Now all we need is a fire in the Reichstag
 

Direct from the White House:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...070509-12.html

So, basically the president no longer even needs to declare a state of emergency to legally gain complete control of the U.S. government.

In the case of a "catastrophic emergency," which is so conveniently devoid of real meaning as to apply to anything from a suicide bombing to a protest or riot, the President is given the authority to facilitate the operations of the government with the enforcement of "continuity requirements."

Also interesting is that it enforces a "dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions." (Section 4) Which in application means "divide and conquer Congress and the Judiciary."

In addition, the executive may assign "coordinators" to the branches to ensure that they implement his policies to supposedly ensure the continuance of "constitutional government."

I find it rather ironic how there is perpetual emphasis on "constitutional government" when in fact every method utilized to maintain this is essentially a violation of the Constitution.

Also, for those that may claim that as soon as order is "restored," such coordination will be dissolved, I would HIGHLY advise you to read this article on a population's general complacence with the status quo:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff56.html


I do fear that I might be crying cat on this one, so maybe someone who is more familiar with legalese can put my concerns to rest with a more seasoned interpretation.

We've still got guns, at least.

It's almost as if nobody has read The Road to Serfdom.

I was just thinking:

This directive says that "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of disruption severely affecting the U.S. ... economy" is cause for instituting this directive.

So for example, if the Yen exchange crashes, there is cause for a Palpatine-esque takeover.

It chills you to the bone. >_>

Yeah I heard about this during the news break while listening to Coast to Coast. It's bullshit it was put into effect so quietly and that there was pretty much no media attention or a news conference about it at all.

Also, uh, lets say an emergency happens and the President assumes all this power. What guns are you going to use when he goes, "lol you cant have guns sry o wut constitution? i overide that now lols".

Oh hay guys looks like Rome again. If I remember my studies right this is pretty much what the politicians back in Rome did frequently. Declare an emergency and assume absolute power.

...Didn't the founders of America pretty much not want something like this to happen?

There may have been a hint of sarcasm in those gun statements.

Actually I don't think so.

Fortunately, its not like merely outlawing guns nationwide is going to make them mysteriously vanish from every gun cabinet and basement in the U.S.
And I doubt, with the strength of the NRA and gun manufacturer lobby, there will be any drastic efforts by the executive to suddenly take them all away.

All they need is some time, a nice tragedy to capitalize on, and some well-placed propaganda to get the people to willingly give up their guns.
Oh yeah, and the demonization of 2nd amendment supporters, which pretty much has been relentless since "Bowling for Columbine."

Of course, the alternative to remaining silent up until the point of actually using firearms is to organize peaceful protest, but then you know those activist whack jobs amirite?

Why bother with silent protests when you can pull out the big guns lolol -_-

This could be just conspiracy theory related, but I heard that The National State of Emergency or something was essentially the equivalent of what is being enacted (?? or proposed ??) right now. Of course, I hear it from questionable people and sources, what with the "Federal State of Emergency has been in place since the 20s!!@"

Could someone fill me in on that one?

Peaceful protest? More like National Emergency. Here comes the Georgia State Guard.

Well fuck.

What can we do about it? I mean... the wording in the document seems to have the seperation of powers placed still, but... fuck, I hate Fearmongering, from ANY side.

People complained about the federal government's response during Katrina, when it was the LA governor that couldn't pull her head out long enough to request assistance from the national guard. This is designed to get around that kind of bureaucratic B.S. in times of emergency.

Still, it's a good idea to examine the fine print when such things are instituted...

Because you get around the bureaucratic b.s. that is FEMA by managing a catastrophe with a bigger (and still incomplete) bureaucracy, i.e. the Dept. of Homeland Security. :rolleyes:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/29/12921/7971

First they lie to you, telling you that they need to "streamline" the system by centralizing power(translation: add more layers of hierarchy to the "decision-makers"); but, as history has proven time and time again, this is the worst thing you can do, the system fails. Then they lie to you more, telling you that they need to centralize the powers more. Oh, and they miiight need to take away your right to a trial. Because you never know when those terrorists might pop up in the middle of an emergency situation to take advantage of it. Because its important to streamline the process by removing due process. Of course, in states of confusion, people will generally give up their rights willingly. Oh yeah, and they might need to take away your right to assemble, since obviously you can't have crowds of people. Thats just harder to manage.

Fill a foreigner in this please, does that mean that in case of an emergency, the president has total authority to overule the constitution itself?

Why not? The president has the authority right now to ignore stuff that he signs into law.

NOT TERRIFYING AT ALL.

Lol. The government has been overruling the Constitution in every place it can get away with(Habeas Corpus anyone? anyone?) . And since both the media and politicians are practically owned by the top 10 world companies, its safe to say that they can get away with a lot these days.

Indeed a sad world that we live in, were lobbyists control what happen in our lives, but I was asking more in terms like, in case of an international crisis the president becoming the sole mastermind behind U.S. fate, I always though the senate controlled those things. (excuse my naiveness, politics isn't a strong subject around here)

While it would be highly unpopular for a president to just explicitly seize power, this is not to say that they might not implicitly seize power.

However, the way I see things, they are attempting to push the people further and further towards outrage against a failing and corrupt U.S. government. This will inevitably lead to violent revolution, and if someone attempts to take up the banner of leadership (which is a "duh thing. Of course someone will.), they will almost certainly say things to the effect of "the Constitution and the government have failed us. We must start anew," effectively inciting the people to toss out the Constitution because of its "failure." (that of course is a misunderstanding, since, if the stupid populace would just hold their elected officials ACCOUNTABLE to the Constitution, we wouldn't be in this mess.)
The biggest barrier to the establishment of a dictatorship or plutocracy in the U.S. is the Constitution. If the people can be persuaded to abandon that, then its easy pick'ns for the rich and powerful.

Of course, I'm sure you all can fill in the remaining steps. Confused and distressed people will complicitly give up a surprising number of rights and freedoms in the name of safeguarding their country and security. History has also proven this time and time again.

I would like to hear Styphon's take on all this though.

You know, I'm not even remotely a conspiracy theorist. Heck, I consider the vast majority of conspiracy theorists to be mentally ill wackjobs. But god damn this makes me wonder if the maybe the entire Katrina recovery disaster wasn't somehow deliberately orchestrated to give the White House an excuse for this.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence and all that, but damned if this doesn't fit in entirely too well with the administration's apparent overall agenda. I could just be giving them too much credit given their track record, but I really do hope I'm just pulling things out of my ass.

I bet the governor of Louisiana and mayor of New Orleans were in on it too!

The problem with conspiracies is that they rely on a malicious original intent. The reality is that people do stupid shit because they actually think it solves problems.

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/4...tenagintg3.jpg

Of course I is!


I'm glad Blanco isn't running for re-election. She'd lose by a landslide anyway.