We're under Martial Law already ?

[pinoybaptist]

Interesting article. What do you all think ? If true, where all did this weak-kneed, sissified attitude among Americans come from ?
To be fair, though, WSJ does recycle news, but I missed this one, bylined by Doug Book, March 2012.

Obama executive order imposes martial law

 

[Gina B]

Makes me wonder who they plan on having be the next President. Sure are setting it up nice and easy for whoever it is and what they must have planned. Wonder who they picked for the vice?
Any word on that?

 

[preachinjesus]

Well this one was easy:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-executive-orders/

Come on folks, you can do better than this.

Oh, and in case we might forget...the first President to suspend habeas corpus was...a Republican...Abraham Lincoln...

If you don't want to engage with actual substance keep doing this, but you're basically proving the left's point that there is a concerted agenda to discredit and defame this President with no basis.

 

[Gina B]

Well this one was easy:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-executive-orders/

Come on folks, you can do better than this.

Oh, and in case we might forget...the first President to suspend habeas corpus was...a Republican...Abraham Lincoln...

If you don't want to engage with actual substance keep doing this, but you're basically proving the left's point that there is a concerted agenda to discredit and defame this President with no basis.

The article links to whitehouse.gov The executive order changes are real. Unless the government website was hacked, they're a more reliable source of information on documents than "Snopes."

 

[pinoybaptist]

Note what this EO specifically orders: identify, assess, be prepared, improve, foster cooperation. None of these items claim authority to seize private property and place them at the personal disposal of Obama. What follows after Section 103 are the directives for implementing these rather analytical tasks, mostly in the
form of explicit delegations of presidential authority to Cabinet members and others in the executive branch.

taken from the snopes article provided by PiJ.

Deny the malice of Obama all you want but I used to live in a country where a dictatorship came about because of subtlety and the use of laws to legitimize the dictator's rule in what he and his press enablers called 'authoritarian democracy'.

Let me ask: are members of the Cabinet and 'others in the executive branch' elected members ?
these are people BEHOLDEN to their appointing authorities, in this case none other than the president, and I don't care if they were RINOS or Demoncrats, Watergate proved their loyalty lies with whoever is the president they're serving.
the fact is that if such executive orders exist (and I believe they do) they MAY be used to suppress liberties.
You all may 'ho-hum' this as 'another one of those attempts to discredit this president' all you want, but this president IS GUILTY of at least one clear impeachable offense: DERELICTION OF DUTY and for that alone, in the mind of one who has lived under a dictatorship brought about by public lethargy and executive wiles, he deserves to be watched and watched like a coiled venomous snake.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Where do you find 'dereliction of duty' as an impeachable offence? The Constitution says 'high crimes and misdemeanours.'

Being a poor president is not impeachable.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp

Snopes.com is a scam Two people with access to Google. That's the sole extend of their "meticulous investigative research." Pffft!

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-executive-orders/

Factcheck.org a fraudulent "fact-check" site funded by biased political group

Come on folks, you can do better than this.

One, follow the link in the first line of OP's linked article. Read the National Defense Resources Preparedness EO for yourself. See what the thing actually does. Maybe saying we are already under marital law is a bit of stretch, but not much of one. On a whim -- or more likely a diabolical decision -- this Little Marxist Dictator can shut out Congress and run the country from the Oval Office. If you don't believe that, you're either naïve or being willfully disingenuous.

And two, anyone who would try to pass off those websites as "protectors of the truth" is just plain ... I'll let you fill in the blank.

Oh, and in case we might forget...the first President to suspend habeas corpus was...a Republican...Abraham Lincoln...

Yeah, and GM, the depression, the NSA, the IRS, Fast & Furious, the VA, Benghazi, etc., etc., etc. are all Abe's fault too, right?

If you don't want to engage with actual substance ...

You mean like you're not doing? We're on track. You need to pull your head out of the sand -- or the LMD's posterior, one or the other.

 

[InTheLight]

This executive order is an update of the 1950 Defense Production Act (a law) while Truman was president. This was updated via an executive order in 1994 under Clinton, and after 911 it was updated again by Bush via an executive order. Obama is updating it again. If martial law is a possibility now, martial law was available under this law since 1950.

Nothing to see here, move along...

 

[pinoybaptist]

This executive order is an update of the 1950 Defense Production Act (a law) while Truman was president. This was updated via an executive order in 1994 under Clinton, and after 911 it was updated again by Bush via an executive order. Obama is updating it again. If martial law is a possibility now, martial law was available under this law since 1950.

Nothing to see here, move along...

nothing to see for those who have not seen the potentials of executive orders like these for those who are greedy enough to wield those powers and are confident those who are supposed to help them wield those powers all wet their pants at the sound of his voice and the prospect of losing their plates on the tables at home.

 

[InTheLight]

nothing to see for those who have not seen the potentials of executive orders like these for those who are greedy enough to wield those powers and are confident those who are supposed to help them wield those powers all wet their pants at the sound of his voice and the prospect of losing their plates on the tables at home.

There are at least four assumptions you are making here. The Obama administration is greedy, his cabinet and military are sycophants, and he's going to take food off the table of citizens.

My point is that the ability to impose these sort of policies has been available for over 60 years now.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There are at least four assumptions you are making here. The Obama administration is greedy, his cabinet and military are sycophants, and he's going to take food off the table of citizens.

And where are the assumptions? :BangHead:

 

[InTheLight]

And where are the assumptions? :BangHead:

C'mon, you really think the military wets their pants when they hear Obama's voice?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

C'mon, you really think the military wets their pants when they hear Obama's voice?

Since he fired all the combat-experienced command staff? Absolutely.

He's got a bunch of paper-pushing lower-tier graduates of the service academies running combat operations now. They'd wet their pants at being told of an unidentified bogey, much less a phone call from the White House.

 

[Revmitchell]

There are at least four assumptions you are making here.

OK?

The Obama administration is greedy,

Yes

his cabinet and military are sycophants,

Certainly, the upper echelon anyway

and he's going to take food off the table of citizens.

He will if he can and it suits his political purposes.

 

[preachinjesus]

Snopes.com is a scam Two people with access to Google. That's the sole extend of their "meticulous investigative research." Pffft!

Factcheck.org a fraudulent "fact-check" site funded by biased political group[/URL]

So, to refute my sources you post links to non-peer reviewed blogs that are:
A. Made for netscape navigator
B. Part of a dating website forum
C. Written by people without credential
D. Disproven when one glances over the comments fields.

Factcheck isn't a fraudulent site but is widely considered one of the more rational ways to check statements of politicians and claims of media coverage of all sides without worrying about political agenda. It is actually one of the most reputable sites you can use. Snopes is another, but I usually don't just post Snopes unless its obvious. The problem most far right and far left folks have with Factcheck is that they can't get away with their stretches of the truth and distortions of positions. Always makes for an inconvenient point.

I'll take that as, you don't have any credible links to challenge my points. Thanks :laugh:

One, follow the link in the first line of OP's linked article. Read the National Defense Resources Preparedness EO for yourself. See what the thing actually does.

I did and I have. This is nothing new. This kind of business has been on the books since the 1950s. By the way, who was the President who signed that bill into law?

Maybe saying we are already under marital law is a bit of stretch, but not much of one. On a whim -- or more likely a diabolical decision -- this Little Marxist Dictator can shut out Congress and run the country from the Oval Office. If you don't believe that, you're either naïve or being willfully disingenuous.

So are we being honest or not? Is a stretch being honest or is it deception?

You can call this President any name you wish but the reality is that he hasn't done anything different than has already been on the books for some time. It really does show how desperate the far right is to discredit this current administration when they lunge at anything and stretch the truth to make it fit.

And two, anyone who would try to pass off those websites as "protectors of the truth" is just plain ... I'll let you fill in the blank.Yeah, and GM, the depression, the NSA, the IRS, Fast & Furious, the VA, Benghazi, etc., etc., etc. are all Abe's fault too, right? You mean like you're not doing? We're on track. You need to pull your head out of the sand -- or the LMD's posterior, one or the other.

What is an LMD?

If you can return to civility, you'll notice that my point about Lincoln was made as a means of showing the violating the Constitution doesn't just extend to present day leaders but has a long history in this union. You can throw your alphabet soup at me all you want but you clearly forget my previous statements about the NSA and Benghazi that I've made around here. I'll let you go and research them yourself.

 

[poncho]

The same day US Special Forces were practicing Urban Warfare in America with foreign troops from 16 nations, in one of those nations, Thailand, a military coup was rounding up politicians. Ironically, the GOP controlled House reaffirmed yet again, its approval of indefinite detention by the military. And on the same day, the Democrat controlled Senate approved a lawyer who wrote secret memos making secret arguments supporting drone assassinations of Americans, for a lifetime appointment to a court one level below the Supreme Court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBLxu3W8uaI#t=232

Neocons are touchy about people questioning their tyrant's actions. The facts are clear the republicans are just as eager to consolidate power in the executive and undermine the constitution and rule of law as the democrats. Neither democrats or republicans have any qualms about stealing from some to give to others. Both parties are socialistic. The democrats steal from some to give to "the poor", the republicans steal from some to give to foreign "rebels". The theft is the same only the rationale for it differ.

The democrats and republicans just use different means to achieve the same end. A fascist dictatorship complete with a heavily militarized police state and total surveillance grid.

 

[Salty]

...Neocons ...

What is your definition of a Neocon

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... non-peer reviewed blogs ...

I got no further than that ridiculous term. What is this, Creation vs. Evolution??

Get real. What the Sam Hill is a "peer-reviewed blog"??

 

[Aaron]

Where do you find 'dereliction of duty' as an impeachable offence? The Constitution says 'high crimes and misdemeanours.'

High crimes and misdemeanors does not mean serious crimes. It simply means crimes committed while in office. Same with misdemeanors, meaning less than savory behavior.

Being a poor president is not impeachable.

If congress agrees it its, then it is.