Archive | MARTIAL LAW RSS feed for this section
8 May
Obama order moves U.S. toward world governance


On May 1st, President Barack Obama signed a new Executive Order which opens the door for the United States to give up economic and environmental sovereignty through the promotion of a single international regulatory system.
 

This regulatory system would seek to globally streamline cooperation between nations for trade, environmental, and legislative processes on the international stage.

Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.

In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.

GARY GATEHOUSE COMMENTS
 
0bama is a subversive through and through! He will take this country down via the Executive Order, he has already established his own government through the appointment of Czars, his Politburo now rules our country and has completely side stepped Congress. Obama is making all decisions involving the American people through executive order.

Ladies and Gentlemen we have a dictator plain and simple, most Americans don’t want to admit that Obama is a dictator,hell most have a hard time figuring out what it means to be a true American why –TO BUSY WATCHING reality shows!
 
BOTTOM LINE MOST AMERICANS will continue to operate in the DUMB ASS MODE!!!!


Read the original article at Examiner.com
Obama authorizes himself to declare martial law

Obama says he’ll use executive orders to bypass ‘dysfunctional Congress’

President signs executive order to control fracking

Advertisements
9 Apr
CONGRESSMEN FEARS OBAMA POWER GRAB
(MARTIAL LAW)

A White House order updating federal emergency powers has raised alarm among some conservative commentators, and U.S. Rep. Sandy Adams, that President Barack Obama is attempting to grab unconstitutional powers.

A columnist with The Washington Times declared the mid-March order — an update of a 60-year-old document outlining the president’s authority in a national emergency — “stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution.” The conservative Drudge Report website linked to it with the headline, “Martial Law?”

And Adams, R-Orlando, said it “leaves the door open for the president to give himself control over American resources during both times of peace, and national crisis.”

So Adams filed a nonbinding resolution specifying what Obama cannot do with the order — including institute a draft, confiscate personal property and “force civilians to engage in labor against their will or without compensation.”

But legal experts from both ends of the political spectrum said it’s a stretch — at best — to believe the order allows any of those powers.

As written, the executive order outlines the powers the president can exercise “in the event of a potential threat,” such as mobilizing for war. These range from the mundane, such as preparing disaster plans, to more robust authority that includes taking control of civil transportation and forcing U.S. companies to prioritize defense contracts.

All this has been on the books for decades. Experts on national-security law say the big difference between what Obama signed and the version in place since President Bill Clinton was in office is reference to the Department of Homeland Security, which wasn’t around then.

“It’s valid to be concerned that the president has too many powers that are justified by national-defense needs,” said Benjamin Friedman, a defense expert with the libertarian Cato Institute. “But this executive order doesn’t change much compared to prior executive orders that Republican and Democratic presidents have put in place.”

The last time the order was invoked in a major way was in January 2001, when Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush both utilized it to direct emergency supplies of electricity and natural gas to California in order to prevent blackouts.

“No one hollered dictator then,” said Peter Raven-Hansen, who teaches national-security law at George Washington University.

Adams, in a brief interview, said Obama’s order could unconstitutionally expand the president’s authority and cited as an example its inclusion of a section of the Stafford Act, which defines the government’s role in dealing with disasters.

“It is my first [term] in Congress. I know we are responsible for oversight,” she said.

But the section of the Stafford Act deals primarily with disaster preparation and training. In regard to civilian labor, it requires workers on construction projects be paid fair market wages and overtime if they work more than 40 hours in a week.

When asked how this could equate to civilians being forced into labor, an Adams spokeswoman said the congresswoman was trying to ensure there was “no misunderstanding as to the powers of the executive.”

WRITTEN BY:Mark K. Matthews, Washington Bureau
ORLANDO,SENTINEL