Slashdot Mirror
Executive Order Grants US Gov't New Powers Over Communication Systems
An anonymous reader writes "President Obama has issued a new executive order: 'Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.' EPIC reports: 'The Executive Order grants new powers to the Department of Homeland Security, including the ability to collect certain public communications information. Under the Executive Order the White House has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications.' A few key excerpts from the exec order: 'The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) [National Security/Emergency Preparedness] communications policies, programs, and capabilities. ... Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications, including: communications that support Continuity of Government; Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal emergency preparedness and response communications; non-military executive branch communications systems; critical infrastructure protection networks; and non-military communications networks, particularly with respect to prioritization and restoration; .... (e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate."
has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications
When the U.S. President does it, it's to make your kids safer.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Who needs "checks and balances"...
Because I'm not cranky or old, but the forefathers would've absolutely despised a measure such as this. It's more or less a Quartering Act on the communication network, giving them the right to seize for their own purposes in the state of an emergency.
Why does it always have to be black helicopters coming to get you?
We prefer the term African American helicopters, thank you very much.
Read the Exec, Order. This is not about monitoring specific communication, it's about maintaining the integrity of the communication network so that in the event of an emergency communication doesn't go down.
For those of us in NYC, we should remember core telephone, pager, and cellular infrastructure going down back on 9/11...circuit congestion was through the fucking roof, and someone is turning a "must make communications possible" into "BB is watching you."
The spin is disgusting, and the brainless will never actually read the executive order and understand it anyway. Da govment gona take my phone! Dey do this in E-jupt and Ly-bia. Fucking retards, the lot of you.
My civics may be a bit rusty but my understanding of executive orders is that they are used to further describe legislation that has been passed (i.e. laws) and outlines what federal officers (in the broad sense, not LEOs) are to do to execute the law.
From just the summary, this doesn't seem like this is the case. This seems like a sweeping "I want the ability to do this but not willing to pass it through congress."
Can anyone with more civics experience clarify this? Don't get me wrong: both sides have done this. But want to know how things "should" be.
We don't live in Shouldland.
has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications
When the U.S. President does it, it's to make your kids safer.
So how does "satisfy[ing] priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate." turn into "seizure of private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications"?
Have you heard of QoS? Do you get that there are ways to achieve the stated goal without seizure of a TV station or undersea cable or the like? And that this is already something implemented in the regional and nationwide EBS? Shit, you go nuts when the government has two departments with the same name (what a waste, fire them all!) but when they try to put something important like EBS under one roof, you have a conspiracy fit? Makes me glad I am not a politician. You know why they don't give a shit about what you think? It's because most of you (especially the vocal ones) are fucking nuts!
Yeah, Mr. O. - we can see your "transparent" government now :-(
It is transparent, in a way. At least they're telling you "hey we're going to spy on everything you do and shut you down if we don't like it" whereas previous administrations have just done it and not told you or anyone else. It's still a despicable practice though.
I thought the Federal government already had the power to pre-empt normal communications infrastructure in a time of national emergency. For example, pretty much every radio or TV station, as well as all cable systems, must be able to be activated to broadcast a message from the President. It's part of the EAS that's usually used for severe weather warnings. I thought that the government also had the authority to "commandeer" those facilities if necessary for communications
Isn't this more-or-less extending that same power to the internet? Talking about "continuity of government" sounds like "when we've been hit by a nuclear bomb, we're going to make sure we can communicate by whatever means necessary". You know, the cold-war era thinking about second strike capability and command and control and so on.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Well, I could sure use a few more checks...
Yes, but the paperwork says they were built in Hawaii.
Typical.. read the summary that is flat out wrong, and go ballistic... First it does not grant power over communications, as in all communications, it is for the governments own emergency communications.. second there is nothing about seizing anything... here it is read it for yourself.. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness-
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Please. This is supposed to be a post-race society, where they are simply helicopters, and it doesn't matter what color they are on the outside, or how big their rotors are, or whether they have sliding or swinging doors, or whether they like to mate with other helicopters of the same model or not... what matters is that they are all helicopters, valuable in their own right, and all equally capable of coming after you.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
won'd do you much good if you don't have a positive balance in your account...
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
So, is your suggestion to make the government less like Libya by letting it do whatever it damn well pleases, answering to no law or democracy?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Are you fucking high? He's just continuing the particular policies of George W. Bush and the general policies of every President since Reagan. The worst part about Obama is that he HASN'T changed anything.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Executive Order != legislation. The President cannot enact legislation. All an order can do is give certain organizations power that the President already holds. If he doesn't hold them already, he cannot designate them to another body, which means TFA is probably wildly exaggerating what the order actually means.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
...what? A conspiracy theory as the first comment? Well damn.
I always love coming in to these threads and seeing the internet tough-guy Libertarian/Survivalist bravado and lack of reading comprehension.
This order mostly pertains to emergency management and is directing the DHS to consolidate disaster communications and to appropriate civilian and commercial assets when necessary. You know, like during an emergency.
Which they already have the power to do.
Which isn't a conspiracy, because this is exactly the sort of thing that government does when force majeure is at work.
But hey, don't let me rain on your parade. The frothing at the mouth end-is-nigh rants are precious, as are the "Don't Tread On Me" breathless defenses of your individual liberties, which only seem to be important when Democrats are in office.
As if Mitt Romney or any other Republican in government wouldn't do the same fucking thing...
Where did the Patriot Act come from again?
False dichotomy is false. Stop playing this like it is my team vs their team. There is one team there. You don't get a say, you don't get to play.
Upon a careful reading of the actual executive order, I find, in my humble opinion, that the order does none of things that are being ranted about. First, the bulk of the order are instructions to DHS to develop policies and procedures to ensure that communications will survive in the event of a national emergency. Second, it does allude to ensuring that federal needs will have priority during emergencies, a privilege the government already enjoys. Third, it carefully notes that the authority of the FCC is not being superseded by the order, and that the FCC has control over any communications channels that have been assigned to the federal government, i.e. DHS does not. Frankly, it reads as a get your act together directive, not a sweeping grab of new federal powers.
-- Perhaps I see less than some, but more than many.
Effectively through an extension of drug law powers previously made constitutional by the massive expansion of government power granted the to government during FDR's threatening of the Court during his New Deal.
The country right now is full of people who don't actually know what the President has done, but are perfectly happy to listen to Fox News or otherwise make up their own stories about what he's done, and then hold him accountable for it. Look at the healthcare law - if you poll Republicans about the specific provisions of it , they're hugely in favor of it, but then when you ask them what they think of the President's healthcare law they're vehemently against it.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
I see your niave good intentions, and raise you a commerce clause.
As if there would be any doubt whatsoever about this being abused! Hah!
He didn't. He correctly stated that if "their guy" (as GGP put it) lost, "his guy" would have done the exact same abusive shit.
"Executive order grants US government new powers." Funny, I thought only the Constitution had that authority.
the question is WHEN and WHY do they do it. and the job for you is to base your opinion on those whens and whys, not base on your opinion on the fact that they can do this
for example, china will do it just to crush political dissent. invalid
the usa will do it to crush kiddie porn. valid. the usa might also do it to crush piracy. invalid. so THAT'S where oyu want to focus your criticism
but right now, your opinion just makes you look naive and ridiculous, you are not commenting intelligently on the issue. the basis for your opinion, a common invalid opinion, unfortunately, is that just because the government has this power, something is wrong. except that the government, any government, will always have this power. so that is why your opinion is invalid
you need to focus less on the fact that the police man has a gun at his side, and focus more on the procedures of his police department that say when it is valid for that police man to pick up his gun and shoot you
what you don't get, and never will get, is a police force who don't have guns
(this is not the time to point out the police forces in the world that don't actually carry guns. it's just an analogy, you don't dispel the usefulness of an analogy by being overly literal about it)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No, they're Italian-American. That's why they make a wop wop wop noise.
Enabling^W Patriot Act, Schutzstaffel^W TSA, Gestapo^W Homeland Security, do we get a Night of the Long Knives too?
Maybe you should refresh yourself on executive orders - they are by definition law, and therefore are legislation without representation. They bypass congress. They have essentially unlimited power. They can only be overturned by the court system and the courts don't have to be informed about them if they are classified as national security. The only people that have to be informed about executive order in this case is the national security council. Oh, and yes, it is a given right to the President in the Constitution.
Geez...and people were seriously worried about Bush Jr. trying to 'go imperial', grab power and stay president past his term.
Even he didn't go for a power grab THIS broad.
Seriously...the govt can take over private sector machines? What constitutes an emergency to trigger this takeover....emp? China cyber attack? Bad election returns?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Too many checks throw things out of balance.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Where did the Patriot Act come from again?
John Kerry wrote a significant amount of the Partriot Act, perhaps the majority of it. Things have changed over the past 30 years. In the 70s and into the 80s, the Republicans were the party that wanted government to tell you how to live your life, but these days it seems to be the democrats telling me what light bulb or shower head I can buy, trying to ban violent video games, outlawing toys in happy meals, and in general trying to force me to live a virtuous and sinless life.
I don't care which party is the bigger asshole this generation: take away all the power and budget we can from the federal government, and it won't matter nearly so much.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
They're right. You can only push people so far before they lash out, and people who are already screaming about how the government is oppressing them are far more likely to be the first ones to cross that threshold. This is just common sense.
Ultimately, the only difference between a patriot/freedom fighter and a terrorist, ultimately, is which side won. Taken to extremes, those who would fight to defend their rights are more likely than nearly any other domestic group (other than complete lunatics) to commit acts of violence against their government. If that government still exists at the end of the day, those acts would be considered terrorist acts. The more stable people in those groups are a long way away from that point and will keep finding ways around the DHS's bullshit; because the government is more of a nuisance than a serious problem for them, they will allow themselves to be pushed for decades more before they snap and start blowing up federal buildings. The least stable people in those groups already did it seventeen years ago in Oklahoma City. The remaining people who value freedom lie in a continuum between those extremes.
The thing is, by repeatedly taking actions to erode our civil liberties, the DHS are largely responsible for fomenting that domestic terrorism, should it ever occur. They are driving people ever closer to the point where they feel that they have nothing to lose. Thus, the best thing we can do to prevent domestic terrorism is to cut off Homeland Security's balls, metaphorically speaking—in particular, dismantling groups like the TSA that provide material aid to terrorism by sowing the seeds of tyranny and eroding the roots of our democracy.
More to the point, we need to do it now, before domestic terrorism starts to become a serious problem. Once it does, it is too late. The reaction to a sufficient amount of domestic terrorism will cause everyone to become extremely scared, which will lead to more and more draconian laws that erode liberty and push more and more "freedom fighters" over the edge, leading to a rapidly decaying avalanche of tyranny, until one day we look outside and realize that the U.S. has become a third-world country run by militant warlords.
You cannot prevent terrorism by restricting the public. Doing so can only lead to eventual societal collapse. There is exactly one way to prevent terrorism, and that is to deny it battle—provide care for the poor and homeless, provide medical care for all (and in particular, mental health care), provide safety nets to ensure that no one ever gets into a situation where they feel that they have nothing to lose, and absolutely and completely refuse to allow such horrible acts to change the way we live our lives. Indeed, this can prevent or dramatically reduce the incidence of nearly all forms of crime, not just terrorism.
And this is why the Republicans must not be allowed to succeed in their goals. The Democrats may not always be on the right side of some issues, but nearly every plank of the Republicans' current campaign platform is detrimental to the stability of society—dismantling health care reform, scaling back Social Security and Medicare, scaling back Medicaid and food stamps, and increasing the budget for law enforcement and incarceration, etc. We desperately need a better choice than either party, but given what we have, the future safety and stability of this nation hinges upon ensuring that the Republicans' power is drastically curtailed, and soon. Otherwise, in just a few decades, we will live in a police state.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
My problem with executive orders is they are nearly impossible to over turn. The courts have been reluctant to over turn them and doing it via legislation is next to impossible. Since in order to do so you have to be able to override the President's veto of the legislation. It is kind of disturbing that a President, if he so desires, can very nearly rule by decree.
I dunno. I mean, we're seeing time, and time again how Obama is pushing for more Federal (and presidential) power concentration, and erosion of citizens'/states' rights and privacy.
He swapped his vote/position on the Telecommunications act awhile back...has shown nothing but support for Patriot act renewals, and now this.
Again, it bear saying: The definition of "Insanity" is doing the same thing over and over and over again...and expecting a different outcome.
I'm not a huge Romney fan....but while he is pretty much an unknown when it comes to these issues....we downright positively know how Obama and his administration treats and supports these issues.
I don't really see them repealing or even easing up on these types of issues and legislation on a 2nd term unrestricted by the need for re-election...do you?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Meh. Every President at least as far back as JFK has issued Executive Orders like this, giving the President broad powers to seize all sorts of stuff should there ever be a "national emergency." It's unclear whether they are Constitutional or whether anyone would follow orders to enforce them.
I'm not thrilled with Obama doing it, but let's not pretend this is some novel, new thing that previous Presidents wouldn't have dared.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge. I truly do believe that.
That is quite a strong belief system you have with no solid proof to back it up.
I personally think we have MORE religion than we need in this country.
Hmmmm.....
"as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge. I truly do believe that."
I don't doubt you do believe that. The problem is it's 'O' that's done it... not a "republican". There's been more shenanigans from the "D"s (because they had total control for two years) with regards to both executive and legislative maneuvering than I can recall ever.
Is it because the Dems are bad? No. It's because they had total and supra majority control.
My vote for president as a rule of thumb is for the candidate who is of the OPPOSITE party of whoever controls congress. Some of our best and most productive years as a nation have been when the two branches are in opposite party control.
You are arguing now that mccain and sarah palin would have run the USA better. That is what you are arguing, just so we are clear.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications
When the U.S. President does it, it's to make your kids safer.
I just re-read section 5.2 (which deals with DHS) for the *third* time. I don't see that anywhere in the order. This is astroturfing, and not a very good example of it either.
Geez! The US government is already doing enough stupid/illegal/unethical things already. No need to fake up any more. Unless, of course, the goal is to discredit the Obama administration in advance of the election. I mean, it's one thing to say the the gov't is spying on *everyone*, killing civilians, wiping their asses with the bill of rights, etc, etc, etc. The problem is that this is nothing new -- the Republicans are just as guilty of all of these things as are the Democrats.
Whatever. Trolls are gonna troll.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
No let's instead pretend that since it has happened before, we should downplay its current significance by citing the past.
Congress. Signed by a President. Not yet overruled by the SCOTUS
THIS is different. It is an Executive Order. Do you really not know the difference? Or are you so blinded by (D) good (R) bad ideology that you will simply make any excuse for this?
The Patriot Act was bad, but both parties voted pretty much lockstep with each other to do it. Blame the (D) and the (R) for that one. (313 yea in the house 98 yea in the senate). So quit blaming GWB for that, it was practically EVERYONE ;)
Can you see the difference now?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Politicians need checks from lobbyists to increase their balances.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Pretty sure he's not a liberal...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate; How is that not "seizing" private resources?
First off, the government has *always* had the ability to pre-empt communications in the event of an emergency. Have you ever heard of "The Emergency Broadcast System?" This is nothing new. The order says nothing about seizing or shutting down communications. It talks about being able to marshal resources in the case of an interruption in government communications. Have you taken your halo-peridol today?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
take away all the power and budget we can from the federal government, and it won't matter nearly so much.
If I only had mod points.
The problem isn't with which party is in charge, it's with how much whoever is in charge can do. I'm not calling for anarchy, but an awful lot of our problems stem from too much centralized control, not too little.
For those of you cheering the health care act's penalty, just think what you would say if the other side had exercised such power. For all of these executive orders, what if it were the other side? Just a hypothetical for you: now that Obama has successfully issued an executive order to DHS to not process certain illegal aliens, and that executive order has been defended by a large number of partisans, will those same partisans defend a Romney executive order that directs the IRS to simply not collect any penalties levied by the ACA? How about a Republican "tax" on abortion procedures? Would you be ok with that since you recognize the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the individual mandate as a tax under the taxing power of Congress? Would those pundits who cheered the decision still feel the same when its precedent is used on a subject contrary to their ideology? What about an individual mandate to purchase a gun or pay a penalty if you don't? After all, crime costs us just as much as those free riders at the emergency room. If you're worried about guns being used irresponsibly, we'll just create a mandate for all employers to provide safe gun ownership training and one hour a month at the shooting range. Feeling better about those ACA precedents yet?
Regardless of sides, the last 8 years have seen an unprecedented consolidation of power that can and will be abused by either side. The only fix is to get involved in your local politics and start getting people into office who will vote to cut back federal (and state) powers. The more demand there is for that kind of politician, the more of that kind of politician we will see. If you disagree with the Tea Party (who is for smaller government, but maybe not the parts you would like to see shrink), then get out and start your own movement (no, Occupy doesn't count - it's a failure as a political movement). No matter what, the future of America rests in its ability to walk back these power grabs and reestablish a constrained government with narrowly defined powers.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Hey you leftists; just because you may agree with the current administrations policies, wait until we get a conservative in office.
No leftist agrees with this administration's policies. Obama is a crony capitalist just like the rest.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Meh. Every President at least as far back as JFK has issued Executive Orders like this, giving the President broad powers to seize all sorts of stuff should there ever be a "national emergency."
Eh, "every president at least as far back as JFK" was a president after the two great advances of hyperfederalism, i.e. reconstruction and the new deal. Nobody's pretending it's a new trend, but it's damn infuriating when every damn president, despite claiming to support either "small government" or "social liberties", marches right in line with his predecessor, pushing federal power an inch further. Obama is perhaps the most frustrating to today's youth, since he ran one of the more populist, throw-the-bums-out, real-change campaigns in recent memory. And of course, since it happened today, not 4 years ago.
It's unclear whether they are Constitutional or whether anyone would follow orders to enforce them.
The former may be unclear, but the latter is completely clear.
There's certainly little constitutional need for them, as anything the executive has the power to authorize in advance, he has the power to authorize when needed. And while one might think that, by declaring his presumed powers beforehand, the President opens them to scrutiny that could result in them being declared unconstitutional and illegal (thus, that unchallenged E.O.s would be confirmed within the President's lawful power), this is just not the case -- until some act is taken pursuant to them which harms some state or citizen, nobody has standing to file suit, thus the courts cannot rule on it.
Regarding obedience, see Milgram's famous experiment on the subject; orders pursuant to these E.O.s will be obeyed by federal agents, exactly as any other orders (or the same orders, in the absence of the E.O.) would be, and nobody at your local ISP will stop the men in body armor and guns when they come through the door. (Note that obedience depends principally on the authority's immediacy, which is a huge part of why we have such long chains of command and so many layers of bureaucracy -- so each person is receiving an order from an immediate authority, not a voice from Washington. They will obey.)
I have to agree. I am pretty solidly Conservative/Libertarian, but I have to admit that Clinton was a pretty good President.
In hindsight, Hillary would have been better than Obama.
Also in hindsight EVERY SINGLE WORD of Obama's stellar speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 has turned out to be a LIE.
This is mostly incorrect. Executive orders only allow the executive to exercise powers conferred upon it by some other source, such as directly by the constitution (such as in some situations involving national defense and commanding the military) or by laws passed by the legislature. Typically they allow the president to order federal agencies (which are [generally] part of the executive branch) to alter the manner in which they carry out the laws congress has asked them to execute. Congress may give the executive more or less freedom to choose how the law will be applied, but it must always be within the meaning of the language congress passed.
If you read the executive order in question here (I know, I know...), you will see that it at least claims to have been authorized by a number of laws, but particularly The Communications Act of 1934.
This means that not only can executive orders be overturned by the courts, they can also be effectively overturned by the legislature by altering the authorizing legislation, or they can be "overturned" by future presidents who can simply supersede them with new, incompatible executive orders.
caritj.org
As a Dem, I can say we _know_ Obama sucks and we aren't expecting any difference after the election.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
It's not the definition of insanity, as you put it, it's picking how you want to get screwed the least. I hate that Obama is doing all this Bush-esque stuff, but I know Romney would do it much worse.
Yeah, especially since the summary turned out to be a lot of baseless hysteria, and the EO is actually about protecting our communications systems in the event of an emergency--not the government "seizing" them.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
I truly believe that any president, R or D would do this. You're forgetting that in the public light they bash each other and act like enemies but behind closed doors they all work together to fill each others bank accounts.
Indeed; a cursory glance at who is financing Obama and Romney's campaigns shows who really runs this country: Namely, Goldman motherfucking Sachs and J.P. Morgan.
More amazing is how this information is publicly available, yet the masses still trend towards eschewing reality in favor of the nonsense-topic-of-the-day.
I still laugh at the so called occupier idiots that protest the rich CEO's (well unless it's Steve Jobs/Apple) and banks. They should really be marching in Washington.
Again, considering that Wall Street banks are the de facto, shadow rulers of America, their protest was targeted at the right group, albeit by a highly misguided group of college dropouts with too much free time.
If you want to kill a serpent, cut off the head.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Bush DID grab the power to spy on all communications in the U.S., without a warrant - remember that whole "Warrantless wiretapping" thing and "carnivore" that sorted through your e-mails and text messages. The difference is that Obama publishes his orders where they can be critiqued, and thus gives us a chance to object and bring suit to prevent it.
You'd think people would have longer memories.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
Or.. put another way ... I think Obama will help to strengthen the middle class (i.e. restore the wealth of the middle 30% or so of the populace) and thus give us the means to power to reclaim the rest.
Step by step.
Why is it that people like you are perfectly happy to stomach a power grab contrary to the freedoms ensured by the Constitution, and excuse a circumvention of proper representation through Congress, by insisting that THIS President wont abuse it? Is it ignorance or denial that keeps you from reconciling that every future President and administration now has the same powers?
I don't particularly care if the guy in the oval office today is the most benevolant, magnanimous and righteous person to have ever graced this Earth (and I dont believe that for a second). Its his duty to understand that the office may not always be occupied by such an angelic human being, and granting that future President the ability to have dominion over the populace is grossly irresponsible at best, and in conflict with the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
That being equal....while I can't stand what McCain became on that run (I did like him somewhat against Bush)...no, I cannot see him doing any worse, and likely we'd not be in the messes and have the power grabs we're currently seeing from the current administration.
McCain circa 2001, who was against invading Iraq, against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, against torture, etc... yea, that guy I would have been honored to vote for.
That was not the McCain who ran for President.
2x levels of bad really....I don't like either one of them, but at this point, Obama is a PROVEN bad, where McCain presidency is only a hypothetical level of bad. With those two....yeah, I'd take McCain.
Ahh, the fallacy of buyers' remorse: What I got isn't what I expected, so what I didn't get must have been the better choice!
6 words to fix that flawed method:
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."
I believe they call that being "hoisted by his own petard;" He scuttled his own campaign the moment he decided to join the fray.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Very true point. Clinton's Presidency was vastly improved by Newt.
You believe they are actually on different teams?
Have you seen "The Obama Deception" on youtube? I was going to type a long ass rant, but will save the trouble. Just watch that movie please.
Read this wonderful 2 thousand year old story. Then ask yourself why a majority of American's know more about Celebrities and Sports than they do about Politics. It is not a new story mind you, through history we have seen the same thing repeated over and over. It never ends well for the majority that get shammed by people in power.
There are so many indicators that we are in deep shit, yet very few will talk about them. These types of executive orders dismantling the constitution are not new, but recently they have been quite drastic. Corporate controlled media will not talk about them. I watch and listen to the "News", but can assure you that there is very little "News" to be found.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge. I truly do believe that.
That is quite a strong belief system you have with no solid proof to back it up.
I personally think we have MORE religion than we need in this country.
Hmmmm.....
I don't know. 8 Years of GW Bush was proof enough for me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Effectively through an extension of drug law powers previously made constitutional by the massive expansion of government power granted the to government during FDR's threatening of the Court during his New Deal.
Uhm, what now? The only significant piece of drug policy I could find that came out of the FDR administration, The Marijuana Tax Act, was actually ruled UNconstitutional, despite being an exercise in taxing authority rather than drug law per se.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the existing carte blanche for drug prohibition currently wielded by the federal government, was signed into law by President Nixon.
How would Obama help to strengthen the middle class? And why? A strong middle class erodes any political group's power base, but the Democrats have set themselves up to be particularly susceptible. Growing entitlements effectively taxes and inflates the middle class into extinction. Furthermore, there is no logical path to get from "all-powerful central government" to "people who are empowered." How can an agenda that dissolves individual sovereignty bring power back to the people? It's a fallacy.
Maybe you "dunno" but eight years of Bush pretty much drove the point home that Repubs are statists--in the name of freedom, of course. There's really no need to pretend that we don't know that a Republican administration would have achieved more erasure of civil liberties as they relate to telecom. Repubs are against gov't unless it is trying to involve itself in your pants or ensure your false sense of security through authoritarianism. That said, no one should be surprised by this executive order. Gov't seeks to control. President Romney, should that fuckwit win in 2012, won't rescind this order, will pile onto it, and will eagerly sign any new, over-the-top PATRIOT Act additions (for Jesus, the children, or whatever). The president after that, no matter which party, will do the same.
As a Dem, I can say we _know_ Obama sucks and we aren't expecting any difference after the election.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
It's not the definition of insanity, as you put it, it's picking how you want to get screwed the least. I hate that Obama is doing all this Bush-esque stuff, but I know Romney would do it much worse.
This is why I tell my friends I think the Democrats and Republicans are working together. The goal is for the Republicans to look so outrageous and scary that Obama can do outrageous and scary things and still look like the better option. McCain and Palin played their role well, making Obama look like a hero while he signed off on everything the rich and powerful wanted. Now Romney is playing his role well, and Obama continues to sign off on everything the rich and powerful want.
They think Obama's past 4 years has been about strengthening the middle class, and they want 4 more years of it. War is peace, y'know.
In interviews, Jesse Ventura compares politics, specifically Republicans vs Democrats, as a lot like his former pro wrestling days. On stage they pretend to hate each other and they fight, but it's all choreographed for maximum entertainment (or, for politics, to make people think they have a say) and at the end of the night, they change back into their civilian clothes and go out drinking together.
In the US, I'm coming to think that speech is "free speech" because it has no value, and that countries that squash speech do so because it's still powerful. After all, if voting could change anything, it'd be illegal.
More Twoson than Cupertino
And exactly what has he done so far to promote the middle class? Hmm....I see he's wanting to cut the Bush tax cuts for those over $250K....but that isn't going to boost the middle class (in fact, if said couple is running a small business, and it is set up to have business income, etc fall through on personal taxes...it will likely hit them worse).
So far, I've not seen numbers that show Obamacare will help the middle class any...if anything in a few years it might hit them again.
I hear Obama extolling the virtues of raising the middle class...but I see very little action and no specific ideas being put forth. Please enlighten me on all the things he has done and has specifically laid out that will raise the middle class.
These days...I keep thinking he confuses the middle class with the poverty/welfare class....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There in lies the problem. While one would like to believe that the military is always at the top of their game when it comes to disseminating illegal orders, in the case of a major event, would they still have the wherewithal to adequately consider the ramifications of their actions? Remember, authoritarians always seek to expand their power base during moments of conflict, and once achieved, they rarely give it up.
I am John Hurt.
Eberyone would eliminate evrything but the program they like, naturally, which is why we get nowhere. We can't cut the "service the debt" portion of the budget. If we cut everything else by half, we'd barely have a balanced budget. It pretty much has to be everything, or eventual collapse. Yes, even that one program you really like.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
These days...I keep thinking he confuses the middle class with the poverty/welfare class....
Well, I can understand his confusion. They are becoming increasingly difficult to tell apart.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
Or.. put another way ... I think Obama will help to strengthen the middle class (i.e. restore the wealth of the middle 30% or so of the populace) and thus give us the means to power to reclaim the rest.
Step by step.
Would you like to put forth a scrap of proof of this assertion or are we to merely accept it as fact? Given he's done exactly nothing to help the middle class and lots to do drastic harm to them, your position is extremely weak.
To wit: Deficits and debt on a scale the world has never seen with no end in sight, exploding entitlement programs with never ending commitments and nothing but a desire to further expand them. Exactly how does that help the "middle class"? Who do you think is going to be paying for this or are you just assuming that we'll just soak the rich for all of it?
Hope and Change my ass.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Kerry wrote NONE of the PATRIOT act.
Funny, he claimed that he wrote several sections on his 2004 election campaign website, and was proud of that fact: no "soft on terrorism" candidate, no siree.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
From the EO:
So government communication takes precedence over all other kinds of communication.
They can "seize" when this new "committee" decides it's necessary.
He also revokes Reagan's EO which says this:
That EO says the government must maintain its own facilities, and outlines war powers and non-war emergency powers, but says the government has to make sure its own crap works in emergencies. This new order says the new "committee" has the authority to ensure that private communications assets work in emergencies so that the government can seize them when such an emergency is declared. The committee also has the authority to decide when such an emergency exists.
No tinfoil required, to see this as another power grab.