18 Mar

Obama’s latest EO… nipping conservative hysteria in the bud

                                       

It’s so very important for the GOP and conservative voter to stay focused on the winning issues this year… that being it is, and remains, “the economy, stupid”. The path to winning is one solid plan to propose – a broad, all encompassing energy policy that exploits all US resources to drive down current and futures barrel prices, create jobs and boost revenue, and liberate the US from dependence on crazy, violent Middle East despots and tyrants.

That said, I’m quite sure that the Canadian Free Press’s article will start the stampede to characterize Obama’s latest Executive Order as an intent to seize assets during peacetime, and dole them out to favored private industries (i.e. donors), and declare peacetime emergency martial law on a whim.

Do not… I repeat.. do not fall into this trap.

The EO of subject, NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS, was posted on the WH website Friday. And it’s already got some of the history challenged fringe in the world a’buzz with whispers of doom/gloom and O’imposed anarchy. Thank heavens that both Ace and Ed Morrissey at HotAir have already gotten on the horn to interject some perspective on the EO, and hopefully thwart another foolhardy deviation from the real issues at hand.

To summarize in brief, the order revolves around updating federal government authorities granted under the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, passed under the Truman administration at the onset of the Korean War. It’s purpose was to ensure that the POTUS had the authority to force private industry to give priority to defense and homeland security contracts and to allocate the resources needed in the time of a national emergency.

A number of factors encouraged President Truman to propose such legislation. Both the armed services and the defense industry supporting the nation’s war effort had demobilized during the late 1940s after the cessation of World War II hostilities. With the return of peace, the Administration cut back military expenditures significantly. President Truman accentuated these cuts by placing heavy reliance on atomic weapons to provide for the nation’s defense. The perceived power of the atomic arsenal justified, in the eyes of the Administration, substantial cuts in expensive, manpower-intensive conventional military capabilities. This enabled the President to propose and Congress to pass much-reduced defense appropriations.

In addition, the nation had recently experienced substantial economic and industrial turmoil. Demand for housing and consumer products, unleashed by the expiration of wartime economic controls, precipitated a series of postwar labor strikes. These reached their height in 1946 in a nationwide shutdown of passenger and freight rail service, leading President Truman to threaten to seize control of the railways and draft striking rail workers into the armed forces, placing them under military discipline. Though the presidential threats were never carried out, the strike served to illustrate the economic context in which the nation approached the Korean War.

I might also add that the DPA is a temporary law that must be reauthorized every few years by Congress… and has been done throughout Congresses dominated by either Party over six decades. Therefore if one wants to get into a snit about the DPA – where the central governments powers lie – it would be the time to contact your elected representatives with your beefs.

However, considering how easy it is for conservatives in general to distrust this POTUS, it’s logical to predict that such a power would be abused when considering our current fragile economic conditions. Add to that the Obama gutting of military personnel while ME conflicts continue to flame – and a US still dependent upon that volatile region for our energy – and it’s easy to envision an Obama administration evoking what everyone fears as the worst…. seizure of private assets and picking the winners/losers of private, Obama friendly donors to enrich.

Thus it becomes important to know what this EO can and cannot do, and the history of prior administrations issues similar EOs. As both Ace’s Gabriel Malor and Ed Morrissey point out, this EO is an update to EOs issued by both Reagan and Bush the elder. And if you really want to get into a conspiratorial panic, one need only examine the history of EOs relating to FEMA powers, extending back to JKF’s administration, that outright allows the government to seize absolute control over transportation, communications, all energy resources, food, farms etc. Reading some of those will get even the most passive mind a’broil in fears of anarchy.

But rather than attempt to restate what both Ace and Morrissey have done (see the links above), it does not give a POTUS authority to “nationalize” anything, civilians will not be “conscripted”, or forced into accepting forced employment without compensation, nor does the authority lie only with the POTUS, but is, by the DPA law itself, delegated to various cabinet appointees and agencies.

In fact, this is really as simple as updating the EO for various new agencies created, or shifted powers within the existing bureaucracy. You can read more about the history of authorities, relating to this law, in the National Archives from the House Joint Committee on Defense Production.

All in all, I do expect some of the fallout we saw from the hyperbole over the Defense Appropriations Act passed, that redefined enemies of the US as more than just al Qaeda, and did include American citizens also waging jihad against our nation. Naturally this launched the predictable insinuations that Obama would be empowered to assassinate political enemies on American soil… all of which again made many in our Party look to be conspiratorial extremists.

Now I’m quite sure I’ll be taken to the woodshed on this presentation… and hey, that’s our right of disagreement in this country. But what I hope is that this will not turn into another national kerfuffle, and a dangerous distraction off the election issues where the GOP demonstrates it’s greatest strength. I’m with Ace and HotAir… we have far more effective beefs with the Obama admin than to fall into the trap of blowing this out of proportion for demonization, only to find facts and justified cries of hypocrisy hurdled as return fire.

About MataHarley

Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama. Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
| 1,108 views

57 Responses to Obama’s latest EO… nipping conservative hysteria in the bud

  1. John Cooper says: 1

    I still don’t like the EO, and I don’t find the argument “Other presidents have done the same” persuasive.

    Why would ANY company or farm turn down a juicy government contract in a time of war? I seem to recall companies fighting each other for such contracts, so why would we need the executive branch to step in and force them to bid? Did we have a situation where companies refused to support the war effort, resulting in the original legislation? If you read the reason for the original legislation, it wasn’t “preparedness” at all – it was “wage and price stability”. From the link to the National Archives you provided:

    JC.125 Rising wages and prices during the Korean War caused serious economic difficulties within the United States. In an effort to expand production and insure economic stability, the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81-774) authorized Governmental activities in various areas, including requisition of property for national defense, expansion of productive capacity and supply, wage and price stabilization, settlement of labor disputes, control of consumer and real estate credit, and establishment of contract priorities and materials allocation designed to aid the national defense. Under section 712, the Joint Committee on Defense Production was established to serve as a “watchdog” over Federal agencies administering the various programs authorized by the act. The members of the committee were drawn from the Senate and House Committees on Banking and Currency.

    So did Richard Nixon use this section of the law when he implemented wage and price controls. (Edit: No, it was the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970) How did that work out?

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 2

    Obama’s various diversions away from ”the economy” are hopelessly obvious.

    Let the Catholics fight on the abortion coverage front.
    Let the bloggers fight on the freedom of expression on the internet front.
    Let Real Estate Agencies worry about the never-bottoming-out housing market.
    Let splinters of Americans be upset with Obama over various of his diversionary tactics while a nice large majority of us maintain focus on Obama’s ravaging of our economy.
    Don’t worry so much that for some voters each of Obama’s disasterous policies there will be a few headlines.

    The big picture, the whole economy is scary for anyone with eyes to see…..
    March 16th’s chart of the day sees a recession coming…
    http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-this-is-the-chart-making-ecri-scream-recession-2012-3
    The ever-updated ”scariest jobs chart ever,” stays scary. This IS the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression.
    http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4de93a6e49e2ae1d0b1d0000-975/clusterstock060311.jpg

    Liberals will point at a pin prick on the whole map, such as that ”the stock market is high,” or ”we are drilling more now than X years ago.”
    Their talking points du jour come straight from Obama’s propaganda team.
    Obama’s policies, followed through on for 4 more years would be a disaster for Americans.

    ReplyReply
  3. MataHarley says: 3

    As I pointed out, John Cooper, you’re about six decades late in being unhappy. This is all related to the Defense Production Act of 1950, which has been reauthorized by every Congress since. It adds no new powers or authorities to that law, and that power has been there for most our lifetimes.

    About all one can say at this point is, if you weren’t aware of it before, you’re aware now. But it is no more a power grab by Obama now than it was for every Congress and POTUS that preceded him.

    If you have issues with the central government, stepping in to make sure that resources for national defense are available during national emergencies, you can read the original law, as amended, here. Certainly it will not have been the first time that the federal government engaged in emergency controls… i.e. rationing during WWII like food, clothes, gas, tires etc… even prior to the DPA passage. The US was not the only nation that engaged in rationing during that era. And in fact, recycling can be traced back to that same era by recycling metals, paper and rubber.

    However, if you read the linked CRS report in the original post, you’d also know that subsequent amendments prohibited any imposition of wage or price controls without Congressional authorization. Nor can they force any private citizen to assist in the production of chemical or biological warfare capabilities. Thus the inability to “conscript” any individual into unwanted contracts.

    ReplyReply
  4. MataHarley says: 4

    Bingo, @Nan G. It’s like tossing out red meat, waiting for the conservative bite, then framing everyone as lunatic conspiracy theorists just because Obama is black.

    All we can hope for is that no one takes the bait, and stays focused.

    ReplyReply
  5. MataHarley says: 5

    @John Cooper: If you read the reason for the original legislation, it wasn’t “preparedness” at all – it was “wage and price stability”.

    I not only read the original legislation (as amended, and provided the link to you above), but more importantly I cited the 2009 CRS study in the original post, that went thru it’s history, intent and scope.

    From Summary:

    The Defense Production Act (DPA) was created at the outset of the Korean War to ensure the availability of the nation’s industrial resources to meet the national security needs of the United
    States by granting the President powers to ensure the supply and timely delivery of products, materials, and services to military and civilian agencies.

    The DPA codifies a robust legal authority given the President to force industry to give priority to national security production and is the statutory underpinning of governmental review of foreign investment in U.S. companies.

    DPA authorities are not permanent. Rather, they are time-limited, undergoing periodic amendment and reauthorization. Of the seven titles contained within the original Act, four have been repealed. In 2008, Congress reauthorized the remaining titles of the DPA through September 30, 2009.

    From Introduction:

    The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 (50 U.S.C. Appx § 2061 et seq.), as amended, confers upon the President authority to force private industry to give priority to defense and homeland security contracts and to allocate the resources needed. The original act was inspired by a message sent to Congress by President Harry S Truman at the outbreak of war in Korea in mid- 1950. In his message, President Truman stated that the United States and the United Nations were responding to a military invasion of the Republic of Korea by forces from north of the 38th parallel, that the nation urgently needed additional military manpower, supplies, and equipment, and that the nation’s military and economic preparedness were inseparable. He urged Congress to pass legislation that would guarantee the prompt supply of adequate quantities of needed military and civilian goods, including measures to help compensate for manufacturing demand growth caused by military expansion.

    snip

    In addition, the nation had recently experienced substantial economic and industrial turmoil. Demand for housing and consumer products, unleashed by the expiration of wartime economic controls, precipitated a series of postwar labor strikes. These reached their height in 1946 in a nationwide shutdown of passenger and freight rail service, leading President Truman to threaten to seize control of the railways and draft striking rail workers into the armed forces, placing them under military discipline. Though the presidential threats were never carried out, the strike served to illustrate the economic context in which the nation approached the Korean War.

    ReplyReply
  6. LeslieP says: 6

    I have only briefly scanned the comments so far, but wanted to provide an important correction…

    The commentary at Ace of Spades, and also on Twitter, has been made by Gabriel Malor, not Ace himself.

    ReplyReply
  7. MataHarley says: 7

    Thanks for the add, Leslie. I did know it wasn’t Ace, but was too lazy to cut paste his name (i.e. Gabriel Malor at Ace), but knew Morrissey’s stuff well enough not to have to go to get which HotAir author was blogging. Mea culpa. That, however, doesn’t make an iota of difference to me.

    What does is finding some out in front, hoping to minimize the potential fallout by warning them of the trap.

    Also blogging cautious perspective:

    Outside the Beltway’s Doug Mataconis.

    ReplyReply
  8. Robert Craig says: 8

    I beleive it all concerns ability vs intent. Sure, past chief executives have not abused the power that they have. Can any of us say that our current leader will not? I for one, have no confidence that Obama doing what is best for America.

    ReplyReply
  9. Comm0n Sense says: 9

    @Nan G: ;Nan, you are spot on with your assessment of what the Demoncrats are doing. I have called this the strategy of distort, distract, and deceive. What Republicans need to do is focus on the real issues in the key states and really go after independents. We know that certain states are so full of wachos, like my state of California, that likely my vote won’t matter.

    ReplyReply
  10. Outlaw Woman says: 10

    Well…it’s so refreshing that we have someone like yourself to put it into perspective for us ‘rubes’ out here. Yes, we get somewhat hysterical when we have an out of control presidency which completely ignores the United States Constitution, who has surrounded himself with communists a.k.a. ‘czars’, who has directed hatred toward hard working men and women and businesses who has also invaded every facet of our lives including eating. Why hush my mouth, we are just so stupid out here for not accepting this EO as simply a POTUS conducting the ‘peoples business’. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? or maybe the better question is WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN FOR THE PAST 3 1/2 YEARS?

    What a completely condenscending article. We don’t need YOU to tell us how it is and what is going on? We have been living with it for 3 years.

    You disgust me and you are suppose to be conservative? Do you actually receive money for this drivel? Go crawl back into your comfy little hole and let those of us who see EXACTLY what is going on alone. We will CONTINUE to sound the alarm no thanks to panty wastes like you.

    ReplyReply
  11. John Cooper says: 11

    @MataHarley: “…you’re about six decades late ”

    Story of my life.

    ReplyReply
  12. Skookum says: 12

    Yea Outlaw Woman, just because this law is 62 years old is no reason to go to sleep at the helm. Some of these writers are paid way too much. If we allow this law to continue unabated and concentrate on the economy; all of a sudden, we will be neck deep in this DPA law. Just because people have ignored it for 62 years doesn’t mean we can let the Obama Marxists distract us with trivial issues like the economy, the lack of a budget, and self-defeating energy policies. Let’s follow the Progressive Marxists straight to Perdition; otherwise we will get distracted on tedious mundane issues that don’t mean squat and Conservatives will lose their bearings and their energy.

    ReplyReply
  13. Authur Phaphler says: 13

    I think there was a little insertion into this EO. Something to the effect of ‘even during peacetime.’ It’s not the fact there is a path needed in case of war. I’m all for the country getting what it needs. But this is scary.

    Two, there are just too many Big Brother things happening at once. This Stellar Winds project from the NSA, the GPS rumors about locating farm fields and census takers using GPS. Too many little grains of sand starting to make a pile. Piles of new regualations designed to create havoc, angst and unrest.

    And last, the people that work for the President are too evil minded not to think about how they can use this to their advantage.

    Remember, Piven, Alinsky, Wright, Dorhn and Ayers, all wanted to overload the system until it breaks. I don’t doubt one bit that this is in Obama’s heart. He wants chaos and if he has chaos he will need something to bring it under control. I don’t like this one bit.

    ReplyReply
  14. anticsrocks says: 14

    This is my understanding of this new EO:

    Basically it was done to update changes in Presidential Cabinet structure.

    As it turns out, Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.

    Obama’s executive order specifically assigns “executive departments and agencies responsible for plans and programs related to national defense” to do five things:

    “identify” requirements for emergencies;
    “assess” the capability of the country’s industrial and technological base;
    “be prepared” to ensure the availability of critical resources in time of national threat;
    “improve the efficiency” of the industrial base to support national defense;
    “foster cooperation” between commercial and defense sectors.
    ~~~~~
    A side-by-side analysis of Obama’s order compared to Clinton’s, conducted by Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com, reveals Obama’s order is essentially just an update to reflect changes in government agency structure.

    “If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the cabinet itself,” Morrissey writes. “In 1994, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS. In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (10 in all). Otherwise, there aren’t a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.

    “I’m not ruling out the possibility that this is more than it seems,” adds Jacobson, “but unless and until someone [demonstrates any expansion of powers in the order], I’ll consider this to be routine.”

    “The timing of this release might have looked a little strange,” Morrissey concludes, “but this is really nothing to worry about at all.” – Source

    ReplyReply
  15. Russell says: 15

    You would have more luck trying to make your dog vegetarian.

    ReplyReply
  16. disenchanted says: 16

    If this was another president (sic) signing the executive order, it may be different. However barry has conducted himself in such a way that actually calling marshall law would not be out of the ordinary for him. He will do what it takes to remain the WH. If it means calling marshall law (one excuse is the occupiers are out of control) and suspending elections, he will do it. He is probably jealous that Putin was just named president for life and that is one of his main goals.

    He hates the Constitution and by-passes Congress. If the house and senate do not do what he wants he merely signs another executive order getting what he wants. You just have to look at what he has done over the past three years and find there is cause for alarm. The people have woken up and are nervous and rightly so.

    ReplyReply
  17. Skookum says: 17

    The only thing this bill accomplishes, besides noting the differences between FEMA and the DHS, is to exhibit to the country and the world that a good portion of America does not trust this man in the White House. He is likely to become one of the most intensely disliked men in America’s history.

    Now that he is losing public support, he is willing to base his presidency on racism and Marxism. one of the most recent examples was the Bears coach telling his team we must support the president because we are African American. The Bears coach is willing to overlook the policies of a president and base his support along racist lines. If we were to reverse that scenario, Blacks would be rioting in the streets. Racism is alive in America, but now it is accepted, because it is the racism described by Professor Bell and his protege Obama.

    There are several issues that this president should be defeated for and possibly prosecuted for, but signing a bill that is 62 years old is not one of them.

    Concentrate your dislike and fear of the Marxist in the White House on things that are real, not on issues that will eventually portray us as fools. The Marxist Propaganda Bureaus will take this issue and play it up for being the same bill signed by several other presidents since Truman and that we Conservatives are delusional; thereby blunting the argument, and by association, all our grievances against this pathetic dictator.

    They know how to use your emotion against you; that is their job.

    ReplyReply
  18. Robert Craig
    you touch the danger right on the dot.
    yes ; ability vs intent,
    it come among other disturbing speechs from him, on his agenda, and
    being reminded of that law to be recycled he will used what he can to win his re election,
    who can have a doubt ?, if you have notice the agencies he put on himself adding to previous rules to harden it’s long arm on the people,
    if he lost the trust it talk for itself and answer to the fear and suspicions coming from many more
    than some years ago. it might be use by him to recover the power he has lost with the trust he lost,
    and the insider said to be warn of how he will do anything if he is desperate,
    he won’t go peacefully with his advisers and the UN ORG.’S HELP; we cannot underestimate the struggle of the dying person holding such power as the one he acquired with the help of many questionable handouts

    ReplyReply
  19. MATA
    amazing how you find such high profile subjects for your POST,
    AM I wrong to think he can use that to feed his friends the UNIONS WITH PROMISES, EVEN IF HE LIE.
    THANK YOU

    ReplyReply
  20. Hank Rockwell Jr says: 20

    Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. I hope it touches your heart like it did mine.

    A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’

    His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’

    ReplyReply
  21. Hank Rockwell JR
    I SAY, for a mother to say that to her son,
    she must have been so abuse by this man,
    to think of him as a dog, he must have done her very wrong.

    ReplyReply
  22. Richard Wheeler says: 22

    Mata suggests “deviation from the real issues at hand” and Skooks “don’t concentrate on issues that will eventually portray us as fools”– Then along comes Mr Rockwell in #20. Nuf said

    Semper Fi

    ReplyReply
  23. MataHarley says: 23

    @disenchanted and @Ms Bees, Obama would have no better luck seizing private property under the guise of any variation of martial law than Truman did. He tried to seize steel mills in order to avoid a union strike. SCOTUS handed Truman his head with their 6-3 ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer back in 1952, two years after the passage of the DPA. Truman, foolishly, attempted to claim that legislation gave him powers he did not possess, and SCOTUS was quite happy to remind him otherwise.

    That’s why we have checks and balances in this country. Congress has the option of ignoring a POTUS declaration of emergency or martial law in tacit agreement, or they can rubber stamp approve it. But they can also reject a POTUS declaration, in which case the courts would have to step in and verify whether any such declaration was actually warranted to begin with.

    What this means is that our founding structure works because such power is not vested in one individual, but requires the willing agreement of Congress, and support of various agencies and law enforcement…. and subject to the judicial branch’s oversight.

    Nor did this EO grant powers to a POTUS that did not exist.. i.e. martial law. This is a power that not only a POTUS has, but Governors as well. One might remember that martial law was declared in New Orleans following Katrina, and not due to a war or invasion. Ergo, in peacetime.

    As for the timing? Well, the law was last reauthorized back in 2009 with a unanimous vote in the Senate, and passage in the House with votes not tracked for members yea or nay. It’s up for reauthorization Sept 30, 2014. The EO is a belated update of reassigning of the tasks under that law to the changed and appropriate agencies. Nothing more, nothing less.

    ReplyReply
  24. MATA
    YES YOU KNOW THE LAW AS A PROFESSIONAL, BUT OBAMA is known to circumvent CONGRESS FOR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE LIKE THE WARS HE DECLARE TO LIBYA, RIGHT AFTER
    GADAFI DEMAND HIS MONEY BACK TO FIGHT HIS INSURGENTS WHICH WAS refuse TO HIM BY GOLDMAN SACH,
    he told GADAFI TO RESIGN , NO MATTER THE CRY OF CONGRESS, HE GOT AWAY WITH STARTING THE WAR, AND HE DARED TO USE HIS EXECUTIVE SIGNATURE ANY TIME HE WANT, EVEN RIGHT UNDER THE NOSE OF CONGRESS AND SENATOR. SO HE WOULD CONTINUE TO DO AS HE PLEASE BECAUSE HE GOT AWAY BEFORE, BUT THIS TIME WOULD BE HIGHLY DEVASTATING FOR THE CITIZENS RIGHT IN AMERICA, THIS TIME, AND EVERYONE WOULD BECOME AN HOSTAGE UNWILLING OR NOT OF HIS MARTIAL LAWS, IT IS MORE SERIOUS THAN WE MIGHT THINK,
    FOR EXAMPLE ,HOW ABOUT GETTING HIS OCCUPIERS WHICH ARE ON TRAINING I SAY, TO ESCALATE A REVOLUTION OUT OF THE POLCE CONTROL BY THEIR INCREASING NUMBERS,
    THAN MAKING IT EASY FOR OBAMA’S GAME TO INSTAL THAT MARTIAL LAWS AND SHIFTING THE BLAME ON HIS OWN MOVEMENT OCCUPYERS BACK BY HIS OWN SOLD OUT UNIONS.
    A VERY DANGEROUS POSSIBLE AGENDA RIGHT ON ELECTION TIME.
    THE CONSPIRACY IS NOT THE GAMES OF THE CONSERVATIVES OR REPUBLICAN,THEY ARE TO TRANSPARENT AND STRAIGHT FORWARD FOR HIDING THEIR INTENT
    IT COME DIRECTLY FROM THE DEMOCRATS, REMEMBER THEM SHOUTING DEVILS AND FLAT EARTH BELIEVERS, AND MIDDLE EARTH PEOPLE ECETERA
    BYE,

    ReplyReply
  25. John Cooper says: 25

    @MataHarley: I certainly agree that Republicans should stay focused on removing Obama from office, but that doesn’t alter the fact that this is a bad law and an unnecessary law – designed only to further socialism – and passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by a Democrat president. Personally, I’m pleased that the uproar regarding this EO has drawn attention to this dangerous law.

    ReplyReply
  26. MataHarley says: 26

    @John Cooper, most certainly the original 1950s legislation was passed and enacted by a Dem majority Congress, and a Dem POTUS who subsequently tried to abuse it with steel mills…. unsuccessfully.

    The 2009 version that I linked above (comment # 23) was also reauthorized by a Dem majority Congress and enacted by a Dem POTUS. This 17 pg bill is certainly more content intensive than the original bill (linked in my comment #3). But then, “government” is more content extensive too, being as it’s grown into an endless vortex of agencies, sub agencies, and sub sub agencies…. etc etc

    I have absolutely no problem if anyone wants to revisit the legislation itself and repeal it. That’s your phone calls to Congress. However to portray this as only Democrats, or only Obama, is something that will justifiably fall into the category of hypocrisy. The fact remains that this legislation, as the original law provided for, must be renewed/reauthorized every few years. And every Congress and every POTUS – regardless of party affiliation – has done so since then. Obama has not seized additional unauthorized powers, and merely dictated an EO, just as his predecessors have done.

    That sorta blows the talking points of an Obama, ready to declare martial law and seize private property, right out of the water, don’t you think?

    Count me with Skook who, with delicious irony, said:

    If we allow this law to continue unabated and concentrate on the economy; all of a sudden, we will be neck deep in this DPA law.

    It’s your life, your focus, JC. If you want this to be a hot topic, and Santorum wants Internet porn to be a hot topic, or creating new criteria for statehood… hey, have at it. But it sure won’t help win a Nov election when, yet again, the Dems can point to some hysteria about this EO, and laugh about it’s bipartisan history.

    ReplyReply
  27. Nan G says: 27

    How did Obama scrub all the articles about his daughter Malia’s trip to Mexico on Spring Break>
    The web had 26 of them.
    Now it has none.
    Well, one.
    Breitbart lives.

    Barack Obama’s elder daughter is spending her springbreak in Mexican city Oaxaca
    NEWS.com.au – ‎2 hours ago‎
    THE elder daughter of US President Barack Obama is spending her spring break in the historic Mexican city of Oaxaca in the company of 12 friends, a state police official said. The young tourists, including 13-year-old Malia Ann Obama, are staying at a …
    NOW THIS READS:|

    Page not found

    We had a good look, but couldn’t find the page you requested.

    This is either because:

    * There’s an error in the address or link you have entered in your browser;
    * There’s a technical issue and the page has not been properly published;
    * The article was removed to comply with a legal order;
    * It is an older article that has been removed from the site.

    Malia Obama, President Barack Obama’s Eldest Daughter, Travels To Mexico For …
    Huffington Post – ‎4 hours ago‎
    President Obama’s 13-year-old daughter Malia Ann joined thousands of American students as they crossed the border to Mexico for spring break this weekend. However, most students do not have a team of bodyguards to ensure their safety.
    Malia Obama guarded by 25 Secret Service agents on spring break in Mexico
    Telegraph.co.uk – ‎8 hours ago‎
    Barack Obama’s eldest daughter is spending her springbreak in the historic Mexican city of Oaxaca in the company of 12 friends – and 25 Secret Service agents. The US President’s 13-year-old daughter Malia is staying at a downtown hotel in the city …
    NOW THIS READS:

    Sorry
    We cannot find the page you are looking for.

    The page may have been moved, updated or deleted.
    Or you may have typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling.

    ONLY Big Hollywood STILL HAS it!
    Malia in Mexico Despite Security Warning, Story Being Scrubbed
    Big Hollywood – ‎38 minutes ago‎
    by Dan Riehl 1 hour ago post a comment An AFP story, linked at the Huffington Post and elsewhere, reported on Malia Obama’s visit to Mexico despite a Texas public safety warning, she’s reportedly accompanied by 12 friends and 25 Secret Service agents.
    Obama to Meet with Canadian, Mexican Leaders
    HispanicBusiness.com – ‎7 hours ago‎
    President Barack Obama will have a summit meeting here with leaders of Canada and Mexico early next month over a number of issues including citizen security, energy and climate change, the White House said on Friday. The meeting slated for April 2 will …

    Spring Breaker! Malia Obama’s Mexican Vacation (PHOTOS)
    Global Grind – ‎9 hours ago‎
    Malia Ann Obama, daughter of US President Barack Obama, has fun with her friends at a hotel in the city of Oaxaca, Mexico. President Obama’s eldest daughter Malia is enjoying her Spring Break as she and her friends are in the historic Mexican city of …
    NOW READS:

    requested page not found
    requested page not found

    Read more: http://globalgrind.com/customerror/404#ixzz1pbi1w2Y3

    ReplyReply
  28. anticsrocks says: 28

    @Nan G: All in the name of transparency.

    ReplyReply
  29. the EO LAW ON FOX HANNITY RIGHT NOW,

    ReplyReply
  30. Richard Wheeler says: 30

    Anticsrocks Interested in your thoughts on #20 and bees response in #21. It’s O.K. to be stupid—-but

    ReplyReply
  31. Skookum says: 31

    Rich, to be fair, I don’t think Ms Bees understands the implications of this type of “Low” humor; there is a translation problem or disconnect, and Ms Bees has never resorted to this type of dialogue. You and I will never grasp the intricacies of French Canadian humor. I lived there for half my life and I have yet to understand the humor of one French joke. That is the problem, you and I see through the intent right away, but Ms Bees takes it at face value according to a compromised translation. IMHO

    ReplyReply
  32. SKOOKUM
    THANK YOU FOR THIS, THAT COMMENT ONLY TOLD ME OF A DESPERATE MOTHER HAVING BEING
    ABUSED SO HARD ENDING UP ALONE AND SICK TRYING TO SURVIVE WITH HER SON,
    DID I not comprehend it right, I probably did if that was a joke, I did not see it as funny, because I HAVE READ A FEW INFO FROM THE MOTHER BEFORE AND THIS COMMENT GAVE ME THE REACTION FROM THE COMBINATION OF ALL PREVIOUS INFO.
    IF I miss something I apologize,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  33. Richard Wheeler
    why do you see evil where I don’t.
    let’s have your take, on that answer, and I’LL be able to understand
    why you ask anybody but me to explain, and at least maybe you can understand
    GEEZ ED SHULTZ YELLING against the CONSERVATIVES WHAT A DIRTY MOUTH,
    FIRST TIME I see that bully on FOX spitting liberals cuss words, they are corrupt to the core and no one dare to stop them, and they have the gawl to talk against the CONSERVATIVES,
    I think they all suffer from an inferiority disability toward the grand tolerant CONSERVATIVES,
    DON’T YOU THINK?

    ReplyReply
  34. Richard Wheeler says: 34

    BEES Most everyone, including Skooks, sees evil in the statement in #20.Your apology is accepted. Let it go.

    Mata I agree letting any girl that young go to South Central Mexico these days, without adult supervision, is foolhardy.

    ReplyReply
  35. MataHarley says: 35

    @Nan G, I had an entirely different take when I saw the story originally on the UK’s Daily Mail. My first thought was, no adult chaperon for a girl so young? Is the fate of Natalee Holloway that far in the distant past? And Malia is much younger.

    The second was, sending a very high profile kid off to Mexico… a place that’s gotten pretty violent in the past years. Ya gotta be kidding me. It’s not like sending her to DisneyWorld. A young girl and gal pals, with 25 suited secret service agents in tow, would be an attention getter. And we also know that Hezbollah has been hanging in Mexico of late as well.

    What the heck are they thinking?

    Personally, were it my daughter… POTUS or not… I wouldn’t want media splashing it all over that my daughter was dashing around in Mexico without adult supervision. And I most certainly wouldn’t want that profile elevated, attracting the attention of some who might be crazy enough to nab the daughter of an American POTUS.

    But if you’re really interested, PrudencePaine blog has links to where the story still is, plus some photos from a Mexican flicker site.

    ReplyReply
  36. anticsrocks says: 36

    @Richard Wheeler: You said:

    Anticsrocks Interested in your thoughts on #20 and bees response in #21. It’s O.K. to be stupid—-but

    First of all, no you’re not. You are just trying to get me to say something that you can jump on, so don’t insult my intelligence, okay?

    Secondly, the comment in #20 seems like something one might get in a badly worded email joke.

    Lastly, shame on you for calling Ms. Beez stupid. Are you not better than that? It is obvious to me that something got lost in the translation, so leave it at that.

    Grow up Rich, your lame attempts at emulating our community organizer President and agitating for agitation’s sake are starting to wear thin.

    ReplyReply
  37. MATA
    FOX NEWS was showing many people with their head cut off on the square in MEXICO,
    it surely make afraid of that young girl even with many bodyguards,
    it’s like tempting the devil itself, scary

    ReplyReply
  38. Skookum says: 38

    I found the idea of a young girl going to Mexico, even with 25 supermen, a hard concept to grasp. I’ve spent a lot of time in Oaxaca, back when it was fairly safe, in the 70’s and 80’s with my family. Women and young girls do not go anywhere unchaperoned. This seems a little bit hard to believe. Just because there are 25 Secret Service men or maybe more, they must sleep and eat, they are not always on duty at full strength, it is impossible. Politics aside, this is a total lapse of judgement. This is a country where kidnapping is a major source of the GDP.

    ReplyReply
  39. mata
    the first time I read about the MARXIST law was with MARION I visited a few times it’s been a good while since I went now,
    and he had the 10 laws of MARXIST, and it stayed in my mind as very dangerous,
    and remember the commenter pretending to be A pure MARXIST, you surely must remember, because you debated with him and he said there are mix marxist which where different from him pure marxist, and he left a link to his blog, and I went and read his text, and that was about an homogene group of PEOPLE
    who did not need the rich, but would make them same as them and distribute their money among all;
    and when I read OBAMA talking about distributing the richs money, I thought oh my GOD, it’s true,
    he is one of them, so some here at FA had said it before, and Ikept doubting of it, but then,
    his own speech told me he was truly a MARXIST AIMING AT GETTING ALL ON A HOMOGENOUS SOCIETY OF CORPSE BRAINLESS OBEYING THE OBAMA GOD WITH ISLAM BROKEN CIRCLE ON HIS HEAD,
    AND AMERICA WITH MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS AS HIS ARMY SCARING ANYONE WHO REBEL.
    MY VIEW I see possible unless, yes the PATRIOTS ARE CHECKING,FOR AMERICA TO NEVER GO SO LOW.
    THIS IS THE BLACK MOON, STRANGE THOUGHTS INVADE THE MIND,

    ReplyReply
  40. Richard Wheeler says: 40

    ANTICSROCKS To be clear I’m not calling Bees stupid and her apology for misunderstanding accepted.

    I’ m calling Rockwell stupid and a racist.

    You comparing Rockwell’s statement to “a badly worded e-mail joke” — weak and lacking intelligence

    ReplyReply
  41. anticsrocks says: 41

    @Richard Wheeler: I’m glad to hear that you’re not calling Ms. Beez stupid.

    You said:

    You comparing Rockwell’s statement to “a badly worded e-mail joke” — weak and lacking intelligence

    It’s called being gracious, Rich. Something you evidently never learned.

    ReplyReply
  42. John Cooper says: 42

    I’m looking beyond getting Obama out of office. Many folks think, “If we can just get a Republican in there, everything will be OK.” This whole NDP thing demonstrates why that premise is false. We need a Republican president who will actually begin to roll back a century of creeping statism. I’ll let Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit do my light work. From October 19, 2007:

    “Some of the backlash against things that the Bush Administration has been doing probably stems from a lack of understanding of just how bad the law has always been in many areas, leading to a false impression that things represent shocking new departures from the Constitution when they really represent . . . er, . . well-settled departures from the Constitution. Search, seizure, and privacy law, of course, was already seriously damaged by the Drug War long before Bush ever took office, something that tends to be forgotten in discussions of FISA or the Patriot Act. But it goes beyond that sort of thing. Sweeping Executive authority, for example, is nothing new.”

    Does anybody actually think Mitt Romney will address any of these affronts to the Constitution if he manages to buy his way into the presidency? I don’t.

    ReplyReply
  43. anticsrocks says: 43

    @John Cooper: Not nearly as much as we need, JC. But if you are in a rowboat in the middle of a lake, the first thing you do is plug the hole.

    Obama, and his terrible policies represent the hole.

    Mitt (or whoever gets the GOP nomination) will have to be the plug.

    ReplyReply
  44. anticsrocks
    yes the hole now is to big for a golf ball, even a baseball, it MORE that it’s like the GULF OIL LEAK,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  45. Richard Wheeler says: 45

    Anticsrocks Though you possess many strong qualities (tenacity,honesty among them),I’ve never witnessed “grace.”.Your treatment of Paul and Obama supporters an example.

    If you now choose to be “gracious” to an outright Racist what does that say about you?

    ReplyReply
  46. Hard Right says: 46

    Funny. Rich expect others to comment on Rockwell’s (gutter) joke, but refuses to do so when dems say something disgusting towards Conservatives. Hypocritical much, rich?

    ReplyReply
  47. anticsrocks
    sh sh sh
    you know ,I’m not sure if we start to AD TO THE NAME LIKE ” MITT THE PLUG” OR ” MITT PLUG”
    MITT PLUG TO OBAMA HOLE, COULD BE MARKETTABLE FOR ELECTION
    DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE FOR HIS CAMPAIGN,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  48. anticsrocks says: 48

    @Richard Wheeler: You said:

    If you now choose to be “gracious” to an outright Racist what does that say about you?

    It says that not only do I not wish to lower myself to that level, but that I didn’t want to give the comment more attention than the little it deserved.

    Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Or are you so eager to have some “gotcha” moment on me?

    Okay, go ahead. You got me. You win. I failed to pass the “Rich Wheeler knows everything about how everyone else but him should act and the standards they ought to be held to, again except for him” litmus test.

    Grats.

    ReplyReply
  49. anticsrocks says: 49

    @ilovebeeswarzone: LOL, I dunno Beezy, but thanks for making me laugh!

    ReplyReply
  50. anticsrocks says: 50

    @Richard Wheeler: You said:

    Anticsrocks Though you possess many strong qualities (tenacity,honesty among them),I’ve never witnessed “grace.”.Your treatment of Paul and Obama supporters an example.

    Gee, I have explained more than once how after being trashed over and over for daring to raise questions about Ron Paul, that his rabid supporters were so venomous that I got defensive. Sue me.

    As for Obama supporters? You want I should play nicey-nicey with folks who advocate for MORE of Obama’s insane spending, socialist policies, class warfare and race baiting?

    Once again, you got me, congratulations.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>