Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Warnings to the Left, Warnings to the Right

We hear from Free Republic:

Seems the president wants the option to takeover the entire federal government in case another disaster hits the US. I do not see why the entire federal government needs to be taken over in case one part of the country is hit by a crisis?

Look at this one "(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions" This could mean anything.

This one right here is really weird "(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government." Is he saying the same thing that other despots have said when taking over their governments? A republican? I don't get this at all. The Republican Party has come a long way from '94 and I do not like it at all.

From WorldNet Daily:

President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.


The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.

From Huffington Post:

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007 declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, George W. Bush can become what is best described as "a dictator": "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

So, here you go. Big news from the Right and Left and I am willing to bet money that you didn't see this on your network or cable Telescreens today. Most of you know that I am not a big fan of FreeRepublic or World Net Daily, but I believe what we are seeing here is beginning to transcend which Wing you like to associate yourself with.

Even the most extreme partisans I know (on any side) tend to really enjoy their personal freedoms and those Natural Rights which we have been granted by birth as outlined in both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. If it is indeed really true that our warriors in uniform are fighting for our freedom, it only follows that we should fight for theirs since they agreed to abridge their own rights to join the armed services.

On the other hand, perhaps debating Senator Edward's haircuts or how many Republican Presidential candidates are divorcees may turn your crank more than keeping your own freedoms and the checks and balances that protect our freedoms. If that is the case, then please, go ahead and bicker amongst yourselves about minutiae.

When President Bush or Hilary Clinton or Obama or McCain, etc. takes office with this vaguely worded, but very power hungry document in place, you may yet regret thinking partial birth abortion or stem cells trumped whether or not we even get the right to decide about such luxurious freedoms whichever our new all-powerful top-down fourth branch of government decides about the subject.

For those who want to see the actual document, here it is. You will see that those wacky lefties and righties aren't too far off the mark.

Hat Tips to theologian David Ray Griffin and a certain Egyptian Goddess for pointing me in the right direction.


Pandabonium said...

I wonder if anyone will notice? (present company excepted) or will everyone sit like crabs in a pot as the heat gets higher and higher? By the time we finally realize what is happening - we're already cooked.

The Constitution with its Bill of Rights cannot protect us, because it is "we the people" who wrote that document and it is us who must enforce it. Freedom and justice are not things that happen automatically, individual human beings have to make them occur, and this is not easy. As a matter of fact, it is always hard, because freedom and justice present a threat to power.

Thanks for sharing this. There has long been a trend established in this direction, but it has rapidly gained momentum in the last six years. Time for the "don't worry be happy" crowd to get a whiff of the ammonia.

The Moody Minstrel said...

"The Al-Qaeda attack has left me scarred...disfigured...but I can assure you my resolve is stronger than ever!"

So this is how democracy thunderous applause.


The Moody Minstrel said...

Funny how there have been so many warnings over the past four years that something like this was going to happen, and all they ever got in reply was accusations of paranoia if not treason.

Dean Wormer said...

Jesus, I hate that man.

There's that ongoing debate as to whether we ought to change the constitution to allow those not born in the states to run for the White House (the Schwarzenegger Amendment.)

I don't see why. We have a President now that's about as un-American as they come.

Don Snabulus said...

It goes way beyond one man. He is merely seizing the power because there is nobody standing in his way. It is important to ask why that is.

How come only right and left outside the mainstream sources mention this? Google news searching reveals a TOTAL blackout on this Directive. It was issued over 2 weeks ago so newness isn't the issue.

Secondly, if the foundation of your country is slipping away, are you willing to work with a political opponent to stop it? Or will you join with Giuliani in laughing at people like Ron Paul for stating the obvious and the true? (I know you wouldn't Dean, but this is a general query)

As I showed above, the question of unchecked executive power is a concern for both sides of the political fence. Something ought to be done about it.

Swinebread said...

We are now living in that dark cyberpunk world of neo-fascism and corporate feudalism that I read about for all these years. It finally happened…

Overdroid said...

Seriously, as long as we keep buying stuff the government will continue to run.

Don Snabulus said...

If you can't vote with your votes, you can vote with your $$$$. I am a little iffy about this web site, but I do like their general premise:

Voting with $$$$ involves sacrifice. Many of our pop culture experiences (reading materials, movies, music, and TV) are now provided by the behemoth corporations that are corrupting and destroying our democracy.

Even gaining access to these wonderful Internet tubes requires, in most cases, the cooperation of a multi-national corporation.

However, there are still ways to make dents even if you can't the machine apart in one fell swoop.

Or put another way, enough of us Lilliputians can bring down the giant attacking our country.

Anonymous said...

I read about this on World Net Daily just yesterday, and I have had some time to think about it.

Evidentaly, we are about to have a national emergency, and GWB all ready knows what the emergency is going to be, has assessed his weaknesses and strengths as president, and decided to make an adjustment.

I would bet a golden donut with diamond embedded glaze crust the US is about to take out Iran's nuclear weapons facilities, and expects retalliation as a result.

Who wants to take me up on this?

DewKid said...

Since you are willing to bet money, I can tell you that I heard this on the radio this morning.

So, how much do I get, huh? huh? huh?

Dean Wormer said...

I would love it if somebody could list Bush's "strengths" for me as President.

Because besides screwing up everything he touches I don't think he has many other skills.

Don Snabulus said...


I hadn't thought about that possibility. He would need to tie that back to the "homeland" somehow though.


There is that.

ladybug said...

Pa've said...

Evidentaly, we are about to have a national emergency, and GWB all ready knows what the emergency is going to be

Truly food for thought, and the rumblings about Iran make me uneasy.

How much money are we going to throw at Haliburton/Blackwater for this-coming "emergency"?

The shameful part (even though I was against the war from the beginning) is that our service men & women are seeing cents on the dollar compared to the "private" corporate mercenary-for-hire folks.

I'd much rather have our military re-building (what they're supposedto be doing in Iraq...) good ol' AMERICA, a la the WPA.

There are plenty of National Parks, blighted industrial areas, elderly & disabled homeowners that need repairs on their homes, etc, that could use help.

Why is investing in our communities not on Bush & Co's agenda? Seems to me the best way to fight "terrorism" is to make our country stronger....

Don Snabulus said...

I said: I am willing to bet money that you didn't see this on your network or cable Telescreens today.

DewKid said: Since you are willing to bet money, I can tell you that I heard this on the radio this morning.

So, how much do I get, huh? huh? huh?

A reminder to RTFP (Read the Friggin' Post)

I am interested in knowing which radio person said it however.

DewKid said...

RTFP? ... and by that you mean??? Jeeese, I'm just joking around a bit, and you go on the offensive (unless I'm misunderstanding you now)

... and why do you care which radio person said it? Does it matter?

If you must know, it was on the top of the hour news beat, probably all day. The person who said it was some random radio anchorman I don't know by name.


Don Snabulus said...

RTFP? ... and by that you mean???

It means that radios don't have screens. Similar to's RTFA (read the friggin' article) when people make comments that have nothing to do with the post.

I was curious to know if the radio person was somebody like Jeff Rense or Alex Jones who would be likely to mention something like this. That's all. It still hasn't broken the surface of either Google or Yahoo news with reference to major news sources. (exception: Washington Post had a blurb referring to it as an update to a Reagan exceutive order).

Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but the tenor of the comment looked to me more like a sarcastic dig thrown in the middle of a serious discussion than a joke.

If I am wrong and the comment was completely absent of disrespect of the viewpoint or other sarcasm, then I apologize for reading it that way.

(I don't take anyone messing with the checks and balances of power in our nation lightly.)

Anonymous said...

Actually, Jermoe Corsi discussed this very unusual executive order on Coast to Caost, and I learned the following:

After the declaration of a national emergency, the order gives the president practially dictatorial powers.

He can assume control of any federal, state, local, or indian tribe government.

He can declare war with out the prior approval of congress.

He can declare marshall law with out the approval of congress.

He can take over businesses and resources in the name of the federal government.

He can allocate materials and services for the war effort.

He can round up dissedents and imprison them.

Anything that you think is bad or unholy, is allowed under this executive order, provided only one thing, a national emergency comes, which we all know will happen eventually.

World Net Daily Article:

The Executive Order itself:

Listen to the first hour account of the law with George Noory and Jerome Corsi on Coast to Coast.

If you don't have a Coast to Coast Memebership, you can sign up for just one month for about six bucks. Try it, you will be surprised at what you miss.

DewKid said...

It means that radios don't have screens. Similar to's RTFA (read the friggin' article) when people make comments that have nothing to do with the post.

(sigh) I was poking fun at the RTFP followed by "Read The Friggin' Post", and then you explain it to me further. I'm not an idiot, you know. I suppose I should use stronger use of the [/sarcasm] tags.

I seriously meant nothing more than a playful jibe at your "willing to bet" comment. I had no idea it would induce outrage. I thought you knew me better than that.

Don Snabulus said...


As I read up more on executive orders, there are some saving graces.

1. They are not intended to replace existing laws, but to direct federal agencies to carry out their tasks. Presidents Clinton and Truman have had executive orders overturned by the Supreme Court.

2. Congress can nullify an executive order by passing a law that makes following the executive order illegal or wording the law so the executive order is not enforceable.

On the other hand, the President gets a great deal of latitude in the Constitution during "times of crisis." Keep in mind that we are still considered (since 9/11) to be in a state of national emergency.

I am sure power-mongers in both parties would like to keep that state of affairs going on indefinitely because it gives the executive powers that wouldn't otherwise get.

Given that the body count on American soil from terrorism since 9/12 is basically Nil, I am not sure how we can keep saying we are in crisis, but that is another kettle of halibuts.

Don Snabulus said...


Well, call me dense cuz' I didn't honstly get the joke. Maybe next time, use the joke tags so I don't misread you and maybe do the jokes in the non-serious thread topics (like Viking Kittens or Botany) instead of the governmental criticism posts.