It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
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)
Again, this is almost identical to EO 12919 from 18 years earlier. Note what this EO specifically orders: identify, assess, be prepared, improve, foster cooperation. None of these items claim authority to seize private property and place them at the personal disposal of Obama. What follows after Section 103 are the directives for implementing these rather analytical tasks, mostly in the form of explicit delegations of presidential authority to Cabinet members and others in the executive branch.
Why the update? If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the Cabinet itself. In 1994, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS. In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (ten in all). Otherwise, there aren’t a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.
In fact, that’s almost entirely what it is. The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives. It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush.
Update: It’s worth noting, too, that the second change by Bush to EO 12919 came through an amendment to EO 11858 that eliminated requirements of Cabinet officials to report on attempts by foreigners to invest in “critical technologies” in the US or “industrial espionage activities” targeting defense contractors (Section 801). Obama’s new EO doesn’t reverse that action, either.
Update II: William Jacobson comes to the same conclusion I do at Legal Insurrection
Update IV: Section 308 is new, but all it does is delegate authority already granted to the President under US statute. Here’s the EO language:
So let's be clear about what this EO does not do.
(1) It does not allow the President or the named cabinet secretaries in either emergency or non-emergency conditions to conscript people without (or even with) compensation.
(2) It does not allow the President or the named cabinet secretaries in either emergency or non-emergency conditions to nationalize anything.
(3) It is not a power grab from Obama.
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!
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)
Continuing business transformation in this area is also supported by anticipated changes in Identity Management and the BC Services card. The BC Services Card is anticipated to allow residents to identify themselves for over-the-counter or online transactions, and can also form the basis for proof of authorizations and certifications. The Sector goal in this direction is to reach a point at which any resident anywhere in the province can use their BC Services Card as the basis for accessing their entire NR business relationship with the province, online, over the phone, or in person. (Corporate clients would not have BC Services Cards, and for them BCeIDs would provide single identifiers into their business relationship with the Sector.) Service Card examples include: ? Attachment of government licenses and certifications to the card, such as: Free Use Permit (BC Forests), Free Miners Certificate (Mines), Pesticide Applicators Certificate (Environment), hunting and fishing licenses (Environment), Licensed Trappers (Environment); ? Use of the Services Card as the basis for proof of a third-party status held by an individual, such as: professional status as a forester or biologist; public safety/park certification; completion of a conservation & recreation course; or BC residency status. Beyond that, the Sector imagines a time when indirect (on-behalf-of) claims-based role authorizations can allow residents to use their BC Services Card in its relationships with the province where the resident acts on behalf of another organization. For example, a forestry worker could use his Services Card as the key to proving they are acting on behalf of a forest licensee in the in a particular role, such as tree faller, in an area where the licensee is authorized to harvest. Development and promotion of strong privacy controls for BC Service Card users is likely to be a key success factor in the residentuptake of these advanced BC Services Card functions. Significant technology advances are required to fully realize these possibilities, especially in the areas of (a) Claims-based identity management (which is within the plans and directions of the government’s IDM initiative), (b) enforcement of interoperability standards through NR Sector applications, and (c) rural/remote electronic connectivity (which remains a persistent challenge in British Columbia, but which is being incrementally addressed through private sector telecommunication advances). In the mean time, the NR Sector plans to conduct business preparedness and process rationalization; and to build a foundation framework for integrated citizen-centred service, through the ‘One Project, One Process’ and ‘One Window’ initiatives.
Originally posted by Donahue
Everyone on this site is like a coward dog. You guys will never revolt. You all obviously don't even care enough. People should start banding together.
Originally posted by Donahue
Why wait? It will only get worse and worse. I say we start setting up meetings. And start planning. If the government can plan so can we.
Insurgents require supporters, recruits, safe havens, money, supplies, weapons and intelligence on government actions. A robust insurgency can be waged with the support of just a small percentage of a given population. From the remaining majority, insurgents require only compliance (acquiescence or inaction). The position of an active individual within an insurgent network will be determined by the combination
of a number of factors including:
• The level of respect and trust they hold within a community;
• Their reputation established through previous insurgent actions;
• Their degree of motivation, ideological or otherwise;
• Their perceived loyalty to other network members;
• Their level of expertise in a particular field;
• Their access to resources, human or otherwise;
• The degree of risk they are prepared to accept.
Insurgent networks provide life support for the movements they support, but they also entail vulnerability. Command and support networks establish lines between isolated cells whose operational security may otherwise be impeccable. Some key functions may be deliverable only by individuals with dubious loyalty, for example
criminal smugglers enabling logistics supply or personnel movement.
Modern information infrastructure including mobile phones and the internet provide means of rapid communications and networking between insurgents, but are also open to exploitation.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
So let's be clear about what this EO does not do.
(1) It does not allow the President or the named cabinet secretaries in either emergency or non-emergency conditions to conscript people without (or even with) compensation.
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.
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;
Originally posted by MrSpad
So let me get this straight this thing has been around since 1931. And most Presidents update it, in this case changing the word FEMA to Homeland Security several dozen times and now you notice it? Granted if you read it, it is not very exciting and since it has been around for 81 years and none of the crazy talk that has gone here has happened maybe you all should find some other horse to ride.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Jahwohl, mein Fuhrer.
Would you like a holocaust to go with your new super powers?
You want proof dear leader is insane with delusions of grandeur this is it.
He might even surpass the shrub in narcissism and paranoia.
How dare he proclaim such powers as President under the Constitution.
Many of us have read it, apparently he should as well.