1 "Nothing to see here... keep movin..." I'm not buying it, Gabe! http://tinyurl.com/7ahgmse

2 See Youngstown Sheet and Tube  v  Sawyer.

3 Damn. Now you tell me.

Shame I cut the head off a perfectly good chicken.

4 No need to waste energy criticizing him over unfounded fears that this executive order will nationalize everything or lead to government conscription.

I wouldn't put it past the Obamanites to do something like this to get everyone on the right all wee-wee'd up so as to discredit them as frothing lunatics.  Think birthers and truthers.

5 I feel so reassured now. And that room with the steel doors is just a shower...

6 alright then.

7 Ok, then what is the update for Gabe?

8 just one thing, we have seen power grabs by this administration and his czars so it wasn't really over the top to parse this.

but as i said alrighty then.

9 dogfish, among other things, there was no DHS and so no delegation to the Secretary of DHS in Reagan's or Bush 41's versions.

10 Gabe, who has a problem with ANYTHING Obama says? Our problem has always been WHAT OBAMA DOES! Obama's Promises achieved? . http://goo.gl/L6sEh . No, no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no - GRADE F MINUS OR ZERO! NOBAMA 2012 vote & vote wisely

11 7 Ok, then what is the update for Gabe?

Posted by: dogfish at March 18, 2012 12:30 PM (N2yhW)

Exactly.  What was the point of the new EO?

12 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.

I must be reading this wrong then.....

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.

13 look we have them mandating over religious institutions freedoms.. 

14 Okay; I see the answer, Gabe. And we certainly have nothing to fear from DHS. /

15 Tami, well damn.

16 "I wouldn't put it past the Obamanites to do something like this to get everyone on the right all wee-wee'd up so as to discredit them as frothing lunatics. Think birthers and truthers."


umm its our own side that makes fun of the "birthers".  of which i am one, until our betters can actually offer up some kind of evidence.

17 See? Gabe agrees with me!

That's why I only read the main posts and not the comments.

18 i guess i'll have to mosey over to wnd , as i've never been there.

19 Then what are you still doing in the comments Chad?

20 umm its our own side that makes fun of the "birthers". of which i am one, until our betters can actually offer up some kind of evidence.

Posted by: Lifeisdeath at March 18, 2012 12:35 PM (O+l3y)

Yep.  I am a birther of a sort; I don't believe Barack Obama Sr. is listed on the real birth certificate.

21 As a concerned conservative who is very concerned about conservative matters, I find this kind of talk reprehensible.  I have been vising this website since 1982 and will never again post here.

Harrumph.

22 Yes, Gabe, because this particular President is *just like* Reagan, Bush 1, hell even Clinton. Of course he'll act in good faith! It's what he does....No wait...

23 tami, I addressed that section in the post. Yes, you are reading it wrong.

24 I'm dangling out, CDR M!

25 Fuck it I'm going to say its a power grab anyway. It's what the left would do. Why fucking hold myself to a standard when they don't?

26 As I have been saying all morning this is from a 50s era law. It should have been repealed a long time ago but it has not.  Once enacted, power grabs by the federal government are almost never rescinded

27 so what should we call ourselves when we're worried about authority to take our military at the whim of the UN and Nato, and not congressional authority . and other non issues like this?

lets' see.
freakists? paranoiacists? overconcerners?

28 So I get off a plane in DC, open up AoS and this is what I get? I can see the capitol from here. Should I run home?

29 tami, I addressed that section in the post. Yes, you are reading it wrong.

OK, and Fast & Furious was not about gun control....yeah, whatever.

30 .......so you've been offered a position and you refuse it.....and you end up where?

31 I'm just glad someone in govt is in control and watching over us, you silly conspiracy theorists! If not for you wingnuts I wouldn't have a care in the world.

32 Could this have anything to do with a coming standoff with the Catholic church over the possibility of seizing Catholic hospitals that refuse to operate or comply due to the contraception mandate?

33 worried nah.......and gay marriage has nothing to do with the undermining of the Church either......move along...nothing to see here.......

34 The Catholic Church has been outlawed. The bombing begins in 5 minutes.

35 Well if it's such a nothing why wait till Friday to dump it on us?

36 I wouldn't put it past the Obamanites to do something like this to get everyone on the right all wee-wee'd up so as to discredit them as frothing lunatics. Think birthers and truthers.

Posted by: pep at March 18, 2012 12:28 PM (6TB1Z)

pep, that is one of the reasons I have issues with Him, It is  really not Presidential at all, everything seems to be an opportunity to agitate. such disdain for the country's citizens.

surprise.

37 friday is as good as any other day to dump .........

38 I guess it's kind of like being an abused spouse.  Every time the abuser raises his hand, you can't help but flinch.

39 It does NOT allow the President... brb, obviously we need to rewrite this thing...

40

 Google:"Beyond Conspiracy: Police State America" for a short commentary and a long list of resources and references which reveal a long-term trend...

 Obama's lastest is just one step of many that preceded it.

 I put that little paper together several years ago, so it isn't up to date. Additional laws, executive orders and their like have been accumulating since then.

 Basically, which ever president declares a 'national emergency,' can put us under a marxist dictatorship...if and when he or she thinks they can get away with it.

 A clos read of Obama's latest gives the government the authority to take over -'nationalize'- private companies and corporations...

 Obama just might (maybe) have the hubris to give it a go...except for the fact that when it comes to direct action, with his own butt on the line, he's been something of a coward.

 The last few nails are being driven into the lid of the coffin for your freedom, folks.

 What are ya gonna do about it? Laugh it off? Rationalize it way? Support the tyrants and thereby secure the coffling to your own legs?? Kill the messenger?

41 Does this shirt make my moobs look big?

42 you're only a victim the first time.......after that you are a willing participant....sorry...that is my heartless opinion.......you leave after the first beating.....

43 Don't tell me it doesn't give them powers. I know they have secret cameras installed so they can watch me shower!

Fooled them though, I'm in the closet rubbing Coconut Body Butter all over my erect nipples

44 One question I am posing: What happens to a future president when he tries to cut or end said departments and cabinet positions, ie Dept of Energy?

45

(4) It does not outlaw gay marriage.

 

Nothing to see here, move along.

46 alvin, yeah i doubt the patriot act will ever get sunset-ed at this point, just expanded upon.

47 Every time the abuser raises his hand, you can't help but flinch.
That's not a hand!

48 Here's a question for the "nothing to see here" folks: why give Obama an inch when he's already taken 14 billion miles? Why the new language? If its the same EO, why update it, and release it on St Patrick's weekend? NDAA, this EO, "Stellar Wind," man, this is gonna be a fun year. See y'all in the camps!

49 50 One question I am posing: What happens to a future president when he tries to cut or end said departments and cabinet positions, ie Dept of Energy? Posted by: Alvin at March 18, 2012 12:54 PM

Easy. He or She is killing children and raping the planet so that greedy cronies can get rich, and declaring War on Women

50

What are ya gonna do about it?      Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at March 18, 2012 12:52 PM (MpJXw)

 

Vote for the 'R'. You got a better idea? Argue with leftists?

51 See my org charts that look just like the ones from the Senate hearings in Godfather II?

That's PROOF, Gabe, PREPARE NOW !!!

52 OK, and Fast Furious was not about gun control....yeah, whatever.

No, Tami, not "yeah, whatever." You're suggesting that the EO allows conscription---that is, forced work without pay aka slavery---just like Goldstein did. But even the portion of the EO you highlighted doesn't say that.

It says that department heads can hire certain folks without compensation. It says nothing, absolutely nothing, that those folks must agree to be hired. That would be the objectionable part, right? The forced work without pay. (I, for one, wouldn't mind if the government were employing some of its workers without paying them.) And, as I wrote---even quoting the exact language---the EO does not allow acceptance of contracts of employment.

So, not "yeah, whatever." A simple "yeah, you were right" will do.

53

Um, sorry Gabe. Your assumptions are incorrect. You evidently missed the part where it says, "all forms of energy" and "all forms of civil transportation."

 

As I noted over at my place, the word "all" is one you should never see in any document from the government of a free people. You of all folk should know that SCOAMF is the nation's police officer. He has chosen not to enforce many laws through his DOJ, and then bragged about it. He also has the extra goodness of creating law through EO's.

 

You trust him. I don't.

54 This move has “straits of Hormuz” all over it.
IDB had a piece late last week that the Navy now has everything in place to keep the straits of Hormuz open if some “event” would cause it to be blocked, etc. The EO has all the fingerprints of whatever would be necessary on the domestic front if that comes to pass.

55 One thing for sure

This thing going viral sure won't hurt gun sales

56 gabe with all due respect....look at who he fills his cabinet with....look who he hangs around....look who raised him.....everything about this scoamf (that's for you chad) is a FUCKING RED FLAG.......

57 LOL,  we mostly had folks pointing out that this bill tends to give Barry O extra cover for his crony corruption with government contracts in the Atlas Shrugged? post about this EO.  But of course any true red blooded American being told "Dont do that" wrt to some meaningless activity tends to moon the nanny nagger.  

58 1987 - Iran-Contra 2012 - Iran-Contraception

59 It says so right there in the order. No other provision of the order delegates authority to anyone to

conscript private persons without compensation.

...... Section 502 says the cabinet heads may employ certain folks without compensation (in violation of, among other things, federal minimum wage laws).....


 but does not say that those persons may be conscripted,(so becuase it is not a written contract between govt and employed)? that makes the demand very different?

 that is, forced to accept such an employment contract. I'm not sure where Goldstein got that.

60 the only good thing to come out of this is sitting back and watching all these departments stepping on each others perceived powers.....

61 I don't know if I'm willing to trust the interpretation of a lawyer that can't even read a babysitting law correctly.

62 What a good sheep Gabriel is! He sure does go out of his way to defend Obama...

63 President Wee Wee is just dotting his I's and crossing his T's in preparation for World War III with the Mullahs and their artesian prophet.

64 Why didn't you quote the "super secret double probation" section huh???  Rino ya are.

65 it seems to me that you can really over educate yourself into the state of stupid........

66 Can somebody knock Barky's dick out of Gabe's mouth while he's typing his posts?

Gabe ... remember that you are talking about the guy who took the US into an illegal war (on the commands of France and the UN) and then turned around and used that illegal war (that he never even tried to make legal in any way, at all) in order to illegally tap our SPR to bring the price of oil down for a moment ...  ANd you are rushing out to assure people that this is not a power grab ... because it's like the orders of "the other Presidents on the dollar bills".  What world do you live in?  When has Barky ever used anything in the same manner as "all the other Presidents on the dollar bills"?

What. The. Fuck?????

67 Fade in to flashback. "Why dont by silly Senator.... of course the ADA legislation would never do something silly like require a wheelchair lift for all public pools" Fade in to flashback. "Why dont by silly Senator....we could never envision an income tax rate above 3%". Fade in to flashback, "Why dont by silly Senator....Social Security as designed....is for old widowed ladies, Why do you hate widows". Fade in to flashback, "Why dont by silly Senator....RICO statutes are for the Italian crime syndicate.... They would NEVER be used anywhere else." Fade in to flashback. "Why dont by silly Senator....Obamacare ACTUALLY is going to save us money over the long term." Fade in to flashback. "Why dont by silly Senator....Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.).... is just a little routine maintenance."

68 This administration would never piss on the rule of law in the name of the "greater good", would they?

69 Considering that this White House has had the likes of Van Jones, John Holdren, Anita Dunn and Billy Ayers floating around the halls, something like this is more than enough to raise the pulse. Especially after what we have all lived through the last 3 years. I trust this president about as far as I can throw Michael Moore with Chris Christie on his shoulders.

70 I miss the Sunday book thread. It was my safe room from all the bullshit.

71 A simple "yeah, you were right" will do.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at March 18, 2012 12:58 PM (wPT1m)

'Simple' being the operative word there.

You'll give me a boost up into the cattle car, right?

72 So, Gabe and Capt Ed say that All is Well.   Everything is okey-dokey, then

73 under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary

shall authorize

 the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials,

{ services},

 and facilities

 needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

74 I'm all in favor of Fro Power, baby!

75 All is well morons. The AG Eric Holder will protect our rights. Right?

76 According to dumbasses: me saying that there's a fuckton of Obama things to criticize equals me with "Barky's" dick in my mouth.

Seriously, people. There is so much actual stuff to criticize Obama for. But you want to fall to pieces over the pretend stuff. That's just stupid. It's a waste of time. Next, of course, you'll complain that the media isn't taking the pretend stuff seriously.

I got up this morning, heard a lot of chatter about an Obama EO. So I actually looked at the text of the EO. It doesn't say what a lot of the chatterers said it says. Now I'm the bad guy for saying so.

77 >> What. The. Fuck?????

So what you're saying is the Executive Order is meaningless, because he can do all this crap anyway.

I'll reserve my anger for when he actually does any of this, and then ... molon labe, bitch.

78 I agree with chemjeff. The original 1950 law was a power grab, the last gasp of Rooseveltian liberal-fascism. Presidents should be phasing out those provisions, not expanding them.

If government agents start fanning out and arresting potential enemies of the Democrats by the tens of thousands, I don't want to hear "but Wilson and Roosevelt did it too! so it must be legit".

79 This administration would never piss on the rule of law in the name of the "greater good", would they?

How many people in the government even know what "rule of law" means and support it if they do?

80 While I don't trust the SCOAMF not to wipe his ass with the Constitution while saying "the law is what I say it is", knock off the comments that Gabe is covering for the JEF, especially the cracks relating to his sexual orientation. He's a good guy

81 Republican Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown entertained the crowd at the annual St. Patrick's Day breakfast in Boston. Brown joked about Republican Presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum getting Secret Service saying in Santorum's case “I think it's the first time he's actually ever used protection.”

82 ooops off Irish merriment sock.

83 Uh, Gabby, methinks you and Open Blogger need to discuss this.

84 EO 12919-
clintons ;

(c) By the Director, FEMA, with respect to essential civilian needs supporting national defense, including civil defense and continuity of government and directly related activities.

 

85

I don't know why anyone is concerned with the plain language of this EO.

It's not like the executive would find a justification for taking over a private business like say, GM or Chrysler.

It's not like Congress would go out and destroy the liberty of the citizens by claiming sweeping powers under the commerce clause, or that the Supreme Court would find a right to buggery in the Constitution, or even a right to kill a baby before it has even had the chance to get its first look at the world. 

You people would think that laws are written in such a way that only lawyers can parse out their meaning, with precedent, or penumbras,or the ability to see the words in the constitution change before thir eyes, like its a living thing.  

86 Gabe does seem to be correct here.

87 Nothing in this law says that Michelle Obama can't raid my home and seize all my Prada shoes!

88 knock off the comments that Gabe is covering for the JEF, especially the cracks relating to his sexual orientation. He's a good guy

Posted by: kbdabear at March 18, 2012 01:14 PM (Y+DPZ)

Er ... so the whole Winston Wolf sort of thing, or Mel Gibson oriented comment, is now illegal in Gabe threads because someone might think it's more personal than it is in the other 25,000,000,000 examples of people using it on this site?  Okey doke.

89 I'm with Kbdabear. we might disagree, but we are parsing it and that is what's we wanted right?

90 Chemjeff @ 76 makes the most valid point about this EO.

Until Obama's update, did anybody here know this thing had been out there in one form or another since 1939?

You have to pass the laws to find out what's in them and then forget about them for over a half century. Or something.

91 Mommy?

92 man, this EO is so prolix and Deliberately Vague that it says whatever Hussein wants it to say.  

93 i'd really like to know what happens when someone is "chosen" by their expertise to help the gov't and they choose not to....because they don't want to....they are not getting paid to or just plain don't agree morally, philosophically or otherwise.....what happens to them? where are they sent?

94 The problem is, Gabe, that you view this through the lens of what other POTUS' have done with it.

Obama has already proven to be far more radical in his efforts to increase the influence of government into our every day lives.

It's akin to subscribing rational thought to an insane person.

95 pep, that is one of the reasons I have issues with Him, It is really not Presidential at all, everything seems to be an opportunity to agitate. such disdain for the country's citizens.surprise.

Agreed, which is why we need to be careful in how we react.  For all of you who see this as a power grab, and cite his other power grabs as evidence (and there are plenty of examples), I'm certainly not denying that he would like to conscript people.  But the language that I see says "employ", not "conscript".  They have different meanings.  Again, I'm not denying Barry's bad intent, but I don't see that here, at least in this one section.

@73 you're an ass

96 They'll have to take my Victoria's Secret bras from my cold dead boobehs!

97  "As I have been saying all morning this is from a 50s era law. It should have been repealed a long time ago but it has not. Once enacted, power grabs by the federal government are almost never rescinded"

So this is from the era when Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry?

98 Proof positive that this can't possible be a power grab of post-Biblical dimension:

Water seizure, check. Food allocation, check. Riparian rights, ditto.

But not a single reference to THE LAW OF THE SEA.

Q.E.D.

99 and if this is all a bunch of nothing to see here...why was it written up in the first place?

100 Power grab or not....who cares Im a democrat, Im safe!!! So whose house do i get?

101 @59
Trust doesn't enter into it.  I don't trust him further than I can throw Rosie  O'Donnell.

102 -s

103 It is definitely chilling to think that the President has the power to be able to nationalize industry and seize domestic transportation facilities even if there is not an actual, declared war.


Like I said. Call your congressman. The DPA of 1950 is still on the books. Every president since Truman has relied on it. If we've got a problem, it's with that, not with Obama's EO, which is materially indistinguishable from the presidents that came before him.

104 Really why defend this fuck? On any issue big, small,, fuck this guy in the mouth with a diseased cancerous cock.i don't care if this is a power grab or not, I view it as a way to lower my heating bill by keeping my hatred of Obama pegged to 11.

105

Phfft!

 

Let's talk about my huge breasts.

 

In a nice heterosexual way.

106 You are all missing the important point today. Is the Georgetown basketball team receiving free contraception during the game? Charles Barkley is stupid. That is all.

107 >> The problem is, Gabe, that you view this through the lens of what other POTUS' have done with it.

Wasn't the previous EO, which basically says the same thing as this one, in effect for all of Obama's term up until now?

108 and if this is all a bunch of nothing to see here...why was it written up in the first place?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 18, 2012 01:21 PM (Ho2rs)

Don't worry.  Gabe assures us that it was done for no reason at all, and affects absolutely nothing.  It's totally meaningless and toothless.  It was just done for fun. 

... just to get a rise out of the conservatives.  (Gabe hasn't said that, yet, but I bet he will eventually)

109 The problem is, Gabe, that you view this through the lens of what other POTUS' have done with it.

Obama has already proven to be far more radical in his efforts to increase the influence of government into our every day lives.
 

No. The problem is that you have a firm conviction that Obama is a socialist who really wants to nationalize everything and you're willing to hang that belief on this EO even though it doesn't say that Obama can nationalize everything.

I get that Obama is a SCOAMF and a horrible president, etc. I don't get why I should pretend that this EO somehow demonstrates that Obama is more of a SCOAMF and a horrible president, etc.

110 Gabriel, you don't think Obama is a Socialist?

111 Good research ...

But why the specific delegation of power to Sec. DoL in Part VI, Section 601 ? It may have 'essentially the same wording' that was in EO 12919, but it seems to me that the new EO makes the Sec. DoL the head honcho, instead of a coordinator ...

Is isn't a simple 'update', or considering that the original EO originated from Clinton, could it be yet another degree of 'turning up the temperature on the boiling frog' ?

112 obama is a socialist.......period

113 It says employ, not enslave.

114 There are a number of changes from previous updates.  The word "need" is changed to "threat" in a number of places.  Huge difference.  Another example of why Barky is a dangerous, not the only example.

115 Gabe wrote this up because he's uncomfortable with paranoia. And Ace has also made clear on many occasions that he doesn't want this site to turn into a WND paranoia + dick jokes place. Besides, infowars, WND, and zerohedge already have the paranoia blog market pretty covered. And infowars and zerohedge don't even change up when its a Dem or Repub in the White House. That's the best thing about paranoid conspiracy theories ... they fit all of the data.

116 I get that Obama is a SCOAMF and a horrible president, etc.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at March 18, 2012 01:24 PM (wPT1m)

I'm just an extremist, fringe, fanatic ... but, if that's how you put it, it doesn't seem that you understand the first thing about Barky.

117 I won't be convinced this is a power grab until President Wee Wee is randomly selected during a Final Four game to shoot half court shots for a chance to win a Chevy Volt.

118 This administration seems to save up everything till Friday night then they take a whopping dose of fiber chased by a gallon of hot coffee. Result? A huge dump on Friday night.

119 Malor: "Like I said. Call your congressman. The DPA of 1950 is still on the books. Every president since Truman has relied on it. "

Okay, now the original poster is just being obtuse. We're done here. Winner: chemjeff. Advantage: those who still distrust the Third World Liberator in Chief

120 chemjeff,
well that, and if it is brought up and we want to clarify  what the meaning of is , is, we are now considered idiots.
on top of the power grabs we already know about, or breaking restrictions like the military now being a tool for the UN  and Nato, and not necessarily Americas security

121 Wasn't the previous EO, which basically says the same thing as this one, in effect for all of Obama's term up until now?


Then perhaps it helps to explain how Obama has felt justified in his attempts at leveling the playing field for the good of the people. Afterall, the nation is stronger when we all participate equally, right?

122

It is not the mere fact of updating a long standing executive order as other Presidents have done. The act has been extended to non-emergency situations for the first time, as other Presidents have *not* done. Why did no previous administration feel the need to do this? 

 

Empirical observation: The letter of the law has been routinely pushed past the breaking point by these miscreants through artful misinterpretation, and both surreptitious acts and loud colorful misdirection.  The reason the new development looks like a setup for something else to us wingnuts is because that has been the modus operandi of this administration.

 

They are not going to conscript anybody, not going to force people to work for free.  They are going to keep doing what they've been doing: handing out our money to their cronies, and incrementally seizing more and more power for the executive branch. 

123 Also, I tend to assume that in an ultra-national emergency both Repubs and Dems would nationalize anything they thought was necessary. Really all depends on how big the threat was. In a civil war, mega-plague, asteroid strike, etc, etc -- I really think rule of law would be ignored by whoever had power, regardless of party.

124 fritz would it be wrong to put flames on chevy volt and get a license plate that said onfeyer?

125 Er ... so the whole Winston Wolf sort of thing, or Mel Gibson oriented comment, is now illegal in Gabe threads because someone might think it's more personal than it is in the other 25,000,000,000 examples of people using it on this site? Okey doke.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 18, 2012 01:18 PM

It gets ramped way up when Gabe is running the thread, and rather than a general joke it's used to beat him down personally. Ace and the other co-bloggers have noticed it and have told people who do that to knock it off.

Gabe is interpreting what the EO says and concludes it's not Obama's version of the Nuremberg Laws, and lacking the experience in reading law myself I'll respect his opinion.

One thing I hate that Glen Beck does is to grab onto things like these to panic people and as a happy coincidence boost his ratings. I swear that if the city upgrades a traffic light, Beck scares his listeners into thinking that means the FEMA buses are coming tomorrow

I trust that Gabe has interpreted the law correctly. What I don't trust is that the SCOAMF will constrain himself because of these laws. It's not like the MBM won't happily go along because "it's for our own good"

126 Gabe, what the fuck kind of goods do you think the gov is going to force acceptance for orders over? Unicorns farts? No, it's going to be goods that require real work to produce. That's slavery whether there is an explicit employment contract or not. Of course, I'm an ancap who think that competitive firms organized as joint stock companies would be a superior alternative to the monopoly state. So I guess fuck me, right?

127 well, Gabe, part of the negative reaction you are receiving is your patronizing tone.

Yes, I know, I don't treat conspiracy theorists very well (see also every birther thread I ever wrote except the first one). It would be one thing if the EO arguably said what people are saying it says. But it's not even arguable. It just flat-out doesn't say what people are saying it says.

128 well, Gabe, part of the negative reaction you are receiving is your patronizing tone.


I don't think anyone cares about Gabe's tone - certainly not any attempts at patronizing from Gabe.  I mean, really.

129 and not necessarily Americas security

Posted by: willow at March 18, 2012 01:32 PM (TomZ9)

without congressional authority@!

130 The act has been extended to non-emergency situations for the first time, as other Presidents have *not* done. Why did noprevious administration feel the need to do this?

Nope. The previous EOs on this included non-emergency situations, including Bush 41's EO. Why are you saying otherwise? I'm genuinely interested in knowing who told you the previous Presidents had not extended this authority to non-emergency situations. Because that person is a rabble-rouser and a flim-flam.

131 October 2, 2001- The Defense Production Act of 1950 "It has been some time since rated orders presented issues for government contractors. To assist our clients in responding rapidly and appropriately to such orders in support of the current defense mobilization activity, we have prepared this brief summary of the Defense Production Act ("DPA"), 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2061-2171.[1] The DPA allows the government to require any U.S. entity to accept and give priority to contracts or orders[2] deemed 'necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.' 50 U.S.C. app. § 2071. The DPA authority extends to any and all goods and services. Thus the government may issue rated orders not only for traditional defense goods like weapons systems, but also construction and transportation services and even commercial products such as information technology goods and services, food and apparel. A person convicted of failure to comply with the DPA can be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to one year, or both." http://tinyurl.com/85j5osp

132 Am I the only one who has no idea what WND stands for?

133 It should be remembered that this is really about anticipation of WWII. The socialist in question was not Obama, but FDR. If you look at it as part of the immense expansion of government that took place under his administrations, it doesn't surprise much. And like so much else that started under FDR, it's been par for the course ever since, getting updated every few years to reflect structural changes in the government and office and agencies referenced.

134 No. The problem is that you have a firm conviction that Obama is a socialist who really wants to nationalize everything and you're willing to hang that belief on this EO even though it doesn't say that Obama can nationalize everything.

No. You misunderstand. I don't think this makes him more of a socialist. Not at all. It's his actions that convince me of that. This EO simply makes it easier to implement his socialist utopia.

135 OTOH, this'll make a good plot device for a "Doomsay Preppers" episode.

136 danged italics

137

138 End slant!

139 Gabe, Just two words as to why people don't believe anything the SCOAMF does or says. He lies.

140 #146

Use the Google, Luke!

It's Weapon of Neutral Destruction.

This is a sort of simulated high explosive or a placebo weapon. You use it on a place that is already utterly crappy and watch to see if anyone believes things are different than before the flash and boom. Those who believe all of the general crappiness is newly wrought by the WND are exposed as leftists.

141 >> End slant!

Racist.

142 does this end the italics mess?

143 Uh-oh, somebody forgot to close their italics

It's as bad as leaving the toilet seat up!

144 Gabriel, were other  presidents given  the authority to kill american 'terrorists 'without courts and atty rights as alwaki?
why  were foreign terrorists attempted to being afforded our justice system but not an american ?

145 It gets ramped way up when Gabe is running the thread, and rather than a general joke it's used to beat him down personally. Ace and the other co-bloggers have noticed it and have told people who do that to knock it off.

Okay.  PC rules for Gabe's threads. I got it.

Gabe is interpreting what the EO says and concludes it's not Obama's version of the Nuremberg Laws, and lacking the experience in reading law myself I'll respect his opinion.

Gabe is going out of his way to do this.  For no particular reason, too.  No one was going nuts over this.  Gabe just likes making pretend so and then writing a post to attack the straw man.  Typical.

One thing I hate that Glen Beck does is to grab onto things like these to panic people and as a happy coincidence boost his ratings. I swear that if the city upgrades a traffic light, Beck scares his listeners into thinking that means the FEMA buses are coming tomorrow

I don't listen to Beck.

I trust that Gabe has interpreted the law correctly. What I don't trust is that the SCOAMF will constrain himself because of these laws. It's not like the MBM won't happily go along because "it's for our own good"

Posted by: kbdabear at March 18, 2012 01:33 PM (Y+DPZ)

Gabe doesn't have a great record (as far as I'm concerned) on his other attempts to interpret law.  He still calls the eligibility issue a "conspiracy theory".  If he can't learn the word "conspiracy" and use it correctly, then what chance does he have with full laws and executive orders?

Gabe is wrong on this.  He makes it sound as if there was no reason at all for this to be done (since it was already operative) and then doesn't bother to look at why it was done.  It is one more piece and everyone with a brain recognizes that.

146 Sorry, accidentally italicized most of the last paragraph in #145. The italicized (and bolded) phrases should be "accept" and "give priority to".

147 No. You misunderstand. I don't think this makes him more of a socialist. Not at all. It's his actions that convince me of that. This EO simply makes it easier to implement his socialist utopia.

I don't agree.  The key to a successful socialist is incremental abrogation of rights in the name of the people.  Things like calling for conscription by EO are too obvious, and get people's attention.

148 actually know there is more missing from the paragraph, but it would be a good discussion also.

149 It would be interesting to have a thread to see which things we believe that are considered "conspiracy theories" by each other and, especially, by the Powers That Be here at Ace (ie Ace and cob-loggers.) I don't believe most of the Obama conspiracy theories, but I do believe a few. For example, I believe: 1) Ayers probably heavily edited and even wrote large parts of Obama's "autiobiography" 2) The Pigford settlement was knowingly, intentionally used in a fraudulent manner as a backdoor reparations to illegally funnel billions of federal $ to blacks who never farmed and never "attempted to farm". 3) Obamacare is intended to, over time, destroy the private health insurance market and lead to a single payer, Medicare for all, national health system. 4) Obama has explicitly worked to limit energy sources and to raise the cost of energy over time. He honestly wants higher energy costs in order to force Americans to use less energy.

150 Miss80s thanks for posting that also.

151 @164
Those are all facts, not conspiracies.  There is no way to hide the intent.  I doubt you would get anyone here to deny any of them.  For that matter, I'd guess that most of the country now agrees with you.

152 I don't agree. The key to a successful socialist is incremental abrogation of rights in the name of the people. Things like calling for conscription by EO are too obvious, and get people's attention.

Well, due to the italics mess, my emphasis on his actions may have been lost.

153 #159

This President wasn't given that authority. He took it and relied on a compliant Congress and Senate to not raise any objection.

The trick is making a power grab using a situation that makes you look bad if you object. If the Congress makes a big noise the White House announces that the GOP lack the intestinal fortitude for killing our enemies. The precedent is set and the power becomes permanent. At least, so long at the President is a Democrat. Otherwise the press goes berserk.

154 Gabe is going out of his way to do this. For no particular reason, too. No one was going nuts over this. Gabe just likes making pretend so and then writing a post to attack the straw man. Typical.
 

Actually no.* I got three emails about it, several tweets, and Ed Morrissey asked if I was going to post on it. Originally I wasn't because I thought his post adequately covered it. But, he and Jimmie Bise (the blogger at the Sundries Shack) thought a post that actually examines the language of the EO would be helpful. So I decided to write about it.
_____________ __________________________ ___________________



*The fact that I'm now having to account for my decision to write about whatever the fuck I want to write about has nothing to do with any patronizing tone you're picking up from this comment.

155 3) Obamacare is intended to, over time, destroy the private health insurance market and lead to a single payer, Medicare for all, national health system.

4) Obama has explicitly worked to limit energy sources and to raise the cost of energy over time. He honestly wants higher energy costs in order to force Americans to use less energy.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 18, 2012 01:42 PM (ZPrif)

well these can't really be conspiracy's because the assumption with a conspiracy is something is hidden or obfuscated, He has already openly said this. during his rise to power.

however he has also said transform America and we always are trying to find the parameters of that statement.

156 Well, due to the italics mess, my emphasis on his actions may have been lost.

I'm not sure I got your point, so I'll make another of my own.  I'm a lot more worried about the things Barry does that aren't spelled out in black and white, than I am about this EO.  Again, the trick here is to do these things without drawing attention to them. 

157 WND = World Net Daily

It's an online news magazine that came about in the 90s and at first brought lots of stories out that the MBM wouldn't cover, and was a pretty good source for the alternate media

Over the years it devolved into an aggregate for every World Government Tri-Lateral Commission Bilderbergs Rothschild conspiracy theory that the Paulbots eagerly lap up

158 I live around and work mostly with Dems. I can tell you, most of the people I know consider those all to be conspiracy theories. Most people have never even heard of Pigford. So if started talking about it they would assume I was making shit up and slightly crazy.

159 The EO is business as usual for the Oval Office.

But it says a huge amount about this President that so many are alarmed at this item. OTOH, the same sort of thing came from the other side during GOP administrations.

160 *The fact that I'm now having to account for my decision to write about whatever the fuck I want to write about has nothing to do with any patronizing tone you're picking up from this comment.


Gabe, I think most people would agree that you have the right and are encouraged to write about anything you choose. But sometimes you choose to view those of us who disagree with your point of view as idiots.

161 *The fact that I'm now having to account for my decision to write about whatever the fuck I want to write about has nothing to do with any patronizing tone you're picking up from this comment.

I never called you patronizing.  I said that "it wouldn't matter if he were even trying to be patronizing" [paraphrased] as a response to someone else.

You have to defend what you write (and what you decide to write about)?  The horror!

Tell me, Gabe, do you believe that Barky has committed impeachable acts?  If so, how many (just a rough estimate)?  Just wondering ... to get a baseline, here.

162 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at March 18, 2012 01:21 PM (wPT1m) Gabe, it's not the order; it's the man behind the order. Why you fail to realize this after everything we've witnesses for the past 3 years is beyond me.

163

There's something inherently comedic about constantly analyzing the words of "Our President", and having people say 'there's nothing to worry about.. He hasn't declared himself god on earth... yet.

Remember when these thoughts never came to mind?  We'd NEVER even think that the President had ill intentions.. not anymore.  Anyone with a brain sees the people he's surrounded himself with and comes to the correct conclusion that he's a dangerous, unhinged man-child who has no education, or interest in history

164 anyway These are great discussions for someone like me that has been a low information voter for so many years.
I hope no-one is mad enough that discussion is sneered at.

165 Bush used this EO to knock down the towers on 9-11 and forbid us from eating french fries!

Google it !!!!11!!!!

166 Let me just say I wonder why anybody would give the SOB in the WH any benefit of the doubt, when he has shown a propensity to abuse and made statements to the effect he thinks our constitution is racist in his eyes, boggles my mind.

167 Stroke of the pen, Law of the Land. Pretty cool !!

168 This might sound silly in this post (because i am not inferring) , But I had always wondered how stalin, hilter, lenin, mussolini , chavez, castro, and the countries involved allowed it.

169 #178

The order predates his birth. This just updates the text to cover changes in the structure of the referenced areas of government.

What part of 1939 are you not getting?

Could we not focus on stuff that is purely Obama's? Plenty to work with there. Obsessing on this EO without its proper context just makes one look like a lunatic, as with the birthers. They've let a losing tactic of Hillary Clinton's campaign turn into a losing tactic for the GOP. Do we really need to adopt method of failure from the opposition? When we've got so many of our own already?

170 My friends, you have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency.

171 Let me just say I wonder why anybody would give the SOB in the WH any benefit of the doubt, when he has shown a propensity to abuse and made statements to the effect he thinks our constitution is racist in his eyes, boggles my mind.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 18, 2012 01:54 PM




Amen to that.

172

A gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen is nothing more than a toy or tool for protection.  A gun in the hands of a criminal is a weapon to use to coerce people to do your bidding.

 

173 Gabriel, while this order seems to be the same as others Presidents It is hard to deny that Obama really doesn't mind the idea of making others work for his buddies and voting constituency. He Does believe it is right and just.

anyway thanks for your opinions on the matter.  (sincerely)

174 But I had always wondered how stalin, hilter, lenin, mussolini , chavez, castro, and the countries involved allowed it.

Posted by: willow at March 18, 2012 01:57 PM (TomZ9)

You're living it. 

And there were lots of Gabes around to smack down the terrible lies told about those dear leaders ... since "there is so much more to criticize them about, but I won't be criticizing them here, but defending them against these silly charges that are about meaningless orders that mean nothing and so, given that this is all meaningless and there is so much more to criticize dear leader about ... let me take this time to criticize the insane, dangerous lunatics on 'my side' for not concentrating on the legitimate things to criticize dear leader for".

175 Gabe, I agree that this EO does not represent MARTIAL LAW!!1!!11!1!1eleventy!!
Posted by: chemjeff

Iffen you're gonna use the term like that, you gotta call it MARSHALL law!

176
Remember how Obama promised to "get things done" by "going around Congress"?

This is part of his plan to subvert the powers of congress.

177 ed anger as we saw with Libya, and Panettas ideas re war. UN and Nato.

178 I love being scolded about how I'm over-reacting to the socialist tyrant.

179 (3) It is not a power grab from Obama.

Everything Obama does is a power grab. No wonder this guy doesn't use his real name.

180 Nothing new? Of course, there is 'nothing new under the sun'. 

Sec. 302.  Loans.  To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder.  Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.

181 Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2009 http://tinyurl.com/8xmx3c5 (pdf)

182 Done Gone Galt, well loans and managing resources will be needed as we won't have oil. so i guess procurement, of solar,  and windmills, will be a rather interesting experience, of course perhaps more loans to petrobas will be needed and it won't dirty our own hands if it's done over yonder,, , along with a improved solyndra

183 anybody notice Drudge has a headline up about this that goes to Hot Air and at the bottom of it is a link to this post at AoSHQ?

184 #194

The problem is that the socialist you're reacting to died 67 years ago.

Getting worked up over this is just providing fuel for the other side. Focus on those offenses that solely Obama's. It is a target rich environment.

185

Nope. The previous EOs on this included non-emergency situations, including Bush 41's EO. Why are you saying otherwise? I'm genuinely interested in knowing who told you the previous Presidents had not extended this authority to non-emergency situations. Because that person is a rabble-rouser and a flim-flam.  

 

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at March 18, 2012 01:36 PM (wPT1m)  

It was highlighted in Fitzworth's post below.  Presumably you saw that. In fact, you surely saw it.

 

Executive orders 12656 (Reagan) and 12919 (Clinton) don't appear to contain the non-emergency language.

 

Instead of saying  a particular President had an executive order at some point that contains what you claim it contains, why don't you list the executive order number and identify the section or sections that have the non-emergency language?

 

I will concede that I flew off the handle and have it all wrong if you show that.

 

And you in turn, will hopefully agree that giving this adminstration the benefit of the doubt in anything is no longer a reasonable position to hold.  Perhaps you feel it is unproductive to talk about it openly since it plays into their hands.  But I say that, in a sense, everything plays into their hands.  They own most of the press, at least half the public is easy to fool, and the Democrats will cheerfully say almost anything. If I have jumped to a conclusion here it is nothing compared to the utterly false shit they have systematically claimed about us.

 

By the way, I don't care about gay marriage. I have other things to worry about. I do take umbrage at wrapping one's true objective in camoflage, which in my opinion you have done.  We are more or less on the same side and when you use misdirection to manipulate I resent it.  I suppose I'll stop with the occasional jabs about the subject since, you probably attribute it to prejudice and nothing else.

 

 

 

186 Getting worked up over this is just providing fuel for the other side.

Posted by: epobirs at March 18, 2012 02:20 PM (kcfmt)

Bullshit.  Unmitigated bullshit.  The worst that comes from this on the conservative side would be a little waste of time.  The worst.  Stop getting your panties all bunched up over what conservatives might be saying about this.  I assure you that you will not die on this hill.

187 I'm not sure I got your point, so I'll make another of my own. I'm a lot more worried about the things Barry does that aren't spelled out in black and white, than I am about this EO. Again, the trick here is to do these things without drawing attention to them.

My point was simply that this EO does not make him a socialist. He was one long before this. Now, he simply has a tool which allows them to efend us against "threats".

It's how he defines "threat" that has me worried. But, perhaps I am wrong.

188 I'm now recalling how the Selective Service registration requirements were viewed as an unarguable indication that Reagan was going to draft my generation to fight in South America. Because everybody knew Reagan was the biggest warmonger ever and couldn't wait to nuke anyone who looked at him funny.

189 Incidentally, Executive Order 12919 was signed by Clinton, not Bush 41 as the post states.

190 Posted by: epobirs at March 18, 2012 02:29 PM (kcfmt)


Now you're comparing Barky to Reagan in terms of the propensity to abuse power?  Say what?  And why would anyone care what the left says or screams about?  The left lie.  Constantly.  About everything.  And mostly they project their desires as the faults of others ... which is more germane to your comment than your own conclusion.

BTW, would you call what Barky did with BP in the White House and the $20 billion "extortion"?  I need to get a baseline on your overall position, too.

191
Neither were power grabs by those presidents. This one isn't either.





From the man who invented the new executive power of "Non-Recess Recess Appointments" contrary to the explicit language of the Constitution and damned near a quarter millennium of political practice, -- anything -- is possible.

192 Bullshit right back at ya. The worst that comes from this is Obama gets another term because we got distracted by a non-issue. This is stuff that has been in place for decades. Whether it should be done away with is a valid discussion but not until we're in a position to actually make that happen. Note that none of the Republicans elected From Eisenhower on down saw fit to do so. Not Nixon, not Ford, not Reagan, not Bush 41 or Bush 43.

This kind of lunatic reaction, long after it has been made clear there is no there there, is how an Obama gets elected in the first place and GOP candidates become alienated from portions of their own supposed base.

There is a reason they're called the Evil Party and the Stupid Party. If you haven't heard, the latter is the GOP. Stuff like this is why. We're doing the Fluke idiocy all over again and this time we're doing it to ourselves with no help from the left.

193 EO 12919

yes,

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

June 3, 1994.

194 i would say the best way to parse this would be to find the changes or additions made to the orders from one to another.

195 interesting post . fun ,even if a little angry.

196 So I guess everyone has forgotten how Obama promised to conscript everyone's children into his national service plan during the campaign.  I had already decided that my child would not be part of it.

So if we don't trust the miserable, idiotic bastard it is for good cause.  It is not like he has not already threatened to do what Gabe is not worried about him doing.  Sure a fair reading of this may not be cause for alarm but since when has Obama complied with a fair reading of any law that went counter to his personal whims?  The law never enters into his considerations on any level.

This is one of those things like the drone strikes and enemy combatants.  As long as a decent and self-effacing guy like Bush was running things there wasn't much to fear.  Once Barky was put in charge we started whacking American citizens without trial and trying to put enemy combatants on trial instead of vice versa.  Apparently that is how one goes about reclaiming the moral high ground.  Never mind that this is exactly opposite of what the law allows.

197 "The worst that comes from this is Obama gets another term because we got distracted by a non-issue."


Dude ...  You have got to be kidding.

198 i would say the best way to parse this would be to find the changes or additions made to the orders from one to another.

Posted by: willow at March 18, 2012 02:41 PM (TomZ9)

I've looked at several of the prior EO's quoted here and as far as I can find, none of them contain the verbiage 'non emergency'. 

199
Bullshit right back at ya. The worst that comes from this is Obama gets another term because we got distracted by a non-issue.
Posted by: epobirs





When you and the rest of your volunteer cadre are moving your daily quota of boulders to build the President Obama Patriotic Hydroelectric Dam, remember to lift with your legs, not your back...

200 "There's nothing to be afraid of"  John McCain

201 "This kind of lunatic reaction, long after it has been made clear there is no there there, is how an Obama gets elected in the first place"

LOL.  You didn't pay much attention to anything for the past 5 years.  This is silliness.

" and GOP candidates become alienated from portions of their own supposed base."


This is true, unmitigated shit.  THe GOP has ALIENTED the base on purpose.  Did watch what happened after the 2010 election and ever since?  I don't think you have.  If you did you would know that the GOP has gone out of its way to distance itself from its own base. 

Do you really not know this?  Seriously. 

202 #206

No, now you're just making shit up.

I said nothing whatsoever about Reagan abusing power. What I spoke of was how normal business of the office was made into a big stink that was ultimately self-defeating for those pushing it.

Have I not said over and over that there is plenty of real stuff to go after Obama about? The list is amazing in its breadth and range. So why go on and on about something you know perfectly well is a non-issue and will only be used to make anyone taking it to the national stage look utterly foolish.

Hey, there's a winning strategy. Lets bring it up at the Presidential debate and let Obama shoot down the GOP candidate in flames with a simple explanation that this is a minor update of an EO predating the Second World War. Great idea. Lets run with it.

203

epobirs at March 18, 2012 02:39 PM (kcfmt)

 

That's not how Obama got elected. The birth certificate thing for example, the preimiere "Republicans are crazy" talking point (though it was originated by Hillary Clinton's campaign) did not win it for him.

 

Obama got elected by concealing his true nature and by the appearance of incompetence by the McCain campaign ("you have nothing to fear from a President Obama," suspending his camapign to run back to DC, remember?) . Obama ran as centrist and a uniter and the dummies ate it up.

 

The Dems are going to claim the opposition is a bunch of psychotic cavement no matter what we do or say.  Getting our own message out competently to the public is more important than worrying what the Democrats are are going to say about us. If we don;t give them something to work with, they'll just make something up.

204 not much apropos of the post, but I always love it how some people seem that they get to decide what is or what isn't a distraction for the rest of us.

"its nothing, move along, don't get distracted" they say to every story.  Fine, let's just sit back and watch intently as we march down the road to serfdom.

205 >>>Lets bring it up at the Presidential debate<<<

We bring up nothing in the presidential debate, the MFM does.  Our forum to discuss these things is the new media.

206 What about the freedom of speech/protest law, which makes it a felony to gather and speak out if the secret service decides necessary?  So far we have war on religion, war on women, war on where you can talk or assemble, and right to take over the country and you believe it's all good?  The man has no integrity.  Why would he ever do as he says?  He does as he wants and covers it up with what he says, then it becomes law and no one was the wiser.  I do NOT feel better about this because Regan, Clinton or Bush  had it.  They didn't see America through the Arab lens of Indonesia and a Communist mother. 

207 #217

I've never seen you name before today but I've been posting here the better part of a decade. I'm entirely aware of what happened in the last five years, thank you.

How many times do I have to say it? There is plenty of REAL stuff to attack Obama on.

When I speak of alienation, I'm talking about the idiots who dismiss any candidate who ignores the Birther ranting and raving. Those people provide an easy caricature for the left to use as a club. This only adds to that.

This election hinges on getting a small indecisive slice of the voting public to shift one way or the other. They aren't impassioned either way as we or the Kos Kids are. Black helicopter type shit isn't going to win this but it can lose it if it becomes a handy tool for their propagandists (and their advantage is huge in that they have most of the media on that role) to make conservative look like nutjobs. You know, just like they keep reading about these psychological studies that attach all sorts of negative attributes to conservatism. Stupidity, violence, racism, etc. I'm sure they'd come up with a study to claim conservatives are prone to remarkable sexual perversion if that didn't conflict with the ongoing narrative of conservative being against sex in general except for procreation. Which they do far too much for a sustainable environment. They can't help it. They were born that way. But you can help by voting early and often for DNC candidates in all offices.

Really. It isn't helping. Win the election, then push for that bit of FDR's legacy to be retired. There are a number of other FDR items that could do with being taken out behind the barn and shot, too. But win first and see what you can get.

208 Tami,  I see on Clinton's EO 12919
it does:

Amends:EO 10789, November 14, 1958;EO 11790, June 25, 1974 Supersedes or Revokes:EO 8248, September 8, 1939 (in part);EO 10222, March 8, 1951;EO 10480, August 14, 1953;EO 10647, November 28, 1955;EO 11179, September 22, 1964;EO 11355, May 26, 1967;EO 11912, April 13, 1976 (in part);EO 12148, July 20, 1979 (in part);EO 12521, June 24, 1985;EO 12649, August 11, 1988;EO 12773, September 26, 1991 (in part)

209 Dear Leader can and will do anything that benifits him or his friends. He already uses the Constitution to wipe his ass, whats to stop him from declaring martial law if Isreal attacks Iran and starts an all out all in war in the ME?

210 Posted by: willow at March 18, 2012 03:08 PM (TomZ9)


It refers to 'non emergency' situations?  Where?

211 Why would anyone think this is minor, and that Mr. Soetoro will respect the law when he, and his advisors are willing to make "Recess Appointments" when the Senate is not in "Recess".

Never mind what his appointees will be willing to do with the authority "delegated" to them, especially in regard to "loan guarantees"

212 #219

Wow, forest for the trees much?


The Birther idiocy was a godsend for the media because it made it so easy to dismiss every other issue about Obama as more of the same.

It should have died with Hillary's campaign. Those on the right who picked it up and made it their own only helped throw more votes Obama's way because those anti-Obama people are just crazy. And racist too. It provided protective cover for the claim of centrism.

Yes, of course the Dems are going to say nasty things about us. But do we have to make them appear correct in the eyes of the fence sitters?

Welcome to the Stupid Party. Stepping on rakes and smacking ourselves in the face for over 150 years.

213 i don't see anything yet as Non emergency, I'm still reading both orders. 

is this anything?

Sec. 303. ( Additional Authorities. ) (a)  To create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic industrial base capabilities essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, to make provision for purchases of, or commitments to purchase, an industrial resource or a critical technology item for Government use or resale, and to make provision for the development of production capabilities, and for the increased use of emerging technologies in security program applications, and to enable rapid transition of emerging technologies.

(b)  Materials acquired under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, that exceed the needs of the programs under the Act may be transferred to the National Defense Stockpile, if, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, such transfers are in the public interest

214 Yes, of course the Dems are going to say nasty things about us. But do we have to make them appear correct in the eyes of the fence sitters?<<<

You seem to think the commentors here and elsewhere have the power to reach people that don't even know what an EO is and will never here about the story.

215 i don't see anything yet as Non emergency, I'm still reading both orders.



What did you mean by "I see on Clinton's EO 12919
it does:"....



I'm confused as to what you were responding to me about.

216 hear.  great smod above, the internet is killing my english skills.

217

(Sec. 803.  Authority.  (a)  Executive Order 12919 of June 3, 1994, and sections 401(3) (4) of Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, are revoked. }

i guess i'll try to find these and see if there's any real difference.

All other previously issued orders, regulations, rulings, certificates, directives, and other actions relating to any function affected by this order shall remain in effect except as they are inconsistent with this order or are subsequently amended or revoked under proper authority.  Nothing in this order shall affect the validity or force of anything done under previous delegations or other assignment of authority under the Act.

(b)  Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 11858 of May 7, 1975, as amended, except as provided in section 802 of this order

218 Tami, I'm just looking at things amended or revoked, tto find any differences from one EO to another.
I haven't found non emergency. but on EO (Clintons) it does say this ;

12919

Sec. 310. Critical Items List. (a) Pursuant to section 107(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Secretary of Defense shall identify critical components and critical technology items for each item on the Critical Items List of the Commanders-in-Chief of the Unified and Specified Commands and other items within the inventory of weapon systems and defense equipment.

(b) Each agency head shall take appropriate action to ensure that critical components or critical technology items are available from reliable sources

>>(when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, )

graduated mobilization, and national emergency. "Appropriate action" may include restricting contract solicitations to reliable sources, restricting contract solicitations to domestic sources (pursuant to statutory authority), stockpiling critical components, and developing substitutes for critical components or critical technology items.

graduated mobilization, and national emergency. "Appropriate action" may include restricting contract solicitations to reliable sources, restricting contract solicitations to domestic sources (pursuant to statutory authority), stockpiling critical components, and developing substitutes for critical components or critical technology items.

219 clintons Eo >>>>(when needed to meet defense
requirements during peacetime, )<< so maybe that's the non emergency?

220 EO 12919 (Clinton)- "The United States must have an industrial and technology base capable of meeting national defense requirements, and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. Obama's EO- "The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency." *Emphasis mine

221 #221

And where do you suppose they get inspiration for the red meat questions?

Look at how the birth control thing got started. George Stephenopolous brought it up completely out of the blue and threw it at Romney. Romney tried to dismiss as something that had no traction at the state or federal levels but the important thing was to get him talking about it at all.

At the time, the reaction was WTF? But it turned out they had a long game going and had a whole 'war on women' meme to throw out in hopes of scaring some fence sitters.

Media Matters has a huge better to spend on poring over TV, radio, and blogs for anything that might be of use. If they notice conservatives getting worked into a froth over a non-issue you can bet they'll pass that along as a potential hot issue.

So focus, people. Find core issues that can be argued concisely with concrete facts to back up those arguments. And keep hammering at those. Don't go on snipe hunts.

222 Gabe's a trusting, GOP, Romney-embracing, kind of guy.  If he says no need to worry, then all of you other sheep should just get in line right behind him.  I'll stay behind - keep an eye out just in case...

The MFers already showed you their disdain for the constitution by their "recess appointments", their mandatory purchasing of a private product, deployment of troops without congressional approval...I'll stop there for now.

So here's Gabe, and his sheep-shearing ilk, pushing libtart Mittens down our throats and telling us not to worry about this EO.  Hope nobody gets hurt following this advice.

Me, I'm going to exercise a lot more caution, and I think given the proof, it's well warranted.

223

Gabe, you might want to consider the major difference of this EO to all other EOs issued on the matter.

 

Who issued it.

 

This President believes in the government's ability to compel citizens to do things, and to redistribute money and goods in the name of 'fairness'. Yes, the text is pretty much the same, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts the intent is much different. And this one is more likely to try to use such power.

 

So you made the mistake of reading this EO in isolation. The big picture is what this is about, and that is why you came to the wrong conclusion.

224 Welcome to the Stupid Party. Stepping on rakes and smacking ourselves in the face for over 150 years.Posted by: epobirs

Ace of Spades: home to the Rake Marathon and 5k.

225

Yes, of course the Dems are going to say nasty things about us. But do we have to make them appear correct in the eyes of the fence sitters?

Welcome to the Stupid Party. Stepping on rakes and smacking ourselves in the face for over 150 years.

Posted by: epobirs at March 18, 2012 03:14 PM (kcfmt)

 

I never believed the birth certificate was an issue. Millions of others also did not think it was anything. And yet it is attributed to all of us.

 

It does not matter what we do. They will accuse us anyway. As along as somebody somewhere gave them a sound bite or an image to use, it will be falsely attributed to all of us.  If nobody says anything stupid they'll send Mobies to say something stupid for us.

 

To win we have to have a coherent small government message out there, and highlight how big government has failk and must fail. Have to provided a consistent clear vision. The Democrat.media will continue to misrepresent and the only path is a loud clear message of our own. The message has to be fact-based and has to cut through the static.

 

I should just ignore this executive order?   Things that would have sounded crazy three years ago don't sound so crazy anymore.  I am not really sure how the Novembeer elections will unfold. The way they are conducted may be 'unprecedented' in some way.

226 Sorry Gabe but, as you spend a lot of time defending yourself and your take on the document, you forget the actual people who will defend the document, or not, are folks like Holder and every limp wristed lefty lawyer in the country!
You've stated your opinion and I have to respect you for that, however, your opinion means nothing when it comes up against the actions of Zero and his DoJ!
Besides, you really didn't address the scenario described by Fitz.

227 #230

Yes, they will hear about the story. Or rather there will be a story where there was none before. Because people who should know better by now are rising to the bait and making it a story. If enough guys on blogs and the radios get sucked into it the story grows into something the MSM can report as "Look at what those wacky conservatives are upset about now! Heh, heh, heh."

A better question is how many of the fence sitters have heard the name Solyndra and what does it mean to them? If that number is low on November 2nd, it will be apparent that a lot of time was wasted on things that didn't any useful purpose.

At least, not for us. There are others who will think it was immensely useful. And beautiful too in that it was entirely self-inflicted and cost them neither time or money.

228 #241

When the EO is a minor update of a 73 year old document, yes, it does sound crazy. Extremely crazy. Black helicopter, chem trails, fire doesn't melt steel crazy.

Let them send their mobies. They're just more trolls.

But don't help them. Which is exactly what this is doing. If they're going to win by lying and cheating, at least make them do their own work. Right now, there is probably some DNC apparatchik reading this thread and thinking, "Wow, I wish I'd thought of that one. It would have been bonus time for sure!"

229 >>Yes, they will hear about the story.<<<

We will remain in disagreement about this, at least as far as I think about the definition of "fence sitters".

The DNC won't find this useful, that is the party of "ohnoes! your contraception isn't free!".

230
Ace of Spades: home to the Rake Marathon and 5k.

***

It's a triathalon. You forgot the hobo hunting.

231 *Emphasis mine

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at March 18, 2012 03:31 PM (d6QMz)

Miss80's you poionted it out better than I .

yes it seemed to 'indicate it ' also " non emergency"  clintons. text.

232 #245

Big difference.

Contraception and who pays for it is at least based on real things. For us it is an easy call to say people should pay for their own recreational sex. Very straightforward conservative stance. And the counter-argument that everyone should be provided with the means to have s much sex as they want at no direct cost to themselves is a straightforward socialist argument.

The point of contention is personal responsibility for personal choices and whether government taking a role in such things has a negative effect on society.

It doesn't matter which side you fall on, this is at least something that can be reduced to a functional debate.

Barking at shadows is another thing entirely. If you couch it as a policy issue as this longstanding item should continue, you have a basis for debate. But making it into the prelude to the Reichstag Fire just mires us in a worthless distraction.

233 The Birther idiocy was a godsend for the media because it made it so easy to dismiss every other issue about Obama as more of the same.

Posted by: epobirs at March 18, 2012 03:14 PM (kcfmt)

LOL.  The eligibility issue never got any traction, for good or ill, thanks to the Vichy Right - which you perfectly represent here.  Your protestations that you are really more about going after Barky than going after those on the right you feel are an embarrassment to you (and let me tell you that you are more than an embarrassment to us) falls pretty short.  You are more about attacking conservatives than anything.  Obviously.

And it's nice to know that you think that a Constitutional requirement for the highest office in the land is a silly issue that only hurts your cause.  Do you even listen to yourself?  I doubt it.

234 epobirs while i understand your point. How does one know what is a move to limit rights, and what isn't until it is debated and understood?
are there only approved topics? if so what are they?  Fast  and Furious would have been thrown on the ash heap as well. imho.

when we have leadership that is anything but transparent this is what happens, that He loves to Play with the people is an issue with HIM.
Remember when we started with a man that talked about our military as strafing civilians.
remember we are discussing someone that doesn't have typical american ideals,  He thinks we're not a decent country, He focused on issues we had instead of issues we have overcome and fight to overcome every day to strive to do well  ,He Chose to scout out emntors that are distasteful and ideologically msifits in a civil society.  he also chose those same types to be in power in the Administration.

235 "It is not a power grab from Obama." ____________ I would agree with you Ace, except for one teensy, tiny thing: The Marxist Cancer doesn't recognize the US Constitution. He thinks it is some inconvenient piece of paper that he can just ignore. He is a power-mad, power-hungry psychopath. He is the type who, if the polls the week before the election, show Romney beating him, would order Romney's arrest. He would order the election to be canceled. He would say that under a "national emergency" he had to have his term extended by "executive order." Of course, that all sounds like nutsy conspiratorial stuff along the lines of UFOs and other crap. But I have seen loons like Obama before. Hitler, Mussolini, Kim Jong-Il - men who do not think that rules hold them back. And when someone points out to Obama that there are rules that he must comply with, such as, well, for instance, telling the Congress under the War Powers Act that he is sending soldiers into war in Libya within 90 days of doing so, he basically told Congress to go fuck themselves. He names Czars without congressional approval; he passes laws and demands we comply without any whimper from the media. So, perhaps under this Executive Order "It is not a power grab from Obama." My answer? I don't put anything past this radical son-of-a-bitch. Nothing.

236 Whoever controls the Spice controls everything.

237 Glad I went out of my way to note that this EO might just be a routine update, then -- after searching out old EOs -- noting in an update that the Clinton EO of 94 is where the language was changed.

Because I wouldn't want to give the impression that I'm an expert on something when I don't claim to be.

So again, glad I did that.

Tell me again, though:  what's your excuse for pushing a liberal for the GOP nomination?

238 Section 502 says the cabinet heads may employ certain folks without compensation (in violation of, among other things, federal minimum wage laws), but does not say that those persons may be conscripted, that is, forced to accept such an employment contract. I'm not sure where Goldstein got that.

Oh, did I the non-lawyer use the wrong legal word for when "cabinet heads may employ certain folks without compensation (in violation of, among other things, federal minimum wage laws)"? 

So sorry. I'm sure my meaning was completely unclear as a result.

239 clear as a bell now.

well perhaps not,  but it might have been.

240 Gabe writes: I got up this morning, heard a lot of chatter about an Obama EO. So I actually looked at the text of the EO. It doesn't say what a lot of the chatterers said it says. Now I'm the bad guy for saying so.

I'm curious, how did you miss all the links and updates in my post?  They were there last night, within a half-hour of my writing both the  post and a couple of Tweets asking for clarification?  Which Tweets I sent out -- and which post I wrote -- because I wanted someone with knowledge of this subject to help me with, you know, clarification.

If you wrote this this morning, wasn't it already clear from my post that I saw this as a rather routine revision that, because the government itself has grown, gives Obama more authority under the conditions of the EO?

And yet you present me here as if I'm some wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.

Fringe.  To the far far right of a typical conservative like, say, Mitt  Romney.

241 Jeff, your post on protein has laid it out pretty well.
I don't undertsand why Gabe became angry at the questioning  of what it meant ,
as most of us are not legal scholars and we already Know Obama's propensity to state the  constitution is a living and flowing document, so we have to stay on our toes.
so sometimes we hit the bullseye sometimes we miss. but paying attention and parsing his legislation is healthy for All of us , for ourselves and those not paying attention.

242 anyway , peace.

243 It amuses me when Ace and the gang get upset that we sometimes act like a bunch of MORONS.

Meanwhile, just get on the train, get off when it breaks, walk home and wait for them to call and apologize because you know this collection of useless twits couldn't run a Dairy Queen.

244 So just for  purposes of further clarification, the legal reading of the particular portion of the EO you singled out to note my wild-eyed paranoia is that "the cabinet heads may employ certain folks without compensation (in violation of, among other things, federal minimum wage laws)," but that's if the employment is voluntary on the part of those being employed?

I really do need this explained.  As I said in the post and comments, I didn't feel like combing over the thing myself, which is why I asked for the commentary from people who do such things for a living.

245 Maybe it's the return of the Dollar-a-year men.

246 well we know fast and furious also had a document dump friday, guess i'll check it out.

247 toby, you made me bing;

Dollar-a-Year Man When the United States entered World War I in 1917, the moral fervor of the American commitment, inspired by President Woodrow Wilson's...

248 Anyone? This site is ripe with lawyers, ain't it?  Is that what the section Malor cites means?  That the employment would be voluntary in response to cabinet head requests for services?

249 You keep telling yourself that gabe ...it will make you feel better

250 Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President . . . to require acceptance . . . of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense . . . is delegated to [the various named cabinet secretaries.]


Section 502 says the cabinet heads may employ certain folks without compensation (in violation of, among other things, federal minimum wage laws), but does not say that those persons may be conscripted, that is, forced to accept such an employment contract.

i'm trying to figure it out but  my brain must be numb from running back and forth to EO's

251 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.

252 So, nothing to get excited about here I'll be the judge of that.

253

Posted by: willow at March 18, 2012 06:09 PM (TomZ9)

I like how they cavalierly distributed strictly Presidential authority and then summed up the nearly two pages of code describing the "restrictions" (LOL) with just:

"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."

So ... they just glided over little detailed bits, such as

(Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160, 710(b), subsection 2):

(2) The President shall be guided in the exercise of the authority provided in this subsection by the following policies:

ii)  Appointments to positions other than advisory or consultative may be made under this authority [to impose ] only when the requirements of the position are such that the incumbent must personally possess outstanding experience and ability not obtainable on a full-time, salaried basis.

-------------------------------

They were just trying to save time and paper, I'm sure.  Who needs all these messy details?

254

Just read through EO 12919 and the new one. 

The new EO updates Cabinet positions as discussed, replacing the FEMA chief with the Secretary of Homeland Security.  Also shuffles the chairs in a few other ways, increasing the participation of the Sec of Commerce.

In paragraph 201(b), the language "emergency and non-emergency" is a new thing.  It does not come from 12919. 

In sections 301 - 308, there are some significant expansions of authority to buy, organize, and dispose of Government owned equipment in private facilities. 

In section 701, the Defense Production Act Committee (authorized by the Act) is activated.  This was not present in 12919. 

In the Definitions section, "National Defense" is added and is tied to the Stafford Act, the act that authorizes Federal response to disasters. 

Given the changes, it may be premature to say "It is not a power grab from Obama." without doing a little research.  Just sayin'.

255 That 'Enabling Act'?
Nothing to get worked up about.
The Chancellor is not making some sort of "power grab".
Relax, you unfounded fearerers.

256 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

257 acquisition

hmmm, don't see that word in any of the above discussion ...

FAR

not there either...

258 Let me be perfectly clear: NDRP really means "Regime Defense".

259 "(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." You most incredible fucking DUMBASS. “… 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. … Sec. 802. General. … (c) Excluded from the authorities delegated by section 802(a) of this order are authorities delegated by parts IV and V of this order, authorities in section 721 and 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2170 2171, and the authority with respect to fixing compensation under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153. …” Gabriel Malor in shitpost non-shocker! Why the fuck does this guy have posting privileges anywhere? He has never said a god damned thing that was not wrong SOMEHOW.

260 In allows Obama to pull a stunt during peacetime. (3) It is a power grab from Obama.

261 A lot of people are too too long this young ideas

262

Test

Test

263 People, what this law does is allow the government to prepare for and fight a war in which the non-fighting American public actually has to get off their bottoms and participate. Which might mean good old fashion reorganization of industry for war production as well as food and energy rations. Read up on government controls during WWII.  The best option is to not get into a war in which the American public has to stand in line for food in order to support the troops. I hope we don't get there, as there will be a lot of people that have no idea that it is possible to live on 2k calories day.  Some of the comments are just wow. Really, look around you, what would the government do with the stuff you  own? Why would they want it? What would they do with it?