Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

“National Def. Preparedness” Exec. Order OKs Conscripts, Nationalization of Private Industry

page: 1
106
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+67 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Read It And Weep!
National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order

On Friday, March 16, Barack Obama signed the “National Defense Resources Preparedness” Executive Order, authorizing his administration to begin "under both emergency and non-emergency conditions," ... " to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation," and to retain other individuals and organizations with specialized knowledge or abilities, or otherwise important to the adminstration.

Even more worrisome, Sec. 308 of the E.O. authorizes administration officials to
" procure and install ... equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities ... owned by owned by private persons.

If this is not blanket aithority to nationalize industry, then, what is?
If it is; why now?
Why the need to conscript people and organizations without compensation?

As for food supplies and production, the Exec. Order authorizes the Sec. of Agriculture to take the same steps with regard to "food resources."

Ditto for the Secretaries of Energy, Labor, Transportation; in fact, all cabinet and Homeland Security officials, are likewise authorized to act in such fashion at their discretion.

Again, why now?

jw
edit on 17-3-2012 by jdub297 because: title



+41 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Why in the world are you putting this in such a pretty package? "Nationalizing industry?" Let's call a spade a spade shall we? This is SLAVERY!


Ironic that it was signed by a black man. Can the brainwashed Left, the cult of Barry Obama see it yet? You've been LIED TOO.

He's not leaving us much choice is he?
edit on 3/17/2012 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/17/2012 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Here's the sections of the document the OP is talking about.



Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.




Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:

(a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;

(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and

(c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.


Still creepy regardless if it is old or new.


edit on 17-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


+22 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Ummm probably because it reads like every other National Defense Preparedness Executive Order signed by previous presidents? A routine government matter that is being used to stir FUD because Obama is - how shall we say? Different than his predecessors? Is it his race? Skin color? His religion?

An example from 1988;
National Archives Executive Order 12656--Assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities

I hate to break it to you, but governments plan for all contingencies. I'd hate to see your reaction to some of the defense authorizations from the Cold War signed by JFK, Ike, or Nixon, some of those were downright scary.

You'll see, if you took the time to compare it to previous such orders, how each Secretary has been charged with ensuring the non-disruption of vital services during emergencies, from procuring funds, to keeping the private sector in operation, and yes, even to nationalizing certain private sector operations to keep them functioning so as to prevent a breakdown in society.

The one signed in 1994 also authorizes the use of government funding/equipment in improving privately-owned facilities.


Sec. 307. Government-owned Equipment. An agency head is authorized, pursuant to section 303(e) of the Act, to install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to facilities owned by the government and to install government-owned equipment in industrial facilities owned by private persons. source


Just the section title changed in the newest bill.

That's been written into every one of these National Defense Orders going all the way back to the early FEMA and it predecessor days of the Office of Civilian Defense, etc.

Nice try at demonizing Obama for doing the exact same thing all his predecessors have done though. Next time try denying your inner ignorance.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
There it is in black and white. The enslavement of America. Now they have it all in place. They can declare any American as a terrorist and imprision or execute them. Now they can seize a business and conscript people to produce with no pay. They clearly know that something big is about to happen and they will need this to take the rest of our freedoms and enslave us all.


The people who are comfortable with the seizure of their freedoms will of course not see this for what it truely is. An excutive order doesn't get voted on like a bill. It simply is.
edit on 3/17/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
This basically says, if they want our stuff...they can take it. If they want us....they can take us. This is pure draft material.

I don't know gang, this stuff is getting a little crazy.

I guess Obama wasn't lying when he said "Yes We Can".

Everyone should be starring and flagging this thread.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
reply to post by jdub297
 


Why in the world are you putting this in such a pretty package? "Nationalizing industry?" Let's call a spade a spade shall we? This is SLAVERY!
...
He's not leaving us much choice is he?


On aggregator sites, like fre republic, this is the exact sentiment of dozens of commentors.

It is getting to the point that there is nothing he will not try to do to impose his "transformation" before November, and it's over.

jw



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 



Here's the second section of the bill the OP is talking about. It's confusing to understand it shortened.


Unfortunately, it is not a "Bill."
It is an Executive Order, and in full force and effect upon Obama's signature, March 16, 2012.
This could be one of those "red letter days" that people will talk about in the future.

Funny thing, not a peep in the MSM.
Surprised?

jw



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Again, why now?


The section you pointed out as being "new" is not at all new - the exact phrasing has been written into every single previous "National Defense Resources Preparedness" EO, signed by Bush or Clinton, only the section title has changed some.

The one signed by Obama is a virtual rehash of the one signed by Clinton in 1994, which was largely a re-write of the one signed by Bush in 1988.

1994 - EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919 NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS (Disastercenter.com)
edit on 17-3-2012 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 



The people who are comfortable with the seizure of their freedoms will of course not see this for what it truely is. An excutive order doesn't get voted on like a bill. It simply is.


"The people who are comfortable" et c., has to include the MSM and "progressives," who've not said a word about this self-grant of power (i.e., "power grab") by an administration that is seeing its grip on America's throat slipping.

When the people won't go along, you just issue yourself the authority to make them!

jw



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by harlot7

I guess Obama wasn't lying when he said "Yes We Can".


Maybe he wasn't lying, but he is wrong. This is change that can not be allowed to happen. Will someone please get a warrant and arrest this poser? Bush and Cheney had warrants out for his arrest, which is why they won't ever go to New Hampshire again, so why not this traitor?

There have to be some lawyers on this board, possibly a judge or two, that have the balls to stand up. DO YOUR JOB AND LAWYER! The next step in the process if you don't isn't going to be pretty.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by harlot7
 


This basically says, if they want our stuff...they can take it. If they want us....they can take us. This is pure draft material.


Do you mean , like, Martial Law?"

The part that says "emergency or non-emergency" pretty much sums it up to whenever and for whatever Obama or any one of his minions feel it is "time."



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Yeah I know I realized that after I said it. The post below my previous says why there is no peep about it in the MSM. It's also why I didn't form a concrete conclusion before reading the whole thing/researching it further. It's nothing new.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 17-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Ummm probably because it reads like every other National Defense Preparedness Executive Order signed by previous presidents?


Do you have any idea where I could find the previous one to compare? I'm in the UK so pretty clueless about where to look online?

NVM found it.

I can't see in the other ones where it says it applies in emergency and non emergency situations as this one does but I admit I've only skim read it!
edit on 17-3-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer


The section you pointed out as being "new" is not at all new - the exact phrasing has been written into every single previous "National Defense Resources Preparedness" EO, signed by Bush or Clinton, only the section title has changed some.

The one signed by Obama is a virtual rehash of the one signed by Clinton in 1994, which was largely a re-write of the one signed by Bush in 1988.


Except, this EO explicitly REVOKES those prior Orders.
It stands alone as authority for "non-emergency" "National Preparedness."



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by harlot7
 


It's called commandeering. Something I've been thinking about doing with a neighbor's EXTRA vehicle to run errands.


+1 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Of course it REVOKES those previous orders!

You can't have previous orders conflicting with NEW orders. The languages in this new order is virtually identical with the order issued in 1994 and 1988.

Again here is the 1994 E.O.
Executive Orders And Laws relating to National Emergencies Laws
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919
NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS


READ THOUGH it and tell me, how is the one Obama signed AT ALL different from the one signed back in 1994?

All you are doing is using this as another sad attempt to smear Obama for upholding his office. If this executive order was so offensive to you, why didn't you demonize Bush for signing the same thing back in 1988 or Clinton for it in 1994? Did you even KNOW they had signed these orders, and that this 2012 version was a virtual copy of those previous orders? The whole idea of "why does it revoke those orders" is laughable - it supersedes those orders. The one signed in 1994 revokes the one signed in 1988. (read section "Sec. 904. Effect on other Orders" in the 1994 order.)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I understand that this is just all apart of the business, but it still blows...

Really I just wanted to comment so I can keep track of where this conversation goes.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Thomas Jefferson said,"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

He also said,"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

How about this one,"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."

I think that he was on to something here. It's exactly what we are seeing here. Jefferson foresaw this seizure of power by the government. He spoke about it many times. Check this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3/17/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)


+5 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by jdub297
 


Of course it REVOKES those previous orders!

You can't have previous orders conflicting with NEW orders. The languages in this new order is virtually identical with the order issued in 1994 and 1988.

Again here is the 1994 E.O.
Executive Orders And Laws relating to National Emergencies Laws
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919
NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS


READ THOUGH it and tell me, how is the one Obama signed AT ALL different from the one signed back in 1994?

All you are doing is using this as another sad attempt to smear Obama for upholding his office. If this executive order was so offensive to you, why didn't you demonize Bush for signing the same thing back in 1988 or Clinton for it in 1994? Did you even KNOW they had signed these orders, and that this 2012 version was a virtual copy of those previous orders? The whole idea of "why does it revoke those orders" is laughable - it supersedes those orders. The one signed in 1994 revokes the one signed in 1988. (read section "Sec. 904. Effect on other Orders" in the 1994 order.)


It's not half as exciting when you keep putting all these facts and truths in the way.






top topics



 
106
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join