http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824
Bush makes power grab
Posted: May 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007
President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.
That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
When the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."
Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency.
[...]
The entire article can be found here:
http://www.worldnetd...
Link to the Directive:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
Comments Policy
Seems to me he had little c
May 25, 2007 - 12:03 ET by The Wicked ConservativeSeems to me he had little choice Wing-Ding. If every time a natural disaster strikes a state run by a liberal government, that state they obviously need someone else to take the reigns. See specifically Katrina and recently in Oklahoma. There is still no better illustration in history than that of East and West Germany post WWII. Socialism and the leftist ways left East Germany decades behind and unable to recover post war. Capitalism and right thinking made West Germany a superpower. New Orleans is still in shambles and will continue to be until the left is outed.
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
good answer, wicked
May 25, 2007 - 13:29 ET by tumblerYeah; me too. Bush is our President; so in certain situations he (or the sitting Executive) has to be able to act with or without the co-operation of the fence-straddlers, obstructionists, back-stabbers and chattering class.
If his work turns out a fiasco, that's tough. With Al Gore as President, for instance; we couldn't be sure of any useful activity in the White House. But he would surely entertain Larry King while the country was in crisis.
So, I take it you think Linco
May 25, 2007 - 15:15 ET by UnsaneSo, I take it you think Lincoln to be one of our nation's most evil and horrible presidents?
Or Andrew Jackson, for his actions in New Orleans from 1814-1815 (yes, he wasn't president until 1829-1837, BUT you should read what he did when he ran N.O.)?
Or Bush the Elder, for federalizing California's National Guard during the May 1992 riots in Los Angeles?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
"So, I take it you think
June 12, 2007 - 22:58 ET by fields2grand"So, I take it you think Lincoln to be one of our nation's most evil and horrible presidents?"
I can't speak for the poster of this article but the civil war was not fought over slavery, it was states rights. What Lincoln did was pretty atrocious if you favor the U.S. constitution. If you don’t believe in what the country was founded on than that’s your prerogative. If you don’t know what I’m talking about than you probably think Lincoln was a great man. Once you research what he did to our country, you will change your mind. Thanks.
The South Lost. Get Over It.
June 13, 2007 - 06:07 ET by UnsaneOne, repeat after me:
The South Lost The Civil War.
Two: it was about SLAVERY. If it was NOT about SLAVERY, then why is there a 13th Amendment?
FIFTEEN DOWN, ONE TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
I found this on the subject
June 13, 2007 - 07:19 ET by WhichWingI found this on the subject, and I'm sure there are numerous interpretations, but here is what this one says:
The Northern armies were not fighting to free the slaves and the Southern armies were not fighting to defend slavery. The goal of the North was to defeat the Confederacy in order to restore the Union; the goal of the South was to win its fight for independence. From the beginning to the end, Lincoln made it clear that slavery/emancipation was secondary to reunion. (As it happened, the fate of 4 million slaves hung in the balance once Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.)
Most Southerners owned no slaves--many such as Lee and Jackson favored gradual emancipation--but they were strongly opposed to abolition for political, economic and social reasons. Moreover, the powerful minority of slaveholders were calling the shots (politically speaking). In short, slavery precipitated secession and doomed the Confederacy. The Confederate government was unwilling to sacrifice slavery for the cause of independence, so there was no chance for a negotiated (political) settlement of the war. In this sense, it unintentionally became a war for/against slavery, but that was not why the two sides were fighting.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
This is true. The vast majo
June 13, 2007 - 07:28 ET by Sergeant ROCKThis is true. The vast majority of those that fought for the Confederacy did not own any slaves. And Yankee revisionists ignore the fact that blacks also fought for the Confederacy. What's funny is that slaves were imported mainly through Northern ports. Then, the abolitionists came along and said 'free' your slaves, but don't look for a refund from your Yankee sellers. Lincoln wished to preserve the Union above all else, plain and simple. Also, there were also a couple of Northern states that debated secession for their states in previous years.
If the war was not about slav
June 13, 2007 - 07:54 ET by UnsaneIf the war was not about slavery, you may want to also explain the fear that the South had of a shifting balance of power in Congress as more and more non-slave states were coming on board. Note the order in which states entered the Union back then. There was an effort made to bring in a slave state, only to balance it with a free state.
FIFTEEN DOWN, ONE TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
The civil war was entirely ab
June 13, 2007 - 07:56 ET by LeonThe civil war was entirely about slavery. 100%.
Read Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson.
Anybody who says differently is willfully ignoring the facts of the situation.
100%? You really do have yo
June 13, 2007 - 07:59 ET by Sergeant ROCK100%? You really do have your head firmly esconced in your rectum! STFU already!
I repeat. The war was 100%
June 13, 2007 - 08:04 ET by LeonI repeat. The war was 100% about slavery. The south wanted slaves, more importantly, they wanted their escaped slaves returned.
They wanted slavery in the new territories. They needed slavery to continue their way of life.
Their only battle cry was racism and a desire to subjegate an entire race of peoples. They fought for no noble cause. They fought for slavery.
Said the deranged liberal..
June 13, 2007 - 08:07 ET by Sergeant ROCKSaid the deranged liberal...
100% is entirely false, nice try. Read a book.
I suggested a book for you to
June 13, 2007 - 08:11 ET by LeonI suggested a book for you to read, that I have already read. Check it out. In my mind, the best book written about the civil war.
Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson
How can you read with your
June 13, 2007 - 08:16 ET by Sergeant ROCKHow can you read with your head firmly esconced in your rectum?
Try: The South Was Right! or Myths of American Slavery
I'd back away from "10
June 13, 2007 - 08:09 ET by WhichWingI'd back away from "100%" if I were you. Nobody can know 100%.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
No, I know. It's 100%. Th
June 13, 2007 - 08:11 ET by LeonNo, I know. It's 100%. The south fought to keep slaves. Period.
Neon knows everything.
June 13, 2007 - 08:18 ET by Sergeant ROCKNeon knows everything.
So that's why this book was
June 13, 2007 - 08:18 ET by sarcasmoSo that's why this book was written. And why Lee freed all his slaves before the war while Sherman actually kept slaves on his march from Atlanta to the sea. Wow, I learn new things about history here every day, some of them -- as here -- quite imaginative...
JMR
The war was about economics,,
June 13, 2007 - 21:12 ET by general companyThe war was about economics,,at first. The south felt that they grew all of the cotton and such only to see it shipped up north to be processed and then exported. The south got very little for the cotton the north got jobs by doing the processing and even more for the exports. This is what started the war. Freeing the slaves was also being discussed at the time but it was not a driving force for the war. The writing was on the wall, the slave were to be free with or without the war.BTW after Ice, cotton was our biggest export. No kidding
"President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/Wow, Leon. Stupid much?
June 13, 2007 - 21:56 ET by Roger the ShrubberWow, Leon. Stupid much?
So, now it is convenient for
June 15, 2007 - 01:06 ET by UnsaneSo, now it is convenient for you to study history?
The Southern elites fought for slavery, as it was the Southern elites who owned slaves.
MAKE WAY FOR THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS!!! THE 1999, 2003, 2005, AND 2007 NBA CHAMPIONS!!!!
Oh, sh*t, Leon, it's on now!
June 13, 2007 - 08:10 ET by Dave RThe civil war was entirely about slavery. 100%.
So, you are on of those who believes the Southern War for Independence (what you guilt-ridden lilly-white libs refer to as the Civil War) was fought over slavery.
Pal, you just landed in my backyard. Wanna play?
Build the damn fence, George!
Say what you will, it's all a
June 13, 2007 - 08:13 ET by LeonSay what you will, it's all about the slaves.
Save your debate for later. I have a meeting at 9:15.
Shoot me a private message and we can go from there.
Shoot me a private message an
June 13, 2007 - 08:28 ET by Dave RShoot me a private message and we can go from there.
Oh, no you don't. This is going to be right out front, in front of God and everybody.
It was never the intention of The South to overthrow the government of the United States of America. The South was only seeking independence from a federal government that it felt (quite rightly, I may add) was interfering in places it did not have the authority to.
Slavery did not even become an issue in the procedings until well into the second year of the war, and only then due to some rather deft political manuevers on the part of President Lincoln. Up to that point, the Union wasn't doing all that well in the war, and Mr. Lincoln needed to do something to give those loyal to the Union a cause to rally around.
The results of Mr. Lincoln's effort were rather mixed, as the Confederacy had a lot of supporters in the Union territories, and vice versa.
Oh, incidentally, I had ancestors on both sides of that war.
Build the damn fence, George!
You are correct. The South
June 13, 2007 - 08:35 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou are correct. The South was the Union's cash cow because of it's agriculture products exported to Europe and elsewhere. This is a fact often overlooked by revisionist historians and the fact that because of this, Britain and France almost entered the war on the CSA's side. It's been written that had the Confedrates won at Gettysburg, it would've been the case.
Sarge,Had the South prevaile
June 13, 2007 - 08:57 ET by Dave RSarge,
Had the South prevailed at Gettysburgh, it is a near certainty that the Union would have granted it the independence it sought, as there would have been nothing even remotely strong enough on the Union side to have prevented Lee's army from invading Washington.
Had JEB Stuart not gone off on his bizarre adventure and left Lee virtually blind, and if Longstreet had been able to convince Lee to abandon the town, take up a defensive position thus forcing Meade to attack them (the Confederate Army always performed better on the defensive) the whole thing could have ended right then and there.
For some unknown reason, which is still being debated today, Lee grew a serious stubborn streak and forced the battle to take place. IMHO, this decision cost him the war, as the Army of Northern Virginia was never able to recover.
My theory is that Lee was tired of it all and just wanted it to be over, period.
Build the damn fence, George!
While I agree with the econom
June 13, 2007 - 21:41 ET by general companyWhile I agree with the economics and Lincoln offering the Emancipation Proclamation as motivation and some other points to your argument, I do not believe that Gettysburg would had been the nail in the North's coffin. The South was cut off from supply's and had been for some time. Plus they were soon to be pursued from the South. The Union army was in better shape and would not had taken a crippling beating that day. The Union Army was in reality just learning to fight, and the South was starting to show it. The important thing about this war was that we all learned that we are created equal, really equal and that we had better believe it or this type of war will happen again. The real sad thing was that Lincoln was assassinated. Lincoln was ready to forgive fully, but after his assassination the reconstruction turned vengeful and this unfortunately is what gave the South its understandable hatred for the North.
Great conversation hereYou both make some great poin
June 13, 2007 - 21:55 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou both make some great points. I can only add that I read a review of a new book out about Stuart's actions at Gettysburg, revealing that Stuart did in fact send a letter to Lee warning him of Meade's army, but Lee never got it, and that Lee had plenty of cavalry already at Gettysburg, and more cavalry waiting in Maryland to cover any retreat, and could have been called up if needed.
Might be a good read, if you were into this genre.
If Lee had listened to Longstreet, Washington was doomed
June 14, 2007 - 20:50 ET by Dave Rgeneral company,
First of all, I apologize for taking so long to get back to you, but I had to go see Rush kick off their 2007 World Tour last night here in Atlanta, so I was just a little busy yesterday (Priorities, ya know).
You make a great point, only problem is, had Lee listened to Old Pete and had placed his forces between Meade's and the capitol, he would have had no difficulty in subduing it, as the only Union force in Washington proper at that time can only be described as token (and that is being quite charitable). Meade, who had only just taken command of the Army of the Potomac, would have had no choice but to pursue Lee and go over to the offensive in an effort to prevent his advancing on Washington, thus providing Lee with the ideal situation.
Realize that Lee would not have had to take and actually hold Washington for very long, only long enough to persuade the Union to accede to his wishes.
As for supplies, both Lee and Longstreet, throughout the war, performed near miracles in supplying their army off the land. As the Confederacy had nowhere near the industrial might of the Union, and that included transport capabilities, the one advantage Confederate soldiers had over their Union counterparts was their ability to go without and maintain their willingness, as well as there ability, to fight on.
Dave, tell me how the show we
June 14, 2007 - 20:55 ET by Roger the ShrubberDave, tell me how the show went. PM me or post on the open thread! Let me know some of the tunes they played, ok?
Rog,I'm writing up a short bl
June 14, 2007 - 21:10 ET by Dave RRog,
I'm writing up a short blurb now, as I was so friggin' busy at the orifice today, I never got the chance.
BTW- That was the first I have ever heard it suggested that JEB dispatched a message to Lee while off on his little jaunt in Pensylvania. That is damned interesting. I am using, as references, Stephen Sears' most excellent work on Gettysburgh, James Longstreet's memoirs (to be taked with a grain of salt, or three) and, of course, Shelby Foote's (Shelby was a walking encyclopedia of that war) excellent three volume narrative, the best 3000 pages I've ever read on any topic.
I just happened across this thread---just now--
June 13, 2007 - 22:17 ET by misterbillI just happened across this thread---just now--Leon wake up!! The issue was (and still should be, States' Rights). Slavery was the match that lit the fuse on that cannon. There were a lot of issues leading up to it--go to any Civil War history book and check the "Missouri Compromise". The North was forcing the issue of Federal control over States' rights. Most citizens would have yawned as they, until very recently have done today about the issue of Illegal Immigration.
Now take that issue--the North says, "Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Virginia,Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas and Florida--you will accept 500,000 illegal immigrants each year, you will learn to speak Spanish and you will provide them all with jobs."
Let us see now, if we resist, we are anti-immigrant not free states saying that we do not want to do that--stage 1--we will not do that-- stage 2. OK, take over, where do we go from here?? I am a freeman in a free state. By the Constitution my states' rights supercede the federal government's in most cases. You are up leon. Swing away!
PS I say--I do not want to do that. Then the feds say --"you will" --then I say "Over my dead body". Which is exactly what happened and what may happen again!
I don't think that it had n
June 13, 2007 - 08:11 ET by Sergeant ROCKI don't think that it had nothing to do with slavery, but it was not 100% about slavery as Neon suggests.
I agree. But with all these
June 13, 2007 - 08:39 ET by sarcasmoI agree. But with all these shades of grey, I see no way for socialist education (AKA public schools) to honestly and nonpolitically teach the subject. It won't work, because books like Hummel's exist, even though it's a pretty safe bet no government-funded school is assigning any reading in it...
JMR
My point was not to start a d
June 13, 2007 - 19:57 ET by fields2grandMy point was not to start a debate about the Civil War and slavery but I am glad to see there are some here who actually understand what the war was fought over. Thanks to those who backed me up while I was at work. Just to reiterate though, the Civil War was fought over states rights, not slavery. :)
You sound like there can only
June 13, 2007 - 20:09 ET byYou sound like there can only be one reason. In life little is so bland, there is usually a melange.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Please explain the 13th Amend
June 15, 2007 - 01:08 ET by UnsanePlease explain the 13th Amendment then.
MAKE WAY FOR THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS!!! THE 1999, 2003, 2005, AND 2007 NBA CHAMPIONS!!!!
The 13th amendment was an att
June 16, 2007 - 11:34 ET by James2306The 13th amendment was an attempt by the north to gin up support for the war in the north while hopefully causing destruction and unrest in the south by the slaves currently being held the amendment did not apply to slaves in slave holding states that supported the war like West Virginia or Maryland only the states currently in rebellion.
The hottest places in hell are oft reserved for those who in times of moral crisis remain neutral
Confusing the 13th Amendment
June 17, 2007 - 01:14 ET by UnsaneConfusing the 13th Amendment with the Emancipation Proclamation?
The reason it was passed when it was all over was to remove the irritant that began the whole damn controversy to begin with.
MAKE WAY FOR THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS!!! THE 1999, 2003, 2005, AND 2007 NBA CHAMPIONS!!!!
It's called martial law, stup
May 25, 2007 - 16:45 ET by AvatarIt's called martial law, stupid.
The Avatar
Haha...More insight from NB's
May 25, 2007 - 16:54 ET by ThoughtPoliceHaha...
More insight from NB's finest...
It's called Martial law, DUHH!! I mean, come on. We should just accept the police state and let the Bushwacker do whatever he wants. I mean, he is the "commander." Who else can give themself that title? Why are you so scared of losing your liberty for security? Wouldn't you rather not be killed by a terrorist than be able to speak freely, take pictures wherever you want, film anywhere you want, etc? Come on People...get on board the neo-con train already won't you!!!!
What's that? All I heard ou
May 25, 2007 - 20:02 ET by AvatarWhat's that? All I heard out of you was DUHH.
You're all the same, scared ****less of the creations of your mind. Nothing but Non-sensicle rants, insults, and plain irrationality. Do you ever wonder why people steer away from you in public places?
The Avatar
Avatar...Gee, and I always th
May 25, 2007 - 20:08 ET by Clear thinkerAvatar...
Gee, and I always thought it was the "Stupid" tattoo on his forehead that kept people away.
Help a wounded soldier here...
http://newsbusters.org/node/12877
My guess was the the noise
May 25, 2007 - 20:14 ET by Free StinkerMy guess was the the noise coming out of TPs mouth keeps people away.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
Did a spittake with my water
May 27, 2007 - 20:03 ET by bretzysdudeDid a spittake with my water when I read your first line. WIN.
You must of watched The Washi
May 25, 2007 - 17:13 ET by bigtimerYou must of watched The Washington Journal this morning Which Way....bet you were one of the looney callers too...
Jimmy Carter was the first President to make this directive in '78 I think it was...all President's have used it since.
Period.
First, I watch Washington J
May 25, 2007 - 17:34 ET by WhichWingFirst, I watch Washington Journal every morning. Second:
"The
directive issued May 9 makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created
there for the National Continuity Coordinator with the National
Emergency Act. As specified by U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 34,
Subchapter II, Section 1621, the National Emergency Act allows that the
president may declare a national emergency
but requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."
A
Congressional Research Service study notes
that under the National Emergency Act, the president "may seize
property, organize and control the means of production, seize
commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law,
seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the
operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of
ways, control the lives of United States citizens."
The
CRS study notes that the National Emergency Act sets up congress as a
balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated
emergency authority," if Congress believes the president has acted
inappropriately.
NSPD-51/
HSPD-20 appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the
new position of National Continuity Coordinator without any specific
act of Congress authorizing the position.
NSPD-51/
HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of
the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the
president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency
exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can
be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight."
Where are the checks and balances?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
This is Directive is to prot
May 25, 2007 - 17:40 ET by bigtimerThis Directive is to protect even your rear end WW...
Snap out of it!
So checks and balances are
May 25, 2007 - 17:45 ET by WhichWingSo checks and balances are out the window??
Snap out of it?????
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
WW...There will always be che
May 25, 2007 - 17:56 ET by bigtimerWW...
There will always be checks and balances...one way or the other.
BTW...Since when did you start liking someone who aided in the demise of Kerry with the Swift-Boating issue...eh?
Funny how you guys change spots when it is convenient.
Where have I changed spots?
May 26, 2007 - 06:35 ET by WhichWingWhere have I changed spots? What have I ever said about Kerry, or the Swift Boat Veterans? I think its funny how you guys will not accept information from people unless they support the president on every issue.
Now, as far as your statement that there "will always be checks and balances," re-read this paragraph that I posted above.
"NSPD-51/HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight."
And look how broad the terms are:
(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
You might be surprised how ma
May 27, 2007 - 05:53 ET by UnsaneYou might be surprised how many of us feel disappointed in some of the decisions the President has made...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
You know, to be honest, I k
May 27, 2007 - 06:39 ET by WhichWingYou know, to be honest, I know I've made comments along those lines before, and I know they are unfair blanket statements, and I will try to refrain from those in the future.
That being said, what are your feelings on this directive?
My biggest problem with it is the sidestepping of Congress. We all know that Congress can be slow, no matter who is in power. But when it comes to a serious disaster (such as 9/11) they get things done in a timely manner. Besides that, Congress is a huge part of our government. They are one of the 3 branches of government that are meant to provide the checks and balances we need in this type of government. My next biggest problem is the very broad terms being used to define disaster.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
More questions
May 27, 2007 - 15:46 ET by UnsaneI have some questions for you above regarding this. Surprisingly, you haven't answered them.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I post something about a di
May 28, 2007 - 06:48 ET by WhichWingI post something about a directive signed on May 9, 2007 and instead of sharing your opinion on the subject you want to know how I feel about situations involving Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and George H. W. Bush. You shouldn't be surprised that I haven't answered that post. I didn't demand your opinion, I requested it, and you are not obligated to share it.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Naturally you would look at q
May 30, 2007 - 06:18 ET by UnsaneNaturally you would look at questions which expose your complete lack of knowledge of history (and the great lengths you go to in order to remain ignorant of it) and run away. If you bothered doing your homework, you might learn something.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I guess "catastrophic&qu
May 27, 2007 - 09:55 ET by zfI guess "catastrophic" and "extraordinary" and "severely" aren't specific terms enough for you.
They most certainly are not
May 28, 2007 - 06:53 ET by WhichWingThey most certainly are not. Was Katrina catastrophic? Should he enact this directive under those circumstances? Did the Oklahoma City bombing produce the extraordinary levels of mass casualties needed to enact this directive?
If Hillary Clinton was elected (and I'm sure most of us can agree on hoping she is not), do you want her to have this power at her fingertips?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
On the Constitution
June 1, 2007 - 06:45 ET by UnsaneHave you ever read the United States Constitution before? Now there's a vague document.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
That was a document that wa
June 4, 2007 - 06:14 ET by WhichWingThat was a document that was meant to be vague so that it could be amended, and to prevent people or a particular branch from having too much power. This directive is neither of those things.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
"Meant to be vague so it
June 5, 2007 - 06:08 ET by Unsane"Meant to be vague so it could be amended..." Huh? There is an entire article of the Constitution devoted to amending it.
"To prevent people or a particular branch from having too much power..." Could have fooled me. For instance, can you find the passage in Article III that denotes the size of the Supreme Court?
If you fear this directive, I am sure that you find past Presidents like Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln to be the Devils-Incarnate. They did far more than you can dream Bush has done.
TWELVE DOWN, FOUR TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
Constitution
June 5, 2007 - 06:21 ET by Cool ArrowGuess the Declaration of Independence was vague too.
Not really. I thought that
June 5, 2007 - 06:51 ET by UnsaneNot really. I thought that was kinda clear myself. The Brits certainly thought so... :-)
The Constitution is vague, however, and that is the beauty of it. It allows for some flexibility. For instance: Article I states "The House shall chuse its Speaker". But what powers does the Speaker have? None set forth in the Constitution (Yes, moonbat Nancy, that means YOU!!!)...and in fact, the HoR has frequently rebelled against strong House Speakers, such as "Czar Reed".
TWELVE DOWN, FOUR TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
WhichWing Says: Where are t
May 27, 2007 - 10:27 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsWhichWing Says: Where are the checks and balances?
Right here.
Why don't you read the actual document instead of reading a critique of it with misquotes and inferences?
Pertinent paragraph that answers your question above:
(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible
for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of
Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and
COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with
those of
the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability
and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal
Government.
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
I don't think the implicati
May 28, 2007 - 07:01 ET by WhichWingI don't think the implication was that congress would be left out completely. The implication was that congress would be left out of the decision of what was considered to be a big enough emergency to enact this directive. (Not the case in previous directives of this nature.)
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
You're doing it again WW. Whe
May 29, 2007 - 15:15 ET by BeowulfYou're doing it again WW. When someone gives you a coherent answer you backpedal. You did indeed imply that congress was out of the process. Your words were:
My biggest problem with it is the sidestepping of Congress.
Congress is implicitly included in this dircetive, as is clearly stated in the text, when one doesn't cherry-pick to make one's point.
Excellent rebuttal DFTT!
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
You are incorrect. Who mak
May 30, 2007 - 01:35 ET by WhichWingYou are incorrect. Who makes the decision to enact this directive? Is congress involved in that decision? NO.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
The decision to enact is of c
May 31, 2007 - 08:04 ET by BeowulfThe decision to enact is of course the President's. Who's else would it be? Just as it is a state governor's decision to declare a state of emergency. Or should the governor have to confer and receive the approval of his state legislature before such a declaration?
Your implication is that congress has no say in the process and the president would have absolute power once this directive was initiated. Which is at best a total misrepresentation of the facts, and at worst a bold-faced lie.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
WRONG WhichWing
May 27, 2007 - 10:18 ET by SportPoliticsWRONG WhichWing.
You have to watch the charlatans playing with your tiny mind.
Sure it doesn't mention CONGRESS, but it DOES mention the legisltaive branch and the judicial branch and GUARANTEES the same information exchange and coordination occurs between all three.
"appears to negate" < SHOULD HAVE BEEN YOUR FIRST CLUE IDIOT. THAT'S AN OPINION.
GO READ I LIKE IT DID YOU GOOFBALL.
" It "seemingly" blah blah blah - doesn't mention "congress" (as in the word itself) .. blah blah blah...
LOOK, you're an idiot. IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS COORDINATION AND TRANSMISSION TO THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES.
I quite get it, there's so many idiots, educated liars can write up some crap to stir up emotional retards, and get some facetime as if they're doing a " freedom of the press" favor all of us.
Before I went insane like you, I went and checked it out myself. That was a number of days ago.Should I pull up my email sent archive and enlighten your foolish moronis hyperventilating jackass who never checked for themselves before opening their big fat bloviating yapper ?
I'll be more than happy to, you moron.
You know what is really bad news, while you turdybrained fools are looking at nothing and proclaiming it's the end of democracy, the likely real issues are blowing by like the daily wind. That's what's really a travesty of justice.
I'm so tired of your posts.
May 27, 2007 - 17:37 ET by WhichWingI'm so tired of your posts. So here you go. You stupid motherfucker. All you do is come on here and run your dumb fucking mouth. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about half the time, you just blather on about moron this and idiot that. So shove it up retarded little fucking ass. By the way, this will be the very last time I respond to your dumbass.
(If someone decides to ban me for this post, I can live with that. But I encourage you to read through that jackass's posts and remove him too. He really gives people from the right a huge black eye.)
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Potty Mouth!
May 27, 2007 - 17:52 ET by Free StinkerPotty Mouth!
Sport is right, LeftWing.
May 27, 2007 - 19:52 ET by RJSport is right, LeftWing. His style of communication is a "little" over the top, but his underlying description of the stupid behavior of you and Toilet Paper is accurate.
You guys are something right out of a goofy movie that everyone understands is meant as a joke.....except the director forgot to tell the two of you.
His style of communication i
May 27, 2007 - 20:13 ET by balboaHis style of communication is a "little" over the top,
And the award for understatement of the year goes to...
You think? I didn't want to
May 27, 2007 - 20:28 ET by RJYou think? I didn't want to overstate it....
Haha. SP's hilarious. Delig
May 27, 2007 - 20:33 ET by balboaHaha.
SP's hilarious. Delightfully demented.
glad somebody likes him
May 27, 2007 - 20:50 ET by tumblerHe's a Sports Poltroon. When he wants to be cruel, he's malicious. There are 3 or 4 other cruel people of the same clueless grade who clutter up this place. Hate merchants.
BTW, Wing Wank is a poltroon as well. Filthy SOB.
Well, sure, there's that.
May 27, 2007 - 20:53 ET by balboaWell, sure, there's that.
And sure there's this balboa
May 30, 2007 - 17:24 ET by SportPoliticsAnd sure there's this balboa, straight from the text in question ( well from my composed email on the 24th straight from the text )
[ e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government. ]
I see Dontfeedthetrolls has some of it up there 9 minutes after I mentioned it (He probably knew anyway on his own before me from what I've seen of his posts- plus he has a few links )... what's your problem balboa ? Oh yeah, you can't understand anything I type.
Sorry, WW.Sporty has your num
May 27, 2007 - 18:04 ET by BlondeSorry, WW.
Sporty has your number dialed in precisely.
Too funny.
WhichWing
May 27, 2007 - 18:17 ET by shawn228WhichWing Sportpolitics likes to call people names but he does not play favorites and will unleash on anybody on this site. Also, a bit of advice, although SP uses the words moron, idiot, dumbass etc alot, he does not use blatant profanity like you just did. You don't want to get yourself kicked out of this site before you made a convincing argument do you?
It'll be a while before he ma
May 27, 2007 - 20:08 ET by bretzysdudeIt'll be a while before he makes a convincing argument. Why should we give him so much time?
Yep , no need to respond WW
May 30, 2007 - 17:13 ET by