Breaking News - Obama Signs Martial Law Executive Order

This sounds like "the bottom line"...

From
causapatet.blogspot.com...

Taken by itself, this executive order does little more than add another layer of bureaucracy dealing with the use of the National Guard. It should be remembered, however, that in 2006 Congress turned the National Guard into something akin to a Praetorian Guard to be used — whether at home or abroad — as the president desires. This helps explain an obvious and ominous change in the Guard’s definition of its mission and responsibilities, which include hands-on involvement in domestic law enforcement.

It’s also worth pointing out that this new Council represents yet another avenue through which the president can circumvent congressional resistance to military adventurism, in the highly unlikely event that such resistance were to coalesce.

While it’s true that Obama’s executive order will not immediately result in troops flooding our cities and detention camps springing from the soil, it represents a critical milestone on the road to undisguised dictatorship. -

Originally posted by Grumble

Originally posted by Signals

Sec. 5. General Provisions. more 3 (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, createany right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable atlaw or in equity by any party against the United States, itsdepartments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, oragents, or any other person.

What does that mean?

It means "You can't sue us, bitch."

I think it means the order can never be used to claim that the government has to follow its own rules. "Everyone else has to obey this stuff... not us duh!"

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Hmmm. Mind summing up your point for the layman?

reply to post by JayinAR


Why not just rescind the original EO?

Oh, it must be because OBAMA is looking out for us.

Government does that so well.

edit to add-JayinAR was the only one on the entire thread I wanted an actual answer to.

That being said, if they have only a LITTLE more control, everything will be fine.

When, in the history of mankind has more government control, helped people? Can't think of one, neither can I? I will give everyone an eternity to try and find an example, you will never find one.

The only increase of government that is not detrimental to the people is in restricting government power.

No, I am NOT an anarchist. The Constitution of the US states EXACTLY what the Federal government is allowed to do. Any changes to said document is required by the amendment system. There is no way the people will allow that so they must than break the tenants of the Constitution.

NUFF SAID

[edit on 1/13/2010 by endisnighe]

So is this the year????

reply to post by pumpkinorange
again this would be a reason to create the ability to establish the ease of martial law, if civility went awry due to the right to bare arms being tampered with or removed. I hope for the sake of this country that this is not the case.

Not to bash people's faiths, but could we stop quoting the Bible left and right? The Bible has much wisdom, beautiful literature, and good historical examples of bad politics gone wrong, but all of the Revelations and Matthew quotes are getting old. They aren't really contributing to the discussion, just rolling around in a circular motion, going nowhere.

Ironically, this post contributes nothing to the discussion, except my irritation at all of the religiousness sucking up intelligent political conversation.

Well, this does not look like a real (authentic) paper from the U. S. Govt.
No number, signature, etc. like other exec. orders for example. I'd bet this is a hoax.
Thanks for playin' along though.

I honestly don't see anything sinister about this. He's giving more control of the national guard to governors... can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

Originally posted by pilotdavems
Well, this does not look like a real (authentic) paper from the U. S. Govt.
No number, signature, etc. like other exec. orders for example. I'd bet this is a hoax.
Thanks for playin' along though.

Did you read the WhiteHouse.gov source?

OFFICIAL WHITEHOUSE.GOV STORY (with link to PDF)

It is legit.

reply to post by m khan


A democracy cannot survive if it's people are asleep. Whether it's a combination of rotten educational standards or a sinister plot on the part of the bankers the fault lies with your neighbor. You are awake or you wouldn't be looking into ATS, but 90% of the population is asleep, believing the myth that the Constitution is all we need to right all the wrongs that might come up. The Constitution alone is not enough, the people behind it are what matters, but if your neighbor prefers to sleep and calls you wako if you try to wake him, then what happens?
Too many people have been bought out. Can't they see that the "dream" these villains are trying to fulfill doesn't really have room for them in it, that they are being used as pawns and will be discarded

I starred this for two reasons

1 "The rotten educational standards" especially within the past 3 decades, before then the "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" were required reading...hence the 90% (seems kinda high to me) of the population being asleep.

2 The people that are bought out later to be discarded, I could see that the promise of instant riches is a powerful weapon to induce people into doing something they would not normally do, without worrying about the future of themselves or others.

I spoke with friends on this and we all agree that society has changed over the last few decades from "We the People" to "Me the Individual"
They don't want to wake up, because it interferes with their current lifestyle, or schedule...

Ziggy - I met you yesterday and I applaud the way you break things down with logic and good temprament not just this thread, but others I have seen you post in.

JayinAR - You did a very good job of breaking down your side as well, I also agree that the EO does ammend a previous "Bush" order, but it does seem to point to scaling back that previous order...even if only a little bit.

I do not believe this relates to the Bible or "Revelations". I believe they do expect a revolution or possible civil unrest, after a monetary collapse, look at how many lifestyles and schedules that would upset, and the instant wake up call it would cause, its starting already.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if only for a little while...

Peace

Im sorry if this was already brought up but its pretty creepy. Ten goveneors right? Anyone else remember the prophecy in the bible about the antichrist instaling ten kings to rule over the world?

reply to post by Sky watcher


I dont see how this should violate any rules, as clearly you are a fanatic... you fit the definition of one. You freak me out, and I think your a fear monger as well.

Originally posted by beebs

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by whitewave

 

If you read it you would see that they only have 2 year terms. And the governors can't have more then 5 members of one party. Even the chairs each have to be each party. Both parties are equally represented.

So there is a pretty good chance that all states will be at least represented once.


yea, giving those governors an opportunity to talk about the national gaurd and other security concerns is such a huge scary thing.

This is giving the states more power as far as I am concerned.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by nixie_nox]

I will have to disagree with you there, for the document says that after the 2 year term they can be reappointed:

(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).
The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by
the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of
the same political party. The term of service for each Member
appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member
may be reappointed for additional terms.

And also, you might have missed that this is an Executive Order, so I see no reason why he would want to increase state power. It seems to me this is a blatant usurpation of state power, because the states are now underneath one of the new Ten Kings in a hierarchy.

Also, to reinforce the president's almost exclusive power granted by this order:

(b) The President shall designate two Members, who
shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as
Co-Chairs of the Council.

Well ATS, lets hope Obama is good deep down, because if he isn't then we will soon see some crazy stuff. Or maybe either way we will... who knows

edit to add: and lets admit, any blabber about it being balanced because it has an equal number of each party is no more than a gimmick...

[edit on 12-1-2010 by beebs]

And the party of the state could change at any election. And governors also have term limits. So anyone basically has a limited appointment.

yes it is an executive order. Anything coming from the president is an executive order.

a blatant upsurption of state power would be to select ten random individuals to run this security meeting telling the states what to do.

well they DO have term limits* however, lookat Bloomenthol in NY..i read last year, he payed basically, ti influence a re election* it was in local paper. so in other words, if its true, he bribed and bought a new election* that is Illegal...but dont think they,t he politicians or system really cares.

Maybe im stupid, but when I read that document pdf they linked to in the news item, i saw nothing about so called martial law. its just providing a *possible* structure for *possible* contingencies for *possible* emergencies and stated nothing about controlling the population with the military.

reply to post by Frankidealist35

He's giving more control of the national guard to governors... can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

No, this order is in response to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008
sec 1812:

(a) Joint Activity of the Department of Defense- Subsection (a) of section 10501 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking `joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force' and inserting `joint activity of the Department of Defense'.

The States National Guard previously was under the control of the respective states Governor. And could only be used for federal duty with the consent of the Governor.

This is no longer the case. The States National Guard is now under the control of the Department of Defense. It doesn't appear that the States' Governors need to issue consent in order to be called into federal duty.

The 10 Governors are simply an advisory council. But decision making authority is held at the DOD.

The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.

I honestly don't see anything sinister about this.

Not sure if sinister is the right word. It is just another case of the Federal Government stealing power from the states.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by harvib]