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

page: 2
106
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I think that I would pray for the existence of planet x on a collision coarse with Earth before I see that man do another term in office. At least the first option has me put out of my misery!




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
The scary one was the one Bush signed in 1988, but they all include some language about "nationalization", starting with the first one FDR signed in 1939 preparing for world war. (that was back when car and aviation manufacturers were converted to war time suppliers like tanks and bombers).

The "consripts" attack on Obama is unfair, since it's been included in all the previous Preparedness orders. You better believe if a nuke war breaks out or a comet it heading for earth, a scientist with the necessary skills to save us is going to be "conscripted".

I can't see any difference at all between the 1994 and 2012 versions. I used to hate Obama but at least he is not the one trying to suck us into WW3 with Iran unlike Romney and the rest of the GOP.

Vote no to war. Vote no to the GOP.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
While I fully understand that this type of EO has been signed by president's past, what disturbs me is that unlike those president's past they did not also have the NDAA behind them. Couple the wording of this current version of the EO with the NDAA and what you have here is really and truly frightening.

It is my understanding that an EO from a previous administration carries over and is in full effect until the current administration re-writes it, signs it and puts it into place. Am I correct here? So really what we need to look at is what in the current EO overwrites previously signed EO's. Is it the "non-emergency" wording that has changed here? I do not know. I am off to read the linked version (or at least attempt to) of the 1994 EO to see.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 


I totally agree with you Old Corp.

I have always been in the mindset that you should "never underestimate that a small group of people can change the world". It has happened many times in the past and has changed the course of our history. I don't think I am living in fantasy land either. I just still believe in us. And I will never stop doing so.

These are not the exact orders from 09' either. As such, the 09' orders weren't do to expire until 2014, so why the updates now???



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Agreed.

We are a all a product of our environment. I know this isn't a brand spanking new order, just updated and with additions, but it sends a big shock wave through people that have been beaten down and battered.

There is too much turmoil going on to turn a blind eye to Barry's latest Chess move.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by harlot7
 


There was no 2009 EO of this type, the last one was written in 1994 by Clinton. Only amendments to those have been made since then. Bush wrote one in 2004 to include people with disabilities.

A compilation of all executive orders for national emergencies:

www.disastercenter.com...

The one previous to Clinton's was Bush in 1988

www.archives.gov...

They are all the same, like the others in this post I can see any real difference in them.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by oxykerfluffle
 


Well apologies if I was mistaken but I thought the 'amendment' was good for a couple more years and was curious as to why we would re-up if it hadn't expired. Thank you for the link, checking it now....



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
This sort of thing has been going on for tens of thousands of years, it should arrive as no surprise to anyone. Unless you have an army to defend your property or your point of view, then you and your stuff can be taken by those that do. It's what happens when primates are armed, lol.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Thanks for re-enforcing the fact that these EO are nothing new. However, i do feel despite that common knowlegde, for some here on ATS, the sky is still falling!!! Lol

Beside the forementioned, what does any of this have to do with the president being black? That has been thrown around by a few on this thread.

I dont get it!



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Does this mean Martial Law is getting ready to be en-forced and then off to the FEMA Camps?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

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?

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.

lol nice job at demonizing those demons love your school yard name calling.

if you would care to read both the old and new laws just signed you would see a few additions that are constitutionally not acceptable most of which are being discussed in this thread. nice try at justifying obamas actions.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL
if you would care to read both the old and new laws just signed you would see a few additions that are constitutionally not acceptable most of which are being discussed in this thread. nice try at justifying obamas actions.


I don't have the time to read the old/revised documents, but since you obviously have. Would you care to enlightening me and the rest of the board on your findings? I'll check back later today to see these unconstitutional laws. I'm interested on what they are!



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by -W1LL
 


How about talking in complete sentences so we can understand what you are trying to say?

This order is virtually identical to those previous orders issued by Bush and Clinton. The OP chose to 'demonize' Obama for an order that is virtually identical to those issued by Bush and Clinton, but didn't bother to mention that fact. That's being a political hack.

reply to post by RicFlair
 


You obviously can't even be bothered to read through this thread, so it doesn't surprise me you can't or won't bother to do any comparison to previous National Defense Resources Preparedness executive orders, that myself and one other took the trouble to link to. The OP is the one making the claim that this order is somehow "different" than those previous orders, even highlighting one section (308), which I then compared to a previous section (307), issued in 1994, to show that it was nearly word for word the same, and which in fact was virtually the same language used in the 1988 order.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
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


all this happened during WW2 in america...i read "the act" and it clearly is instituted to NOT have critical national defense businesses and resources offshored, and thus unavailable for americas protection.

as i said earlier, this was done during WW2, with every part of our society being affected...rationed food stuffs, the rationing of gasoline, rubber, metals, building materials....why all of a sudden is this bad? remember, if it was up to the republicans, we wouldn't even have an american auto industry today.....it would be kind of hard to force BMW of germany to stop making cars and start making american army trucks if needed.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by -W1LL
 





This order is virtually identical to those previous orders issued by Bush and Clinton. The OP chose to 'demonize' Obama for an order that is virtually identical to those issued by Bush and Clinton, but didn't bother to mention that fact. That's being a political hack.



Not identical. Due Diligence.




Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by RicFlair
 




You obviously can't even be bothered to read through this thread, so it doesn't surprise me you can't or won't bother to do any comparison to previous National Defense Resources Preparedness executive orders,



The irony.
edit on 17-3-2012 by emberscott because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I thought Reagan was POTUS in 1988 ??

EO 12656 was signed by Reagan.


PART 29-General

Sec. 2901. Executive Order Nos. 10421 and 11490, as amended, are hereby revoked. This Order shall be effective immediately.

RONALD REAGAN

THE WHITE HOUSE.
November 18,1988.

EO12656 (1988)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 





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?


That's exactly what it is....and everyone tap dances around it like it's not an issue when we all know it is.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha
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)


A wonderful and intelligent man though he was, for various reasons it is not always appropriate to cite the Framers of the Constitution to discuss current policies. Most of the Framers weren't entirely won over by the idea of people like you and me having the vote, so although I can look at their words as what they are - brilliant and insightful political discourse and theory - I don't think we always need to look back to what they would have thought or felt when assessing current events.

As one poster above has pointed out - this is nothing new, and it really shouldn't come as any surprise. It would seem that there is a 50/50 chance of war with Iran and all indicators seem to suggest that it will be far more involved than Iraq. Were the world or the Gulf Region to break out into large-scale warfare, the command of industry will not be surprising.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

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


So Obama is a scumbag like the rest of them? Nice try at deflecting the issue (hey, you even used the race tactic as well, congrats)



Section 601

(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;


Perhaps you will get drafted, since this is what it sounds like.



(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.


I personally don't care how many presidents had executive orders similar to this, sounds like the government can seize anything they want....no authorization from Congress or anyone else, whether in peacetime or a time of national emergency, if they feel it necessary to secure the "national security".

Now I know some of you Obama followers might not mind the government having the ability to take whatever they want, but I am a bit alarmed by this. By signing this, he once again proves he isn't for the people at all (just like his signing of NDAA)

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



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
One must agree with comments earlier in this thread that this appears SOP for Presidents.

However, we should never become so complacent as to accept carte blanche rules to which citizens collectively have no input.

We should always remember that we, the citizens of the United States of America are responsible for and should dictate to the government, not the other way around.

AND as the US Constitution stands as strong and relevent today as when initially adopted, our government should always adhere to the Constitution and the laws of our country.

So moving right along, the question becomes, "how will this President employ these powers"?

We have recorded history to review and critique the actions by previous Presidents, but four years (regardless of the President's name) could never be considered adequate time to access an individual POTUS.

There appear to have been some very devisive decisions in the recent past by this POTUS, and I point to a very disturbing incident in the near past where American citizens received a blatant slap to the face from our SOD, Leon Panetta.

It became clear, after watching those in Congress questioning Panetta and his agenda, that the SOD would submit to a world organization for approval "before" discussing and receiving approval from our government.

Pardon my french, but this is unacceptable and absolute ASS BACKWARDS.

I have seen NOTHING in history to represent by any stretch of the imagination that the US should not make their own decisions for the good of our country.

IF, when intermingling with the rest of the world, then by all means, open discussion across religious, ethnic and other lines to see if there is a middle ground offered which is acceptable.

IF America was ever to succomd to a world governement then what many of us have fought and died for ceases to exist.





new topics
top topics
 
106
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join