Obama Executive ‘Order’: US can seize any person, any resource, any time

[donnay]

Obama Executive ‘Order’: US can seize any person, any resource, any time
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/obama-executive-order-us-can-seize-any-person-any-resource-any-time.html

“A mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits (of government) is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.” - James Madison, Federalist Paper #48, 1788.

President Obama signed an Executive Order for “National Defense” yesterday that claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime, for self-declared “national defense.”

The EO claims power to place any American into military or “allocated” labor use (analysis here and here).

“American exceptionalism” is the belief that a 200+ year-old parchment in the National Archives has magical powers to somehow guarantee limited government from 1% tyranny, despite the specific and clear warnings of the US Founders, despite world history of repeated oligarchic/1% tyranny claiming to be for the “good of the people,” and despite US history’s descent into vicious psychopathy (short version here: US war history in 2 minutes) hidden in plain view with paper-thin corporate media propaganda.

I don’t know about you, but both my grandfathers were in the US military during the gruesome WW1. My father, father-in-law, and only uncle were in a brutal WW2. Both wars were functions of colonialism; a 1%’s vicious and rapacious greed.

Now, we’re all looking at WW3 that includes official policy and dark rhetoric for US first-strike use of nuclear weapons on Iran. This, after multiple current lie-started and treaty-violating wars surrounding Iran, increased US military preparations, multiple war-propagandizing US political “leaders,” and recent history of US overthrowing Iran’s democracy and 35 consecutive years of US war on Iran that killed over one million Iranians.

I don’t know about you, but I’m teaching the obvious crimes in war and money, destruction of Constitutional Rights rights (see specific links below), and asking students (of all ages) what they see to do about these clear facts. The first answer people see is to help people get over their “American exceptionalism” to recognize these massive crimes, and demand arrests of the obvious criminal “leadership.”

I don’t know about you, but I refuse to be silent in face of lying and criminal government policies that annually murder millions, harm billions, and loot trillions of the 99%’s dollars.

What will you do?

Here is the US government claiming it can Constitutionally assassinate Americans upon the non-reviewable dictate of the leader, as these criminals take psychopathic steps to murder Americans who expose their crimes.

Here is NDAA 2012 where US government claims it can Constitutionally disappear Americans and then appoint a tribunal with death sentence authority (unless unlimited detention is their choice). Here is the 2006 Military Commissions Act that says the same. This is fascist terrorism to silence Americans from communicating that the 1% are War Criminals to arrest NOW.

Here is US government claiming it can Constitutionally control-drown (waterboard) anyone they declare a “terrorist” as a 1% terror-tactic to silence Americans.

Again, what will you do?

[captain]

Thanks for posting this Donnay--this is very serious and why we need Ron Paul as President!!

[klamath]

Unfortunately this is exacly what was done during WWII.

[TheGrinch]

Now I see what the hope and change Obama was talking about... The Bushes were way too soft in handling us extremists and our "rights"....

If there's one thing that scares me more than the casual definition of "extremist", it's what can be done under the even larger umbrella of "national defense".

[WilliamC]

I'm telling you we need Universal Mandatory Armament Laws (UMAL) ASAP.

Forcing everyone to be armed at all times would take care of all this authoritarian nonsense within about 2 days or so.

Those of us left would all be able to live and let live just fine.

Thankfully many American agree with me and gun and ammo sales are at record highs.

Concealed Carry?
Open Cary?
Carry on!

[asurfaholic]

Need. More. High. Power. Weapons.

[Intoxiklown]

As with NDAA, TSO VIPR teams, refuse to comply.

The Constitution trumps all of this, and my 2nd Amendment rights give me the ability to enforce my Constitutional rights.

[dillo]

they know the war is coming

[TheGrinch]

As with NDAA, TSO VIPR teams, refuse to comply.

The Constitution trumps all of this, and my 2nd Amendment rights give me the ability to enforce my Constitutional rights.
Umm, you're dangerously confusing the Supreme Court with the right to bear arms... The former is how you're supposed to combat unconstitutional laws, not to use force like they are... I mean, there's a difference between non-violent civil disobedience against unjust/unconstitutional laws, but the constitution does not protect you to use force, or even threat of violence against the state. You will be (somewhate jsutifiably) labeled as an extremist, and will only give them more ammo to continue to treat us all that way.

Be better than the people we're trying to beat... Don't think that just because you have a right to bear arms that you somehow have a right to use it against parties who are following the laws on the books (in other words, it's the unjust/unconstitutional laws, not the enforcers that need to be dealt with, and you're only emboldening the latter by combatting them rather than the law).

[JK/SEA]

Tipping point for me will be UN troops enforcing Martial Law.

[Lord Xar]

There is a link on snoopes.com that is saying that all the hoopla is about nothing. Something about this legislation being around since Truman.

[JK/SEA]

Be better than the people we're trying to beat... Don't think that just because you have a right to bear arms that you somehow have a right to use it against parties who are following the laws on the books (in other words, it's the unjust/unconstitutional laws, not the enforcers that need to be dealt with, and you're only emboldening the latter by combatting them rather than the law).

said the SS to the Jew.

[Darguth]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-its-not-martial-law-its-preparedness/

Ready through the new EO and the preceding EO 12919. It is simply a redelegation of existing power and authority. Though Doug Mataconis brings up the solid points at the end of his blog (the link above):

"There are, perhaps, some issues worth discussing that this EO raises. The fact that the President of the United States is still exercising authority granted during the Korean War and the height of the Cold War is yet another reflection of how power, once assumed by the Imperial Presidency, is never surrendered. The fact that an Executive Order like this was released on a Friday afternoon and has been largely ignored by the traditional media is an indication of just how easy it is for politicians to manipulate the news cycle. And the idea that the government has authority like that described in this document, even only in theory, and that most Americans aren’t even aware of it, is a reflection of just how little we know about the things that are done in our name. Those are all legitimate issues, but they go far deeper than this one relatively innocuous Executive Order."

[donnay]

There is a link on snoopes.com that is saying that all the hoopla is about nothing. Something about this legislation being around since Truman.

I do not trust what Snopes says. We have been in soft martial law for years. The way this government does things, up until the last few years, was done incremental so that most people do not feel the full effect of tyranny.

All it is going to take is a false flag to whirl us in a full fledged martial law lock down.

It's time for people to wake up!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUn9JZ1RwVE

[ZENemy]

I do not trust what Snopes says. We have been in soft martial law for years. The way this government does things, up until the last few years, was done incremental so that most people do not feel the full effect of tyranny.

All it is going to take is a false flag to whirl us in a full fledged martial law lock down.

It's time for people to wake up!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUn9JZ1RwVE


Agreed, people really need to start putting things together.

Patriot ACT
NDAA
HR347
Ex Patriot ACT
Now this executive order.


Its funny, even most AWAKE people are still asleep these days. Im not a paranoid guy, I live my life to the fullest but the evidence that we are heading towards totalitarianism is massive.

[Intoxiklown]

Umm, you're dangerously confusing the Supreme Court with the right to bear arms... The former is how you're supposed to combat unconstitutional laws, not to use force like they are... I mean, there's a difference between non-violent civil disobedience against unjust/unconstitutional laws, but the constitution does not protect you to use force, or even threat of violence against the state. You will be (somewhate jsutifiably) labeled as an extremist, and will only give them more ammo to continue to treat us all that way.

Be better than the people we're trying to beat... Don't think that just because you have a right to bear arms that you somehow have a right to use it against parties who are following the laws on the books (in other words, it's the unjust/unconstitutional laws, not the enforcers that need to be dealt with, and you're only emboldening the latter by combatting them rather than the law).

My 2nd Amendment right is completely founded on me being able to resist unconstitutional and unjust laws tried to be enforced upon me. Exactly why do you think our founding fathers ensured our right to bear arms could not be taken away by the government?

[bbwarfield]

I was reading through it shortly after it was posted..... Anyone notice that one of the things it does is revoke and executive order under Clinton that was mostly revoking Korean War and WWII executive orders? No I haven't read through all of them.... but one involved government control of medical records...

How does the revoking of a executive order affect the executive orders it revoked?

If we voted to revoke the ammendment that ended prohibition would we be back under prohibition or does it simply nullify anything added but leave the previous ammendment revoked? I guess the question is... once revoked always revoked?

[raider4paul]

I was reading through it shortly after it was posted..... Anyone notice that one of the things it does is revoke and executive order under Clinton that was mostly revoking Korean War and WWII executive orders? No I haven't read through all of them.... but one involved government control of medical records...

How does the revoking of a executive order affect the executive orders it revoked?

If we voted to revoke the ammendment that ended prohibition would we be back under prohibition or does it simply nullify anything added but leave the previous ammendment revoked? I guess the question is... once revoked always revoked?

We would be back under prohibition.

Not like we left, anyway.

[wgadget]

So tomorrow, March 20, is the day Greece must pay out on its bonds...or so I heard. I'm thinking they might not have the money.

Wait and see, I guess.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/19/markets-greece-cds-idUSL6E8EJ1RL20120319

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/fitch-says-greece-will-default-march-20-bond-payment

[bolil]

Whos buying the guns and ammo?... This thing is deeper than it is healthy to delve.

[JJ2]

Hannity defending Obama on this right now. Saying it's no big deal.

[wgadget]

HAHAHA! I tweeted to many of the talking heads that they wouldn't even be talking about it. But I guess they're DEFENDING it instead. Surreal.

[bolil]

He would wouldn't he. Often Evil will mars evil intent- JRR tolkien. We might find some solace in that.

[JJ2]

Any chance Hannity will cover the Missouri debacle/arrests? :rolleyes:

[idiom]

Umm, you're dangerously confusing the Supreme Court with the right to bear arms... The former is how you're supposed to combat unconstitutional laws, not to use force like they are... I mean, there's a difference between non-violent civil disobedience against unjust/unconstitutional laws, but the constitution does not protect you to use force, or even threat of violence against the state. You will be (somewhate jsutifiably) labeled as an extremist, and will only give them more ammo to continue to treat us all that way.

Be better than the people we're trying to beat... Don't think that just because you have a right to bear arms that you somehow have a right to use it against parties who are following the laws on the books (in other words, it's the unjust/unconstitutional laws, not the enforcers that need to be dealt with, and you're only emboldening the latter by combatting them rather than the law).

Yeah, the bit that protects your right to over through unjust government is not part of the government. Its not even a right, its a duty to overthrow unjust government, or so says the Declaration of independence.

[awake]

He just abolished property rights and made legalized American communism. Any one else still think Obama isn't a socialist?

At this point the law is mostly toothless until the proper amount of government labor can be found to enforce it to its full scope.

[awake]

Hannity defending Obama on this right now. Saying it's no big deal.

He is simply salivating at the chance for his favorite gang to exercise this power for themselves.

[Darguth]

This is not a power-grab everyone. Please see my post on page #2.

The Presidency already had these powers (for good or bad, I'd say bad). The EO is just re-delegating authority from the head of FEMA to the head of DHS on certain matters.

[Sam I am]

If you haven't actually read from the order, and only read articles about the order, than shame on you.


here's a link to the text of the order http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/obama-executive-order-us-can-seize-any-person-any-resource-any-time.html

[2young2vote]

This is not a power-grab everyone. Please see my post on page #2.

The Presidency already had these powers (for good or bad, I'd say bad). The EO is just re-delegating authority from the head of FEMA to the head of DHS on certain matters.

As i was reading it I noticed this as well. It seemed like everything I read was just delegation of power rather than actual new rules. There were several parts that actually delegated certain powers to departments of the executive branch and took those powers away from the president himself (although I'm sure he has enough influence to still get what he wants).

[Darguth]

If you haven't actually read from the order, and only read articles about the order, than shame on you.


here's a link to the text of the order http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/obama-executive-order-us-can-seize-any-person-any-resource-any-time.html

Also, read the E.O. it is replacing: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12919.pdf

It is almost word-for-word the same exact a couple of sections that are just a reiteration of existing US Code and the re-delegation of authorities from the head of FEMA to the head of DHS.

[phill4paul]

Umm, you're dangerously confusing the Supreme Court with the right to bear arms... The former is how you're supposed to combat unconstitutional laws, not to use force like they are... I mean, there's a difference between non-violent civil disobedience against unjust/unconstitutional laws, but the constitution does not protect you to use force, or even threat of violence against the state. You will be (somewhate jsutifiably) labeled as an extremist, and will only give them more ammo to continue to treat us all that way.

Be better than the people we're trying to beat... Don't think that just because you have a right to bear arms that you somehow have a right to use it against parties who are following the laws on the books (in other words, it's the unjust/unconstitutional laws, not the enforcers that need to be dealt with, and you're only emboldening the latter by combatting them rather than the law).

" But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[Darguth]

As i was reading it I noticed this as well. It seemed like everything I read was just delegation of power rather than actual new rules. There were several parts that actually delegated certain powers to departments of the executive branch and took those powers away from the president himself (although I'm sure he has enough influence to still get what he wants).

Well it is all Presidential authority that is being delegated. He could, of course, revoke any of that delegated at any time and assume it solely for himself again.

[wrestlingwes_8]

I saw people making the argument that before this new executive order was signed by Obama, FEMA would have had almost total control if a National Emergency was declared. They claim that this eliminates FEMA from the equation and places in the "correct" chain of command. Would any of the legal minds out there care to weigh in on this? Any truth to this or is this another blatant power grab?

[Anti Federalist]

Umm, you're dangerously confusing the Supreme Court with the right to bear arms... The former is how you're supposed to combat unconstitutional laws, not to use force like they are... I mean, there's a difference between non-violent civil disobedience against unjust/unconstitutional laws, but the constitution does not protect you to use force, or even threat of violence against the state. You will be (somewhate jsutifiably) labeled as an extremist, and will only give them more ammo to continue to treat us all that way.

Be better than the people we're trying to beat... Don't think that just because you have a right to bear arms that you somehow have a right to use it against parties who are following the laws on the books (in other words, it's the unjust/unconstitutional laws, not the enforcers that need to be dealt with, and you're only emboldening the latter by combatting them rather than the law).

Wow, I was going to jump all over that.


said the SS to the Jew.


My 2nd Amendment right is completely founded on me being able to resist unconstitutional and unjust laws tried to be enforced upon me. Exactly why do you think our founding fathers ensured our right to bear arms could not be taken away by the government?


Yeah, the bit that protects your right to over through unjust government is not part of the government. Its not even a right, its a duty to overthrow unjust government, or so says the Declaration of independence.


" But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Then I see that it was already done, quite ably.

The refuseniks that were marched off death in the gulag, were marched off legally.

So were the "undesirables" marched off to Dachau and Bergen-Belsen.

[WilliamC]

Whos buying the guns and ammo?... This thing is deeper than it is healthy to delve.

The more people doing so the better for all of us.

UNIVERSAL Mandatory Armament. It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!

Only slightly sarcastic too.

[Lothario]

Whos buying the guns and ammo?... This thing is deeper than it is healthy to delve.

We might as well start preparing our rendezvous location as well, and plan our next step after the internet is shut down and we lose communication...seriously.

[pcosmar]

We might as well start preparing our rendezvous location as well, and plan our next step after the internet is shut down and we lose communication...seriously.

if you are in my woods,, the animals will tell me you're there.