarge anything or make substantive changes. It's housekeeping. Nothing more.

[RobertEarl]

4. Cool

I now feel so safe. If Bush had done this it would have been bad. Even tho the president now has the power to drone away any enemy of the state, it is nothing to worry about because .... well, just because.

[ProSense]

5. Well

"If Bush had done this it would have been bad."

...if Bush had actually nationalized the oil companies and the banks, the financial crisis wouldn't have happened and gas would be cheaper. Sure the fear mongering would have occurred, but if he had actually carried out the process of nationalizing resources and the banks, would you have objected?

[RobertEarl]

7. So, is the oil going to be nationalized by this action?

I mean, could it happen?

[ProSense]

9. I asked

So, is the oil going to be nationalized by this action?

I mean, could it happen?

...if you'd be opposed to it?

[RobertEarl]

10. Opposed? Maybe. Depends on who and why.

Hmmmmm. Does it really matter what I think?

The question is.... can the president nationalize the oil now?

What I may or may not want doesn't amount to a hill of beans. What matters is, can a president nationalize the oil and do so legally?

[ProSense]

11. OK

Opposed? Maybe. Depends on who and why.

Hmmmmm. Does it really matter what I think?

The question is.... can the president nationalize the oil now?

What I may or may not want doesn't amount to a hill of beans. What matters is, can a president nationalize the oil and do so legally?

...yes, the President can nationalize the oil companies. Now, are you against that?

[Honeycombe8]

26. And if Obama had done it, it would be bad. But he didn't. Please delete your OP...rules violated.

Conservative articles are not valid sources of information to cite to. The same story is in Fox News and is making the conservative internet rounds. It is a lie.

It's merely an administrative rehashing of a prior order, to add refs. to the newly formed Homeland Security and such. It's just housekeeping without substantive change.

You have been suckered in. You know how the conservative "MORE DOOM FROM OBAMA!" articles and emails make the rounds. You just cited one. You're not that naive, I know. You must've been tired.

[NNN0LHI]

6. President Obama has been hiding the the chem trails info from us too

[JoePhilly]

8. +1

[RobertEarl]

12. Chemtrails?

What does chemtrails have to do with this?

I'm kinda new here so maybe you can explain further?

[TBF]

29. The poster was being sarcastic -

you'll have to do a google search to find out about chem trails because it is not allowed for discussion under DU's TOS.

[RobertEarl]

15. Being President is powerful

Obama is powerful. But seems to be quite benevolent, in comparison.

[onenote]

16. And when people here are suckers for lies, they're really suckers

Yes, the President signed an Executive Order regarding National Defense Resources Preparedness last week.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

Has a lot of misinformation and even lies about this EO been posted on the web and repeated and accepted as the gospel truth by some DUers? Sadly yes.

Among the misinformation/lies spread about the President's EO?
1. That it replaces and greatly "expands" upon a 62 year old EO. No, it replaces an EO issued by President Clinton in 1994. You can read that EO here and see whether you think the new EO constitutes an "expansion" of the terms of that EO.
http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/12919.htm

2. That it enlarges the executive branch powers under prior EOs to cover periods of 'peacetime." No, both the old EO and the new one are the same in that regard. Compare Sections 102 and 103 of the two EOs.

3. That it gives cabinet offices new and unprecedented powers. No, compare Section 201 of the two EOs.

4. That while executive orders such as this are not new, every time one has been issued, it has provoked a "constitutional crisis." Really? I must have missed the "Constitutional crisis" that occurred in June 1994 when Clinton issued the predecessor to this EO.

I've fairly quickly compared the two EOs and for the most part, it looks like a lot of the changes are merely updates to reflect changes in the organization of government that have occurred over the past 18 years. For example, the Clinton era EO refers to FEMA, which was an independent agency at the time. Now its a part of DHS, and the EO has been updated accordingly.

I've yet to see anyone point to any dramatic/nefarious differences between the 1994 EO and this one, which suggests to me that there probably aren't any.

Not that this will stop gullible DUers from believing what they read from a tinfoil site such as the Examiner without bothering to check the easily verifiable facts.

[roguevalley]

17. gullible. suckers. wow. you are a peach. ignore is my friend. take that anyway you want.

[onenote]

18. I'll take it in the spirit in which it is offered. Thanks.

Given that its coming from someone who calls Obama a "fucker" and then gets all shaky and upset when it suggested that maybe those calling the president a "fucker" are "suckers"

[geek tragedy]

21. And DUers who pimp bullshit rightwing nutjob bullshit

like this story are . . .?

[burrowowl]

19. In case of real national emergency

Do it!

[SidDithers]

20. DU rec...nt

Sid

[FSogol]

34. Same here. For a minute I thought Prosense was channeling someone else.

- http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002451396

[Honeycombe8]

22. Is that article by a conservative? nt

[Honeycombe8]

23. Okay, Prosense. Sorry, but you're going to need to delete your OP, since it's a conservative lie.

You're citing a conservative article, which is almost identical to the Fox story. But when I checked another source, they are amazed at how these things get started. It's not true.

It's a clerical, administrative rehashing of a prior law to add the new agency Homeland Security & stuff like that. It doesn't enlarge the powers or do anything significantly new.

[The Straight Story]

25. Wanna know how I know you didn't read it all? (nt)

[Honeycombe8]

27. If you think one last sentence in a lengthy post makes a difference, it doesn't. The rules are...

you can't cite conservative articles as sources of information.

It states a lie. Period. And as you can see from all the posts above, people only see that part.

Prosense knew what he was doing. That was the point. But, oh, I'll throw in the last two sentences so I don't have to delete it.

[Son of Gob]

30. One sentence?

Did you miss the 5 paragraph excerpt?

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 a 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.

[ProSense]

31. One correction,

"Prosense knew what he was doing."

..."she."

The OP refutes the Examiner article.

There seems to be no end to the "Obama is a scary black foreign Muslim dictator socialist coming to snatch you off the streets or kill you and your grandmother."

Fear, Inc. is in full effect!

[LanternWaste]

35. Seems to be the common bumper-sticker reply

"Fear, Inc. is in full effect!"

Seems to be the common bumper-sticker reply to people who don't agree these days. Quite clever indeed, as regardless of the validity of the bumper-sticker, the adhesive makes it rather difficult to remove.

[ProSense]

36. Yeah,

"Seems to be the common bumper-sticker reply to people who don't agree these days. Quite clever indeed, as regardless of the validity of the bumper-sticker, the adhesive makes it rather difficult to remove."

...selling fear is very common in some circles: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002447484

[TBF]

28. "effectively nationalize everything"

only in my dreams!

Fuck Ron Paul and his examiner.

[crazycanuck]

32. outside analysis, and a couple of related issues

The executive order discussed here, translated from Bureaucratese into the Queen's English, appears to give the President and His cabinet the authority to buy and stockpile critical defense materials, the authority to finance, by grants, loans, and loan guarantees, the building, maintenance, restoration, and repair of civil and industrial infrastructure critical to defense, and authority to facilitate the training, education, hiring and retaining of key skilled, scientific, and technology workers, and authority to protect said workers from the Draft,should it be brought back.

Nothing here too scary, from an erosion of human rights point of view, but pretty scary from a financial point of view, unless the references to U.S.C. some number, refer to some federal law, and that law mandates congressional oversight, especially of the powers granted in part III. Otherwise, the odor of open barrels of pork is potentially detectable. "Bank Bailout" for the Military Industrial complex, anyone?

Seriously, the no-due-process kill and/or detain provisions in NDAA 2012 are still what I find scariest, from a human rights erosion perspective, but what do I know? I'm just a dumb crazy Canuck!

One last question. I know that NDAA 2012 enjoyed near unanimous support, from Democrats and Republicans alike. I'd Like to engage with the friends of freedom and democracy in the U.S., in solidarity and cooperative spirit to build a true world democracy, but am having a devil of a time figuring which of your factions would support expanding the principles of your founding fathers (Good principles, by the way.) to embrace the whole species. Any advice on who they might be, and how to open the conversation?

Yours, In Brother/Sisterhood and Solidarity,

Doug the crazy Canuck.

[Rex]

33. I laugh at Joe Newby.

Series? Newby? Series?