Smells Like Martial Law...

[dionysusdevotee]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

If I'm reading this correctly the president just gave the military resource allocation, including labor, priority over pretty much everything, regardless of state of emergency.

"Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department

Comments

[samayam]

This executive order is just a refinement of an older one put in place under GWB: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12919.pdf

I have not done a detailed side-by-side analysis, but the section about the selective service, for instance, is largely unchanged.

[dionysusdevotee]

As I understand it, this OE extends the powers to beyond state of emergency. I don't really buy the "nothing to see here" argument. These guys might be incredible wasters of time, but I doubt they're in the practice of spending all the man-hours and research required to write one of these just for the sake of covering old ground.

Its a pretty huge deal to grant the president, and whoever he delegates the authority to to seize industry and press people into labor, just because its in the interests of the state. We've seen how well that works. North Korea comes to mind.

I remember when "Bush was Hitler" and people told me he was going to cancel elections and take over the planet. Now its "nothing to see here", even though the Obama admin is the Bush admin on 'roids.

Lulz.

[samayam]

Oh I'm not saying nothing to see here, I'm just saying put things in perspective

[dionysusdevotee]

See my above comments

[samayam]

Bush did go to war without the approval of Congress. Congress gave him permission to cooperate with the UN and then he went to war despite the UN. Now Obama is just going straight to the UN. It's all fucked, but it's not some new thing and focusing on Obama misses the point. The Bush administration's actions after 9/11 had a massively chilling effect on the Free Press - criticism of a wartime (republican) president was nigh on treasonous and he was given passes all other the place. Once he was out it was like the floodgates opened and suddenly protests that had been happening for years over Bush's policies and wars were dumped on Obama's feet. Same with Bush's economic policies and war spending that had the economy spiraling out of control into the middle of Obama's term with the media blaming it on teh Socialist negro every step of the way

[dionysusdevotee]

"then why is it so important for Obama to be the worst

[samayam]

>it demonstrates the continuity of agenda that spans both parties, and the further descent into tyranny

[dionysusdevotee]

I don't follow your first point.

To the second. There is a difference between the authorization of the use of force and the right to go to war.
Regardless, its pretty clear that congress never told Bush that he could only use force in compliance with the UN. Just the opposite.

[samayam]

My first point is when you lead with "A is teh worst" it prompts someone to say "What are you kidding? B did X, Y, and Z!" which you are primed to hear as "B is teh worst." Instead of focusing on the system that keeps allowing A and B to do X, Y, Z and the rest of the alphabet we get stuck on trivia. We end up arguing about whether it's the crabs or the fleas that itch the most instead of taking a bath.

Sorry, I get carried away with my metaphors.

That said, however, the GOP has goose-stepped its way to fascism for the last thirty-plus years that I have watched, while the Dems seem to be pulled along more reluctantly. Maybe that's just my bias speaking. Ultimately they are both tools of the Control party, which maybe makes the friendly face on the puppet on the left all that much more sinister.

[dionysusdevotee]

I see your metaphor. Really what I'm saying is "the most recent is the worst". Flavor of the month happens to be Democrat.

So Clinton and Obama are the ones who sign the EO to impose martial law, but the Dems are the reluctant ones? The Democratic presidents, Carter, Clinton Obama, are horrific globalist fascists. Its just that their tactics are more opaque to the left anyway.

[dionysusdevotee]

Actually, reading it, and thinking back, what the resolution did was quite the opposite. It gave the President the authority to act militarily on U.N. resolutions without the approval of the UN

[dionysusdevotee]

Although the executive order is an update to the almost identical EO 12919, which was signed by Bill Clinton in 1994, in Section 201(b) of the new version, the words “under both emergency and non-emergency conditions” have been added.

If the power to grab US citizens off the street with no due process, under suspicion, and disappear or kill them outright, without having to even tell people about it, combined with the power to confiscate all resources, including labor, for the benefit of the government, even in non-emergency situations, isn't the essence of a totalitarian government, I don't know what is.

[samayam]

OK, gotta admit, the wording of 201(b) is troubling.

Ha, I was wrong about who signed it. That is interesting.

[dionysusdevotee]

Forgot to mention, you'll find that that E.O. Was signed by the illustrious Bill Clinton, not Bush.