Executive Order a National Concern
May 29, 2012
No Comments
Some
readers may think I am an alarmist. As you read this, join me in understanding
“fundamental change” in America, a stated objective of this U.S. president.
Direct your attention to the March 16, 2012, Executive Order (EO) from the White House titled “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” Read the 10 pages that you can find here. They can be viewed as either appropriate national planning or a replay of events in Germany over several years leading up to war beginning in September 1939. It all depends on whether you trust the U.S. federal government or not. Polls show that the majority of Americans do not.
Part II, Section 201 states that the EO will “promote the national defense” and delegate aspects of that need to Secretaries of Agriculture in regards to food, Energy in regards to energy, etc. The government already has organizations and structures in place that have been operating for decades to achieve all of this, so the litany is superfluous. The EO states (Part III, Section 306) that government will provide for “modification or expansion of privately owned facilities” of financial and industrial institutions related to those mentioned functions and agencies described earlier. Part VIII lists all those functions covered to include civil transportation, energy, farm equipment, food resources and facilities, health, defense, strategic and critical materials, and water resources. In its convoluted manner of writing, the EO provides authority in Part III to nationalize and change things under the aegis of “Expansion of Productive Capacity and Supply.” It is evident to any common-sense thought that this EO is a tactical document setting the stage for control, but it is totally silent on events, conditions or mechanisms to trigger use.
The EO labors through citations and establishes Advisory Committees, an executive reserve corps and chain of command within agencies that make recommendations to the President. This is totally unnecessary because these items and more are already provided by the Defense Production Act and numerous other existing laws. To complicate things, this EO revokes EO 12919 of June 3, 1994, and Sections 401(3) and (4) of EO 12656 of Nov. 18, 1988, which covers the same ground. Why it does so is an important question.
It is a valid consideration to explore how and why this EO is an improvement on current contingency planning regarding national defense. Such means exist and are used daily by executive agencies of federal government. State and local governments have and use similar plans. Sparse public discussion has examined why this EO is needed or why it is better than how defense preparedness is done without it.
It is a valid consideration whether Congress should be a concurring party to implement activation of this EO, much the same as declaration of war requires concurrence by Congress (something that the present Administration has ignored, although required by the Constitution). Notice that the public has not heard any comments or objections by members of either the House or Senate that this new EO is excessive without oversight or concurrence. Congress cannot override an EO, but it can pass legislation declaring an EO unconstitutional. (The Supreme Court can declare an EO unconstitutional but rarely has.) The legislature’s silence is curious and prompts questions of why no member of Congress has expressed concern over the President’s establishment of means to declare a totalitarian state by fiat.
It is valid to wonder why the mass media has been silent on questions that affect every citizen and every business in this country. The cited EO is essentially the same as what was in effect. But it has the signature of this President, supporting evidence of his narcissism. Consider the history of other “leaders” who have suffered from this condition.
What is stated here is one of many examples of our nation headed in the wrong direction. Both the Legislative branches (all House and Senate members) and the Chief Executive in the White House should be replaced in the coming elections this November. It is time to restart federal government processes that are needed to allow American private citizens and business people to guide a restructuring of our nation. Time is short. IH
Direct your attention to the March 16, 2012, Executive Order (EO) from the White House titled “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” Read the 10 pages that you can find here. They can be viewed as either appropriate national planning or a replay of events in Germany over several years leading up to war beginning in September 1939. It all depends on whether you trust the U.S. federal government or not. Polls show that the majority of Americans do not.
Part II, Section 201 states that the EO will “promote the national defense” and delegate aspects of that need to Secretaries of Agriculture in regards to food, Energy in regards to energy, etc. The government already has organizations and structures in place that have been operating for decades to achieve all of this, so the litany is superfluous. The EO states (Part III, Section 306) that government will provide for “modification or expansion of privately owned facilities” of financial and industrial institutions related to those mentioned functions and agencies described earlier. Part VIII lists all those functions covered to include civil transportation, energy, farm equipment, food resources and facilities, health, defense, strategic and critical materials, and water resources. In its convoluted manner of writing, the EO provides authority in Part III to nationalize and change things under the aegis of “Expansion of Productive Capacity and Supply.” It is evident to any common-sense thought that this EO is a tactical document setting the stage for control, but it is totally silent on events, conditions or mechanisms to trigger use.
The EO labors through citations and establishes Advisory Committees, an executive reserve corps and chain of command within agencies that make recommendations to the President. This is totally unnecessary because these items and more are already provided by the Defense Production Act and numerous other existing laws. To complicate things, this EO revokes EO 12919 of June 3, 1994, and Sections 401(3) and (4) of EO 12656 of Nov. 18, 1988, which covers the same ground. Why it does so is an important question.
It is a valid consideration to explore how and why this EO is an improvement on current contingency planning regarding national defense. Such means exist and are used daily by executive agencies of federal government. State and local governments have and use similar plans. Sparse public discussion has examined why this EO is needed or why it is better than how defense preparedness is done without it.
It is a valid consideration whether Congress should be a concurring party to implement activation of this EO, much the same as declaration of war requires concurrence by Congress (something that the present Administration has ignored, although required by the Constitution). Notice that the public has not heard any comments or objections by members of either the House or Senate that this new EO is excessive without oversight or concurrence. Congress cannot override an EO, but it can pass legislation declaring an EO unconstitutional. (The Supreme Court can declare an EO unconstitutional but rarely has.) The legislature’s silence is curious and prompts questions of why no member of Congress has expressed concern over the President’s establishment of means to declare a totalitarian state by fiat.
It is valid to wonder why the mass media has been silent on questions that affect every citizen and every business in this country. The cited EO is essentially the same as what was in effect. But it has the signature of this President, supporting evidence of his narcissism. Consider the history of other “leaders” who have suffered from this condition.
What is stated here is one of many examples of our nation headed in the wrong direction. Both the Legislative branches (all House and Senate members) and the Chief Executive in the White House should be replaced in the coming elections this November. It is time to restart federal government processes that are needed to allow American private citizens and business people to guide a restructuring of our nation. Time is short. IH
Recent Articles by Barry Ashby
