“National Def. Preparedness” Exec. Order OKs Conscripts, Nationalization of Private Industry, page 10


Pages: <<  7    8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 106 times


reply posted on 19-3-2012 @ 05:39 PM by OldCurmudgeon
reply to post by JBRiddle


JBRiddle... well said and spot on accurate... a star for you


reply posted on 19-3-2012 @ 08:16 PM by couldbeanyone
reply to post by jdub297

wow. yet another act that strips people of any shred of legal rights they have left. they'll pass a few more of these until they feel they've got everything covered and then *BAM!* we'll be dead or enslaved.


reply posted on 19-3-2012 @ 09:20 PM by LightsideAssassin
Apologies if this has been posted, but he's AJ's take on it : www.youtube.com...#!

I'll tell ya what..I think he's right..

Edit: someone did post it..mods can you delete this post please
edit on 19-3-2012 by LightsideAssassin because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 19-3-2012 @ 10:59 PM by jdub297
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
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?


No. Let's not forget that this is the candidate who came in to the highest executive office under the auspices of "change" from the ways of previous administrations, and of government in general.

This is the same candidate who promised unprecedented "transparency," but waits until the close of business on a Friday to relaease not just this re-vamping of old, (wrongly) accepted policy; but, internal documentation of the corruption within the office of his highest legal officer and the corruption within his administration's national energy policies.

Given that Barack Obama has assumed powers not given him under the Constitution, has vowed to subvert the American public by "ordering" his way around Congress, has attempted to expand the intrusion of the federal government into the lives of the people and the provinces reserved to the States, this hyped-up revision of self-granted authority that was once reserved solely for "national emergency" is nothing less than another step along Obama's unspoken pathway to the destruction of the last vestiges of American exceptionalism, all as espoused in the "Dreams From [His] Father."

Had Obama not undertaken the surreptitious emplacement of government in private industry and private lives, this EO may seem "no big deal," as marketeers, black or otherwise, might have us believe. In the hands of a demagogue for whom the bounds of the Constitution mean nothing more than obstacles to be "gotten around," this EO is another tool in the belt of a craftsman bent on the destruction of capitalism, republican government and a self-reliant electorate.

You cannot possibly ignore the context of this edict or the mindset of its author without giving in to his overriding agenda of the destruction of the foundations of the American Republic.

deny ignorance

jw


reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 03:36 AM by rnaa
reply to post by beezzer




Again, I have to ask, you would have no problem with the president having this kind of "authority" even if he were of a GOP type?


Of course. I may not agree with the politics of one President or another, but which party they come from has nothing to do with emergency planning preparedness. In fact, if the President didn't have the authority for this planning, I would sure as heck want to know why the f**k not. It is a vital Governmental function.

At the very least, I count 12 Presidents that have had this kind of "authority" since the authorising Act was passed in 1950: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. That is 6 Democrat and 6 Republican. There is some indication that the 1950 act actually superseded an older, equivalent one, so there may well have been others.


reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 12:33 AM by mcsandy
reply to post by timetothink


Going with your thought on the price of gold and silver - with llittle shops popping up faster than title pawns "stores" you have made me wonder is it a ploy to do just that, especially if Fort Knox is empty!

Then that brings me to the thought that China and Russia have made it known and they are willng to cover Syria and if Israel pulls the trigger we all know we are going to be pulled in some how or another and China will indeed probably help NKoreas push for a nuc weapon and possibly send it into our back yards while we are week and BOOM we have WW3.

Going further on those thoughts how do we pay for all of this without turning to China especially if we can't get a budget nor can any of those on the hill actually do for the people rather than themselves; we are going in the path of Greece and no one is there to bail us out. China is the only one super power that can and I am sure BO would bow to that or the other option is WAR hence the new EO... the seizure of plants, manufaturers and human intellect to produce just like FDRs "path to prosperity."


reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 12:37 PM by sad_eyed_lady
If you don't see any ulterior motive here consider this:

tv.naturalnews.com... Article from last year.

In this NaturalNews.com interview, Farmer Brad (HomeSweetFarm.com) describes how FEMO took an inventory of his farm as part of an effort to potentially acquire local food and redistribute it to hurricane victims. It's all part of the federal government's new "food security" system which really means food confiscation.



The fraud of this executive order: (article linked below):


This executive order starts out by stating that the U.S. President is the "Commander in Chief" of the U.S. military. This is false. He is not the commander in chief unless and until Congress declares an Act of War. No acts of war have been declared in recent memory, and certainly not under Obama who doesn't even seek congressional approval for war.

So Obama is in no way a "Commander in Chief." In fact, it is questionable whether he is even a U.S. citizen.

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...


This was news to me about him being CIC only if an Act of War is declared. As it stands now, according to Panetta, Secretary of Defense, the UN is our Commander in Chief:



• Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently revealed in U.S. Senate testimony that the Obama administration takes its orders from the UN and that the U.S. Congress is now null and void. (wethepeoplefree.com...) and (www.infowars.com...)




reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 05:25 PM by ConspiraCity
reply to post by jdub297


Fat chance I'll work for nothing.. Yes I have talent, I can weld, engineer, construct and diagnose... and no.. I don't give that away for free..


reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 06:55 PM by rnaa
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady




This was news to me about him being CIC only if an Act of War is declared.

Perhaps that is because it isn't true. The provision in Article II Section 2 reads:


The President shall be commander in chief


  • of the Army and Navy of the United States, and
  • of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;



Yes, its true, a moron could read the "when called into the actual service of the United States" clause to apply to both of the preceding clauses, but that doesn't make any sense what-so-ever.

It would mean that either the Army and Navy don't have a CIC when we aren't at war, or that the Army and Navy are of no service to the the United States when we are not at War.

In fact, what it is referring to is that the President is not the CIC of the State Militia except when the Militia is called into actual service of the United States.

The President is CIC of the Army and Navy of the United States at all times. The Governor of the State is CIC of the State Militia, unless the Militia is called into service of the United States.


As it stands now, according to Panetta, Secretary of Defense, the UN is our Commander in Chief:

That is just silly. It is totally and completely false.

It does your reputation no good at all to show that you are so completely lacking in discerning truth from absolute such absolute filth. You should not repeat such obvious falsehoods. I don't have the words (that can pass the ATS rules of polite deportment) to describe what I think about your 'sources'.


reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 07:30 PM by jdub297
reply to post by JBRiddle

An Act such as suspending elections and enacting martial law with out clear and just cause, would make this a threat to domestic security and our Generals would be forced to choose to do whats right (remove the President) or follow illegal orders. At the very least this could cause a Civil War, with different fractions choosing side.


I suppose the real question is when has the fact of martial law snuck up on us, as opposed to an outright declaration?

Does the control of banks count? (BoA, CITI, dozens of smaller institutions)
Does the control of insurers count? (77% ownership of AIG, the largest insurer and re-insurer in the world)
Does the control of industry count? (GM, GE, "alternative energy" (through subsidies)
Does the control of labor count" (SEIU, UAW, AFSCME, NLRB )

I don't know, but who will say when the line has been crossed?

"Are we there yet?"

jw


reply posted on 21-3-2012 @ 10:28 PM by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by couldbeanyone
reply to post by jdub297

wow. yet another act that strips people of any shred of legal rights they have left. they'll pass a few more of these until they feel they've got everything covered and then *BAM!* we'll be dead or enslaved.


Can you show me, verbatim within the EO, where rights were taken away? Good lord people do some research. This EO is a re-hash of the EO that it replaces and is in-line with the President's duties and delegation authority to heads of Executive level departments.

Is there reason for vetting it? Absolutely. Is there reason to think this is some ground breaking precedents; no...and if you think yes than I suggest looking back further than this to find the starting point of the overall power-grab that Washington has been engaged in since the Civil War.


reply posted on 22-3-2012 @ 02:50 PM by couldbeanyone
reply to post by ownbestenemy


okokok. i stand corrected. thank goodness for people like you. i guess i was just caught up in the moment and posted my reply recklessly and without proper thought and research. but still. the fact that they're passing act after act and revamping and replacing existent legislation worries and confuses me. soon enough they're going to revamp and/or replace our constitution. now that would be groundbreaking. but again, thank you for pointing out my folly. sincerely.


reply posted on 22-3-2012 @ 11:10 PM by timetothink
reply to post by rnaa


How about the source of Panettas own words?

video.insider.foxnews.com...

he doesn't say "should". Which is bad enough, he says " would" ask the UN first then "tell" the congress.

Don't deny what is on tape in his own words.
Pages: <<  7    8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^