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]

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.

I agree that they are both part of the same machine. The same few families of oligarchs contriving market crashes and wars and controlling the media - I'm sure we can both name several of them and we both know how they've been involved in wars and crashes and propaganda for generations. We are hardly even cattle in their scheme.

>Of course they're worse than the Bush admin. The Bush admin simply lays the ground work for the Obama admin. They're controlled by the same people. And the person they put in next will simply push the ball further down the field.

We are both stuck arguing "good cop, bad cop" here. If they are part of the same plan, doing the same things, controlled by the same people, then why is it so important for Obama to be the worst? For that matter, why is it so important to me for GWB to be the worst? Several of the items on your list I attribute to GWB - the TSA, kidnap, war without permission - but so what? We are arguing over which particular distorted, limited view of criminal liars makes which of them a bigger criminal liar. It is silly.

I don't know if there will ever be a cure for the state. My disposition says that education is our best hedge. Getting out of the way is an option but the state has a way of asserting itself and getting worse, especially when the best and brightest have been made sufficiently cynical to remove themselves from the process.

[dionysusdevotee]

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

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

Contrasted to "Bush was worse" which tends to be partisan apologetic.

I think you might want to look more carefully into the history of the invasion of Iraq.
From Democracy Now (Hardly a Neocon establishment)
http://www.democracynow.org/2002/10/11/congress_gives_bush_unilateral_power_to
"Congress Gives Bush Unilateral Power to Invade Iraq Without UN Approval Or Congress Notice: House Members Dennis Kucinich & Barbara Lee Try to Delay the Vote"
(The loss of Dennis Kucinich in Congress is a tragedy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#International_law_-_United_Nations
"The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

I think you'll find that nowhere does the resolution require approval from the UN.

[samayam]

>it demonstrates the continuity of agenda that spans both parties, and the further descent into tyranny.
I think it just prompts a good cop bad cop discussion when you mean to say corrupt police force. Anything someone says in disagreement with the superlative is going to be taken as an assertion of the opposite - something I think we both did there. I do admit to some small glimmer of optimism that says that one side is happily in league with the devil and the other side is just reluctantly but inevitably bought off. Just on even days of the month though.

"defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
At the time there was much debate as to whether this included the right to invade or go to war. When it came time to fund the war that came of it, many congresspeople used the power of the purse strings to say that the resolution did not give that right and voted against funding the war that would pay for itself. Those people were later characterized as Flip Floppers for "changing their minds about the war."

[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

In the context of Saddam's regular violation of UN resolutions coupled with UN inaction, and in preparation for Bush taking his case to the UN this makes a lot more sense than congress ceding military powers to the UN. Something which even recently they've shown their disdain for.

as signed into law;
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.