Has anyone seen or heard of this???

[Clip-Clop]

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

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.

[Rudeboyelvis]

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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

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

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.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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

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

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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

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

what about the act is causing you concern?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.

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...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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

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.
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?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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...

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.

"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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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:

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

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

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

"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.

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I didn't say the EO redefines National Defense, circumstances are what have redefined the term.
.

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/

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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

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.

[DaTruth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92SerxLWtc

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.