Executive Order

Mr. Obama’s recent signing of an amended version of Slick Willie Clinton’s EO (Executive Order) 12919 (titled “National Defense Resources Preparedness”), has a good many conservatives up in arms, with more than a few going so far as to claim that this is nothing less than a coup aimed at US citizens. Left wing apologists on the other hand state there’s nothing to worry about, 12919 is merely updating the existing National Defense Preparedness Act, and that everything is more or less “normal”. I rather suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

In this country an “executive order” is a directive issued by the head of the executive branch at some level of government. The term is most commonly applied to orders issued by the President in his role as chief executive of the federal government. Executive orders may also be issued by a state governor or a city’s mayor. In other countries they’re often known as decrees or orders-in-council. U.S. Presidents have been issuing executive orders since 1789, usually to help agencies of the executive branch manage the operation of the federal government, and they do have the full force of law, since they are usually issued in accordance with Acts of Congress which give the President some degree of discretionary power. Harmless enough, right?

According to Article 1 of the United States Constitution, only Congress shall make federal law. However, since the "War and Emergency Powers Act" was passed in 1933, every president has usurped lawmaking powers via “Executive Orders”. In some cases (notably FDR) the justifications cited by the President when issuing an Executive Order have come under considerable criticism for exceeding Executive authority, and challenges to the validity of an order have sometimes resulted in legal proceedings and the order declared unconstitutional. While there is no provision in the Constitution that specifically permits executive orders, there is a vague mention of "executive power" given in Article II, and the declaration that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties. But wars have (and are) being fought on executive order, including the Kosovo Air War during Clinton’s second term, without the required congressional declaration of war. However, the extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress remains continues to be an unresolved constitutional issue.

Critics have accused various presidents of abusing executive orders, using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original intent. It’s also quite common for presidents to issue executive orders that allow federal agencies to enact administrative regulations in order to circumvent the legislative process, often pointing to EO 12148 which includes authorization to put ALL executive orders into effect in times of increased international tension, economic crisis, and/or financial crisis. Further, EO 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over production, distribution, energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money. Now, Mr. Obama signs on to EO 12919, which hands the office of the President the power of absolute rule. The Drudge Report calls it “Martial Law”, the Huffington Post says it places the US on a “war footing”, and others call it a “coup against US citizens”. But while no one really agrees on what it means, a lot of knowledgeable folks seem to think it’s bad. So what’s in this document?

This EO simply authorizes the different Cabinet departments to take command of their respective parts of the economy during a national emergency, which is an “emergency” that the president declares, not congress. We all know that in a true national emergency or war the government is going to do whatever it takes to stay in power, regardless of Constitutional niceties, and this order merely "legalizes" that process. It’s no longer open for debate, and it's not a conspiracy theory, it's the Obama administration’s official policy. It does not necessarily mean that at 0600 hours tomorrow morning FEMA thugs will come marching up the lane to seize your farm. It does not mean that at noon on next Tuesday the FBI will start marching us off to the camps. It does not mean that the federal reserve is about to grab your bank account, nor does it mean that local law enforcement officers will immediately be ordered to seize the contents of your pantry. And it does not mean that UN troops will start patrolling Main St. What it does mean is that any or all of this can happen, merely on a presidential whim, without the benefit of Congressional approval, and despite our rights under the Constitution! Additionally, in my view 12919 fits all too conveniently into Mr. Obama’s announced plan to change America… at any rate it certainly would redistribute the wealth in one fell swoop! You might also want to think about how the officially sanctioned killing of American citizens without benefit of a trial, the Patriot Act’s stripping us of our rights, the unprecedented powers of the Department of Homeland Security, and the fact that we’ve been told by government officials that the Constitution, and Congress, are now irrelevant, all fit together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

Now my question is… why would this order even be considered necessary by the government if the powers-that-be did not see it as a viable means of retaining their control of the nation? (Keep in mind that they also control the armed forces and law enforcement.) This piece of paper states that the President alone has the authority to take over all resources in the nation (labor, food, land, industry, etc.) in the name of “national defense" -- a vague phrase that could be twisted to mean almost anything. Mr. Obama now has the authority (technically) to decide what he wants to do, and then (legally) order the army carry it out. The triggering excuse could be something as simple as a fabricated intelligence report threatening an attack with weapons of mass destruction. But wait, it gets even better! Mr. Obama and President Bush have both declared that we are under a state of National Emergency (which has never been rescinded), and thus the enabling conditions of this order have already been met. Technically EO 12919 is already in effect!

You might also notice that nothing in the order talks about protecting the rights of the American people, but rather it's all about protecting the government. The government needs stockpiles of weapons, food and resources, but John Q. Citizen doesn’t… or at least that seems to be the philosophy of our current government which sees itself as being all powerful. With Executive Orders the state, in a manner surprisingly similar to the Soviet Union, is supreme. The federal government, thanks to the activities of the political left in America, now has the right to do whatever they want to do, at a bureaucrat's whim, a federal department's press release, or due to a politician’s failing polls. Your property, your desires, your children, your job, your rights as an American citizen, your very life… now belong to the government.

Does any of this sound familiar? Well… Heil Hitler ya’all.

Ron Paul

Once again Texas Congressional Representative Dr. Ron Paul is running for president, once again the mainstream media infers that he’s a fringe candidate, and once again the “Ron Paul Revolution” is putting on a pretty impressive showing for being a grass roots operation. Oh Yeah… once again the establishment GOP is trying very hard to ignore him.

One internet pundit, in describing the GOP candidates explains it this way, “Here is the choice, those with integrity… -- a theocrat who wishes to impose his historical religious fantasy on the States, and… -- a cranky old dude who has some good ideas, but has a loose connection with reality. Then there are those with no integrity… -- a stuffed shirt magic underwear bozo who thinks a corporate kleptocracy is good for all, and -- a time proven personal, and professional, liar with massive ethics violations who says "trust me." Well, personally I rather think these descriptions might be just a little bit on the extreme side, but that’s what the man said…

At any rate, considering the Democratic Party’s presidential offering, I have absolutely no choice but to vote for one of the Republicans in the race, and I’m personally not real impressed with the choices the GOP has made available. What I see are three slick professional politicians, and one “cranky old dude who has some good ideas”. Humm… I’m somewhat of a cranky old dude myself, and I like to think I’ve got some good ideas as well (although a lot of people will argue that point), so…

I have a Ron Paul for President campaign brochure in front of me that says he wants to dump the Federal Reserve, along with phasing out the IRS and Income tax. Personally I think that’s one of the better ideas to come along in many a year. He wants to do away with the FED, for without the Fed creating fiat “money” out of wistful thinking and hot air, who knows, maybe we can get federal spending under control, and reduce the national debt as well! (Gee… with that the banks that are “to big to fail” might have to break-up into a lot of little banks, and the high dollar folks in the financial industry might have to go out and find an honest job for a change!) Nobody has ever gotten the overly complex IRS tax code straightened out, so, if we just dump the whole thing, the IRS can no longer be making up the rules as they go about fleecing us. He wants to balance the budget, abolish corporate subsidies, and return spending to 2006 levels, all quite admirable ideas. Another campaign promise he makes that I particularly like is to repeal the Patriot Act, and to return power to the states. The Patriot Act did after all, effectively dump our Constitution in the waste basket, eliminate the rule of law, and make our unelected federal bureaucracy the supreme power in the land. In the past Rep. Paul also voted to put a lid on “gun control” and to limit the power of the executive branch… (the presidency), which means strict limits on the war powers act and the infamous “executive orders”. But dumping the IRS has one potential drawback. Without all those tax dollars coming in every year, what are congressmen going to spend to buy their loyal following and get reelected? Many of his ideas aren’t going to set well with the really big businessmen in this country either, which probably means a lot of irate phone calls to their tame congressmen, which would make the Senator from Boeing, or the Representative from General Mills quite unhappy with the oval office. Returning power to the states obviously reduces the power of the federal bureaucracy, which also won’t set well in Sodom-on-the-Potomac. And of course Congressional business as usual again threatens to be the brick wall facing any meaningful reform, so how does he plan to get all these ideas past the great hot air generator on the hill? I dunno, but I’ll certainly wish him well!

The other problem facing Rep. Paul is the Democratic Party. You know who they are of course, those wonderful folks who voted for Mr. Obama because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, they want to "CHANGE" all that. They also believe that the government would do a better job of spending the money I earn than I can. Well, they also think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, while business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. Business only needs to break even and give the rest of the profits to the government for redistribution… as the Democrats see fit…

Rep. Paul would also have the problem of liberal left wing judges who rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some nut who would never get his agenda past the voters. Humm… In defending their usurpation of federal power, would the Supreme Court declare Mr. Paul’s candidacy “invalid” and kick him out of the running? But then the courts didn’t seem to have much of a problem with the highly questionable Mr. Obama…

At any rate it’s all pretty much a moot point despite Mr. Paul’s quite creditable showing in the primaries. It seems that his Libertarian background is the dragging anchor that will keep him out of office. So… I guess we’re stuck with making our choice from among three slick mainstream politicians. Which leaves me wondering, where-oh-where is Ronnie Regan when we really need him!?