Has anyone seen or heard of this???
 

Just came across this document today and found it completely and utterly unbelievable.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...s-preparedness

Why? It's been around for decades. What is your concern?

A. Did you read it?

B. If it has been around for decades why has it been changed now?

I'm missing it: what has been significantly changed other than updating, given the bottom several paragraphs? What is the concern that they've "slipped through" in the update?

I agree small changes can bring big consequences to reality (Patriot Act) but I simply don't know the specific concern here. Not saying there isn't one, just tell me what it is, I'm missing it.

You're much further ahead to ignore this vapid, pre-programmed cow.

Fortunately I don't subject myself to her insolent drivel.

This is just another cog in the wheel of the Orwellian nightmare that Obama is trying to obliterate our Constitution with.

Now, any US citizen that happens to be a foreign correspondent, particularly in one of his unprovoked war action territories, can now be considered at Terrorist sympathizer if they don't tote the party line in their reporting and held indefinitely -

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3221...government.htm

Complete control of the media under threat of detention or death.... The Obama way

Question: What is the difference between the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order, that Clip Clop references; and the entirely different HR 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act as passed by Congress, that Rude Boy quotes?

Answer: Rude Boy Elvis clearly doesn't note the difference. They are two entirely different things.

How vapid of him. How pre-programmed of him.
Oh, teh stupid. It burns.

In regards to Clip Clops reference, here is Snopes discussing the Nat. Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order and the false fears currently flying around the internet about it. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp

Which, again, has nothing at all to do with the entirely different thing Rude Boy Elvis is moronically bellowing on about.

You worry too much. Trust and love our fearless leader. He has your best interest at heart. Now drink your kool-aid.

For me, it comes down to recent redefining of "National Defense" and the inclusion of DHS. DHS has been given far too wide a berth since its inception and the wording of this EO is definitely far too broad brush for my tastes.

what about the act is causing you concern?

DHS and the terminology, specifically "national defense" and the very vagueness of it all.
War isn't what it used to be.

Absolutely. that was entirely my point as well. And anyone with an ounce of logical comprehension gets there too.
Unfortunately, when this blowharded sow is quoted, attacking me, I will defend myself. But no defense is really required. Anyone with a 5th grade level of reading comprehension can read my quote:

>>>This is just another cog in the wheel of the Orwellian nightmare that Obama is trying to obliterate our Constitution with.<<<

Another, as in; "in addition to". Get it? I still doubt you do.

Another Constitutional shredding EO, which is part and parcel for this president who's believes he's above and holds nothing but disdain for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Isn't it time for you to crawl back up a cow's ass.hole? - what a perfect occupation you've chosen for yourself... :p

it all speaks to what i posted the other day-the wasted money on duplication of tasks. all they've done with creating another agency is spend more money; i doubt in the long run it makes us 'safer'. another thing that boggled my mind after 9/11 and still does-smaller towns going after 'their' money for fighting potential terrorist attacks. yeah, cause hamburg arkansas is high on a list of targets. :rolleyes:
it would be nice if people would stop trying to hitch their wagon to the gravy train, as tho it's 'free' money and they need to get their share. ridiculous. again, bloating of the fed, rather than states having the ability to allocate to their areas correctly. but, that's all beating a dead horse, isn't it?

i agree with that, especially after his comments a few days ago.

"National Defense" hasn't been redefined in the Executive Order document you reference. It's an executive order first put in place under Truman, and re-upped by every President since. It doesn't give any President any powers at all outside of his current legal powers.

It clearly, in the last page, has multiple exemptions explaining how, exactly, it specifically is not to be construed as such.

Did you read the Snopes comments about this? Please, read that.

Rude Boy Elvis is, of course, referencing something entirely different, a law passed by Congress, and something to have due concern about. It appears he's confused the two different items. Perhaps as they both have the words "national defense" in the title.

Most people with a 5th grade reading level don't mistake the subject matter and go off on completely different tangents, talking about something else entirely, as severely as you :D

And they have a much more complicated vocabulary than an angry 8-year-old :tro:

Sec. 804. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Are you referring to this? I am fairly fluent in contract speak and this does not say what I think you think it says.
I did read the snopes comments too, they do not address my concerns, that DHS is now listed (once again way too wide a berth since inception) along with what can now be considered a reason to implement this. I didn't say the EO redefines National Defense, circumstances are what have redefined the term.
Not to mention the individual secretaries that these duties would fall to, but that is a different concern altogether.

The question is, is "ND" as listed in this benign EO defined exactly as in the NDAA?

Try this: even Hot Air says nothing to worry about
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/1...rab-or-update/

Obama is far from the first President to criticize the SC. Jackson, Hoover, FDR and Reagan are notable examples of Presidents who criticized their decisions. Reagan, in particular, was big on demanding constitutional amendments to override SC decisions with which he disagreed.

And Bush, of course, went off about activist federal judges re: gay marriage.

And not just Presidents. Robert Bork criticized them; Rick Perry did (though he also thought there were only eight), and I imagine there are more if one wants to google.

but, as i posted in the aca thread, obama has become the first to be critical in between hearing and decision.

And it's being defended by some on here. Un-f.ucking-believable.

It's not o.k. Period.

a lot of what's been going on lately has been defended, and i don't get why.


some notable quotes:

A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.
Napoleon Bonaparte

As long as enough people can be frightened, then all people can be ruled. That is how it works in a democratic system and mass fear becomes the ticket to destroy rights across the board.
James Bovard

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison


the last is the one that has resonated with me the last few months/years.


found another that i thought should be shared.

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"And I I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that, uhhh, an uninelected, uhhh, group of of people would somehow overturn, uhhh, a duly constituted and and passed, uh, law. Uh, well, uh, uh, is a good example. Uhh, and I'm pretty confident that this, this court will recognize that, uh, and not take that step."

— President Obama, April 2


wtf?

That's terrible, his teleprompter must have been on the blink..


Here's some quotes from our former leader....


"They misunderestimated me." --Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it." --Philadelphia, Penn., May 14, 2001

"This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite -- I call you my base." --at the 2000 Al Smith dinner

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe -- I believe what I believe is right." --Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." --State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003, making a claim that administration officials knew at the time to be false

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." --speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" --Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." --Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." --Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." --to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his handling of the Hurricane Katrina debacle, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005

"My answer is bring them on." --on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

"I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America."


Now that is a classic...........

“I’m not concerned about the very poor.” :D


"I'm not interested in the suburbs". :tro:

a lot of effort, when you could have just typed 'he's still not as dumb as bush'. no one could argue that. of course he still could have five years to add to his body of work, so who knows?

It's simply amazing that these Obama lemmings have absolutely nothing to offer in defense of him, only to respond with OHHHH WAIT GUYZ BUSH WAS DUMMMMMBER AND WOOOORSER!!!.... It's frigging laughable... Pro Tip - most everyone on the planet knows that Bush was horrible. Your guy was supposed to be the antithesis of Bush, and after almost 4 years turns out to be exactly the same - only way more insidious than "Dumya" ever could think of being

Yup, so dumb he fooled the entire world into going to war. Cannot have it both ways.

:tro:

it has always cracked me up when you point out something, and the rejoinder is 'yeah, look at how this other guy did something along the same lines'...i thought the adage was always two wrongs don't make a right?
yet another example of 'i can bash your guy, but don't you dare bash mine'. :rolleyes: surely, a defensible position to take.

No effort at all...I got a million of em....and if he had 20 more years to add to his work, wouldn't come close to catching up...Yes, and i still blame dumya/Iraq for our present day problems...and no Bush/Iraq, no President Obama.

Yes he did...with fabricated intelligence and lies..and the coalition was a joke...what did it consist of, 90% U.S., 5% Brit, 5% others, close enough.

Just think, if it wasn't for his brothers state, hanging chads and SCOTUS there would be no president dumya bush...or President Obama...

Side note, found this out year after the election...the lady that designed that Fla ballot was from my old HOME TOWN!...gonna hunt her down some day and give her a big slap..:D

The very stupid are often regarding as master manipulators. No one in Congress had access to the same intelligence? He made it all up. Have some more Kool-Aid.

Only to doctored intelligence..

and the Kool-aid jar was empty, you guys cleaned it out 2000-2008...:)

your claim (and i've seen it more than once before from others as well) got me to thinking....i don't recall one subpoena, one arrest, one person in trouble for lying to congress over 'fabricated intelligence'. do you? some baseball players have gotten in trouble for lying to congress, you think they'd tolerate being lied to in order to start a war? and no one would pay a price for that later? that's laughable.
i did a google search to see if anything had in fact been found. i did find this:



"Perhaps Congress is hoping that these hearings will shield them from responsibility for a war that didn't have to be fought," Seehusen said. "Keep in mind that last October, 296 representatives and 77 senators voted in favor of a resolution supporting the invasion of Iraq. So every one of these individuals is just as responsible as Bush for the consequences of that decision – and convening a hearing won't change that."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said no analysts have told the panel the administration pressured them to make a stronger WMD case than existed.

"If there is anyone in the intelligence community – former, current – that thinks their analytical product in any way was manipulated or coerced or intimidated, please come forward. We will keep it confidential. But we have yet to hear from the first one," Roberts told reporters.


now, i have no doubt lies have been told, by pols to their willing believers. just like always.

After Citizens United, I can't blame him.

Actually, I can't blame Presidents in general for bitching about the other branches. Because, really, who cares? The former Vice President told a Senator to go f*ck himself and everyone shrugged.

I don't think he should have said anything before the decision. How would he, or congress, have felt had they weighed in while the bill was being put together? There's a reason he is the first...and i do not think it was a good precedent to set.
As for citizens united, from all i have read, i expect a revisit of the decision with a probable change.


and for the cheney GFY-that wasn't a case of him trying to influence a decision. much like obama's open mic 'give me space til after i win the election' moment, it wasn't actually for public consumption...and it also pales in comparison with other, far more physical moments between rivals on the house and senate floors.

just got home..read an article by krauthammer in the paper on the way to LA and back, and thought i'd find/post it here.


http://www.indystar.com/article/2012...ma-vs-justices


an excerpt:


....This concern would be touching if it weren't coming from the leader of a party so deeply devoted to the ultimate judicial usurpation -- Roe v. Wade, which struck down the abortion laws of 46 states -- that fealty to it is the party's litmus test for service on the Supreme Court.

With Obamacare remaking one-sixth of the economy, it would be unusual for the court to overturn legislation so broad and sweeping. On the other hand, it is far more unusual to pass such a fundamentally transformative law on such a narrow, partisan basis.

Obamacare passed the Congress without a single vote from the opposition party -- in contradistinction to Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid, similarly grand legislation, all of which enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. In the Senate, Obamacare squeaked by through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation that was never intended for anything so sweeping. The fundamental deviation from custom and practice is not the legal challenge to Obamacare but the very manner of its enactment.





i hope everyone reads the article. then there's this point from the editor in a small writeup:


'Furthermore, the implication of the remark was that the number of votes in favor of a bill was somehow relevant to its constitutionality. It's not. Otherwise, whichever party or point of view is in the majority would be free to tyrannize the minority.'

ok, i put this out 2 days ago and no reply. i'd like to know if there was anything, as if there was lying, there should be a thorough investigation and heads should absolutely roll! it would be beyond a travesty if we'd uselessly wasted troops' lives, altered others lives permanently, and cost us and our children a huge fortune and have no one in trouble for faking info to get us over there.

Exactly what Iraq war produced...the whole truth will never be known...I'm not a conspiracy nut (justa nut) but have read and watched many stories on the subject...Have to dig thru my files for 'evidence'...

One point is Valerie Plame, why was she outed by the Cheney gang?..Her husband Joe Wilson was gathering evidence that Iraq was not obtaining yellowcake from Niger..never happened...and that story was one of the selling points in Bush SOTU speech for war on Iraq...
Check out the movie, Fair Game..i know it's just a movie and liberties may have been taken but essentially tells the story that discredits the yellowcake point...

my whole point is that the democrats essentially are lying when they say they were duped. they voted, just like republicans voted, to invade iraq. had there been all this faking of intel, heads would have rolled, and rightfully so. but none have, which tells me it's a bs excuse on their part. the truth is that anyone voting for invasion did so because they didn't want to be portrayed by a potential opponent in the next election as being 'soft' on defense or on terrorism. bush takes a lot of blame, and of course the buck stops there. but as i've said more than once, it is congress that should share the blame. of course bush is such an easy patsy!!