Obama's New Executive Order - National Defense Resources Preparedness

#1
MystifyingVol

MystifyingVol

Gruden is contagious!
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
1,846
Likes
1
#1
So, depending on what you read about this new executive order (Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness | The White House) it ranges from nothing but solidifying previous rules to the final step to declaring martial law in peacetime.

Won't list all the websites talking about it, you can get them here: National Defense Resources Preparedness - Google Search

The troubling parts, from what I've been able to gather, are Sections 201, 301, 501 and 801. The EO grants the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense and other agencies complete control of all US resources, including the ability to seize, confiscate or re-delegate resources, materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.

Section 201 outlines who has authority:
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a)

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.
Click to expand...


Section 801 defines what the resources are:
Sec. 801. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this order:

(b) “Energy” means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.

(c) “Farm equipment” means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of food resources.

(e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

(f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer (excluding transportation thereof).

(i) “Health resources” means drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.

(j) “National defense” means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq., and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.

(n) “Water resources” means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements, except “water resources” does not include usable water that qualifies as “food resources.”
Click to expand...

Thoughts?
 
#3
#3
I am not typically one to go off on the whole "big brother" thing, but this definitely has some troubling wordage.
 
#4
#4
I am not sure I see any sweeping executive power here that didn't already exist. The order calls on each agency to ensure that, in peace and war, it can do its job.
 
#6
#6
even if the current admin doesn't use this negatively they appear to open a lot of doors for future ones. The power grab of the feds is ridiculous but people keep voting for it so they view that as approval
 
#7
#7
utvolpj said:
even if the current admin doesn't use this negatively they appear to open a lot of doors for future ones. The power grab of the feds is ridiculous but people keep voting for it so they view that as approval
Click to expand...


What power grab? Telling the Department of Agriculture to be aware of food sources and supplies is a power grab?

Glen Beck histrionics itt.
 
#8
#8
the WH with the ability to direct/control private entities seems a bit powerful doesn't it?
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
Such as?

Be specific.
Click to expand...

The ability to seize, capture, take, or whatever verb you would like to insert, all of the defined resources in the original post is very troubling to me. Especially when we have no clear definition to what a national security "threat" is.
 
#10
#10
Sec 201 b is the most disturbing part. The idea that they can take control during non-emergency situations is the scary thing.
 
#12
#12
lawgator1 said:
What power grab? Telling the Department of Agriculture to be aware of food sources and supplies is a power grab?
Click to expand...

What? The EO doesn't instruct them to be aware of the resources, it gives them the power to take control of them and allocate them as the administration sees fit.
 
#13
#13
Are there any candidates for President that will rescind all previous EO's and has stated such? I think they are an abuse of power.
 
#15
#15
Not a fan of the non-emergency part, but as for siezing assets for national defense, anyone study WWII? Pretty sure restrictions on food, gas, metal, rubber, silk, etc were in effect then. Worked out ok didn't it? There were even govt price, wage, and employment controls. In the case of extreme national emergency along the lines of the Nazis and Japanese taking over the world, I'm ok with marshaling all our resources to win. Once again, those actions worked out fairly well during the early 1940s.
 
#16
#16
JayVols said:
Not a fan of the non-emergency part, but as for siezing assets for national defense, anyone study WWII? Pretty sure restrictions on food, gas, metal, rubber, silk, etc were in effect then. Worked out ok didn't it? There were even govt price, wage, and employment controls. In the case of extreme national emergency along the lines of the Nazis and Japanese taking over the world, I'm ok with marshaling all our resources to win. Once again, those actions worked out fairly well during the early 1940s.
Click to expand...

Nazi Germany did the same thing during WWII. Didn't work out good for them. So its a wash.

sucky things suck
 
#17
#17
RespectTradition said:
Nazi Germany did the same thing during WWII. Didn't work out good for them. So its a wash.

sucky things suck
Click to expand...

Nazi Germany's resources aren't even remotely comperable to the US' of that time. The Nazis tanks were far better engineered than US tanks. One of the reasons we won is that for every tank Germany could put in the field, we could put nearly 10. It was a tactic of attrition. We had the resources to expend. They ran out. You really wouldn't be willing to sacrifice in an hour of national emergency regardless of who is President? Or is this just an I hate anything Obama? Honestly, I could go along with a good majority of this no matter if I liked or disliked the President proposing it. BTW, I am no huge Obama fan.
 
Last edited:
#18
#18
JayVols said:
Nazi Germany's resources aren't even remotely comperable to the US' of that time. The Nazis tanks were far better engineered than US tanks. One of the reasons we won is that for every tank Germany could put in the field, we could put nearly 10. It was a tactic of attrition. We had the resources to expend. They ran out. You really wouldn't be willing to sacrifice in an hour of national emergency regardless of who is President? Or is this just an I hate anything Obama? Honestly, I could go along with a good majority of this no matter if I liked or disliked the President proposing it. BTW, I am no huge Obama fan.
Click to expand...

You're a teacher and use words like 'comperable' and 'expend'? No wonder the dumbing down of America's youth is going so well!

Geez, stinky dinky criticizes my spelling (without giving examples btw).

The following fairily accurately reflects my thoughts on this topic:

http://www.americanclarion.com/4626/2012/03/20/obamas-latest-executive-order-scary/

Obama’s order gives the executive branch of our government, with all its agencies and secretaries, powers to commandeer most major areas of the private sector for the nebulously defined purposes of “national defense,” even during peacetime.

This includes power over all forms of energy, energy use, control and distribution; all water sources in the United States; all food sources, which includes production facilities, factories, farms and farm equipment; health resources, which includes all aspects of the health care industry from drugs to diagnostic equipment to medical facilities; and civil transportation, which includes control over all movement of people and forms of transportation in the United States, and all storage and repair facilities.
-----------------------

Here is the distinction: Barack Obama is the most lawless president in American history. There have been bad presidents, and most of them have acted extra-constitutionally when you consider the strict limits on the executive branch, and the federal government as a whole, and how most presidents have overreached those limits. But, we have never seen such blatant disregard for the limits on the authority of the executive branch as we have seen under this mystery man, Obama. We have never seen a president spit on the authority of the co-equal branches of the federal government as we have seen under Obama.

We have never seen such disdain for the United States Constitution and the rights and freedoms of the American people as we have seen under Obama.

That is what makes this latest executive order incarnation more alarming to many Americans.
---------------------------

Ms. Publius Huldah, a retired litigation attorney in Tennessee, wrote an excellent, must-read piece titled, “Model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures” (LINK) in which she outlines a superb set of declarations for putting the federal government back in its proper place, if only the states would have the will to do so.

She opens the proposal,

“Resolved, That the States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to the federal government; but that, with the Constitution for the United States, they established a federal government for limited purposes only. That they delegated to this federal government only limited and enumerated powers; and reserved, each State to itself, all remaining powers, along with the right to their own self-government.

That whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

She notes that the State Constitution of Tennessee,

“… acknowledges the Principle that the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
----------------------------

One major problem with the states standing against the federal government, is that in too many cases, the federal government holds money strings over the states. Countless millions and billions of federal taxpayer dollars are given to the states for various purposes, and with that money, the federal government has leverage over the states. If you do not cooperate with the will of the federal government, you have the threat of federal funding being denied. Basically, if you take their money, they own you.


We also see that almost every time a state has undertaken to enforce laws that, for instance, protect the integrity of elections, curb the illegal alien invasion, or protect its citizens from the unconstitutional Obamacare legislation, the federal government, through the lawless Obama Justice Department, brings lawsuits against the states, and somehow, the Justice Department manages to find willing accomplices in the federal courts to impose the Obama regime’s will on the states. We are fast approaching a point at which the states will have to either take a firm stand against, or fully give in to, the tyranny of the federal government under Barack Obama.
-------------------------------------

..... the current executive order signed by Obama on Friday is indeed scary, simply because of who Obama and his friends are. We are dealing with a breed of radical, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-Constitution revolutionaries in our executive branch and throughout the Congress and the Courts, and we most certainly do have cause for alarm at this supposedly innocent “updating” of an already tyrannical, unconstitutional executive order.
Click to expand...
 
#21
#21
JayVols said:
Nazi Germany's resources aren't even remotely comperable to the US' of that time. The Nazis tanks were far better engineered than US tanks. One of the reasons we won is that for every tank Germany could put in the field, we could put nearly 10. It was a tactic of attrition. We had the resources to expend. They ran out. You really wouldn't be willing to sacrifice in an hour of national emergency regardless of who is President? Or is this just an I hate anything Obama? Honestly, I could go along with a good majority of this no matter if I liked or disliked the President proposing it. BTW, I am no huge Obama fan.
Click to expand...

odd how that became the exact opposite during the Cold War. The Soviets had huge advantages in the number of tanks, so the US built the M1 Abrams, which was designed to fight in 1 on 7 odds.
 
#22
#22
MG1968 said:
odd how that became the exact opposite during the Cold War. The Soviets had huge advantages in the number of tanks, so the US built the M1 Abrams, which was designed to fight in 1 on 7 odds.
Click to expand...

True. However, we didn't rely solely on tanks to stop tanks during the Cold War. We employed tank busting aircraft as a major part of our defense. Plus, we never actually fought a battle with the Soviets. The US has never really maintained a huge standing army. It's too costly. The Cold War was one of the largest peace time forces in our history. Still, it was no where near the size of our military during WWII. We have chosen to expand the army when needed, and would have done so if a conventional war had broken out against the Soviets. The Soviet policy of maintaining a large standing army along with the equipment caused it to go bankrupt.

What is the problem with providing resources to our military in a time of emergency, '68? I know you are a Constitutionalist- doesn't it give the federal govt the power to provide for the common defense? You're a good guy MG, smart, too. How is this any different from what pretty much any other president would do in a national crisis (with the exception of the non-emergency part- which I disagree with)?
 
#23
#23
This is a function of a central govt as the founders intended it to be.

The problem is giving power back after a crisis. This is the issue.
 
#24
#24
OrangeEmpire said:
This is a function of a central govt as the founders intended it to be.

The problem is giving power back after a crisis. This is the issue.
Click to expand...


Cincinnatus, ftw...


The power to take control in a crisis has pretty much always been allowed. I really don't see what the big deal is. Well, I have ideas.
 
#25
#25
JayVols said:
Cincinnatus, ftw...


The power to take control in a crisis has pretty much always been allowed. I really don't see what the big deal is. Well, I have ideas.
Click to expand...

the problem I have is this isn't limited to a crisis. What is your idea?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top