Not sure if this is C&R but...yeah...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP5ixUslcMA
QuoteThe NDRP vigorously makes the NDAA look like a simple law to stop jaywalking in comparison. Under the NDRP, the President now has the authority to seize any resource he deems "necessary" to uphold national security in wartime & peacetime.
This includes, but is not limited to the following. All farms (meaning all food), transportation systems, clean water, and oil/fuel. The NDRP even goes so far to say that people with skills the government could use may be called upon and forced to work for the government against their will.
(http://www.techimo.com/forum/attachments/imo-community/14338d1116914882-get-your-tin-foil-hat-cat-protect.jpg)
Not covered and even better:
QuoteSec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
So what? Basically, the Powers That Be don't even
have to pass a bailout bill ever again? This allows them to bail out anyone they wish in the name of security, strability and
productive capacity?
Cain, Rog, am I reading that right?
It seems to me that it's supposed to be a reorganization of a law passed in 1950 regarding information flow so it now includes the cabinet in times of "National Emergency".
How it will be used is another matter entirely.
Quote from: navkat on March 29, 2012, 04:25:06 PM
Not covered and even better:
QuoteSec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
So what? Basically, the Powers That Be don't even have to pass a bailout bill ever again? This allows them to bail out anyone they wish in the name of security, strability and productive capacity?
Cain, Rog, am I reading that right?
Welcome to Argentina, circa 1948. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 29, 2012, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 29, 2012, 04:25:06 PM
Not covered and even better:
QuoteSec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
So what? Basically, the Powers That Be don't even have to pass a bailout bill ever again? This allows them to bail out anyone they wish in the name of security, strability and productive capacity?
Cain, Rog, am I reading that right?
Welcome to Argentina, circa 1948. :lol:
:horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
Quote from: navkat on March 29, 2012, 04:18:37 PM
Not sure if this is C&R but...yeah...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP5ixUslcMA
QuoteThe NDRP vigorously makes the NDAA look like a simple law to stop jaywalking in comparison. Under the NDRP, the President now has the authority to seize any resource he deems "necessary" to uphold national security in wartime & peacetime.
This includes, but is not limited to the following. All farms (meaning all food), transportation systems, clean water, and oil/fuel. The NDRP even goes so far to say that people with skills the government could use may be called upon and forced to work for the government against their will.
(http://www.techimo.com/forum/attachments/imo-community/14338d1116914882-get-your-tin-foil-hat-cat-protect.jpg)
Hm... aren't these pretty identical to some of the major criticisms our government has of Castro?
Fiddlesticks! We are way freer than those Cuban savages. I'm proud to know I still live in a land where I'm still free to not be forced into having healthcare.
Quote from: navkat on March 29, 2012, 05:44:21 PM
Fiddlesticks! We are way freer than those Cuban savages. I'm proud to know I still live in a land where I'm still free to not be forced into having healthcare.
Yeah, and just think, we could be stuck with cars so old that they're becoming priceless antiques.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-its-not-martial-law-its-preparedness/
Quotethe Executive Order itself is nothing more than a restatement of policy that has been in place in decades and grants no authority to the President or the Cabinet that they don't already have under existing law.
The Defense Production Act has been in effect since the Truman Administration, and authorizes the President to direct private business to allocate resources to national defense as needed in a time of national emergency. Since the end of the Cold War, if not before, the Act has been used primarily to use DOD contracting practices to direct investment in new technologies that would be used for defense purposes, however it still requires the Executive Branch to at least plan for the possibility of allocating resources for national defense in the event of a national emergency in much the same way that rationing was implemented during World War II.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/18/national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order-power-grab-or-update/
QuoteNote what this EO specifically orders: identify, assess, be prepared, improve, foster cooperation. None of these items claim authority to seize private property and place them at the personal disposal of Obama. What follows after Section 103 are the directives for implementing these rather analytical tasks, mostly in the form of explicit delegations of presidential authority to Cabinet members and others in the executive branch.
Why the update? If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the Cabinet itself. In 1994, we didn't have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS. In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (ten in all). Otherwise, there aren't a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.
Breaking news: anonymous strangers on Youtube might not be the best possible source of information.
Wait... does that mean I was mostly right in my above post?
Yup.
Also, the question no-one is asking is why now? Why at this particular moment do those laws need clarification?
Hey, is there some kind of simmering conflict with a nation somewhere, perhaps in the Middle East, that seems to be reaching a fever pitch? Maybe if people weren't flapping their hands about tyranny, they'd like to think about the implications of that for a bit?
1) Who's the Smartest Guy in the Room now, bitches! Oh, yeah.... Cain is. For reals.
2) Proof being the above post. But even if Iran (we are talking about Iran, right?) decides to go all stompy-stomp on Israel, would that create a "National Emergency" in the US? Other than state-sponsored terrorism, what can Iran directly do to the US that would trigger NDRP?
Blockading the Straits of Hormuz would tie up 35 percent of all seaborne traded oil, or almost 20 percent of oil traded worldwide.
Think that might crash the US economy?
I suppose it doesn't help that "National Emergency" isn't even remotely defined.
And I also suppose that we have a precedent (thanks to W) for "pre-emptive war", so perhaps we can declare an emergency before it even happens?
I'm wandering into the realms of personal ignorance again, I know. Apart from 9/11, when was the last time the Defense Production Act was used?
What goes through the Straits equals roughly 17 million barrels a day.
If even one million barrels a day to the US are disrupted, it would be cause for opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (which would only last a maximum of two months anyway). Two million, and the cost to US economy would be so high, government planners cannot actually model the damage that would be done. It'd make the 2008 economic crash look like a walk in the park.
If I wanted to take down the US, I'd strike at the Straits of Hormuz as well. Without the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia cannot hope to prosecute any kind of successful war. They need US technical expertise, targeting data and diplomatic cover.
Forecasting into the future, Do you think the US will go all Shock and Awe against Iran at the merest hint of a Hormuz blockade?
That's what the Fifth Fleet are for.
But even signicant fighting is going to reduce the flow. No-one wants to pilot their oil tanker through a free fire zone.
Ah, and because the NDRP is essentially there to analyze resource allocation, we'll need to use it when the petrol-based economy shits the bed. Ok, that's making a lot of sense, now.
I would guess this also ties into some of the renewed interest in Somalia. Equipping a few pirates who are suicidal/stupid enough to take a run at a tanker would be an interesting play. Even if stopped and not causing any real damage it would probably give the US a justified entry into Africa.
Probably just being paranoid.
The US is already in Somalia. It's the principial backer of the transitional Somali government.
Ah. The more you know then.
I guess that increases the chances of some sort of false flag op considerably.
Quote from: Junkenstein on March 29, 2012, 07:20:30 PM
I would guess this also ties into some of the renewed interest in Somalia. Equipping a few pirates who are suicidal/stupid enough to take a run at a tanker would be an interesting play. Even if stopped and not causing any real damage it would probably give the US a justified entry into Africa.
Probably just being paranoid.
Quote from: Cain on March 29, 2012, 07:23:43 PM
The US is already in Somalia. It's the principial backer of the transitional Somali government.
"Paranoia: The state of knowing the facts."
- Dok
Quote from: Cain on March 29, 2012, 06:27:22 PM
If I wanted to take down the US, I'd strike a
My guess Sept 22 11:19 EDT?
Well, that too. But am typical of my generation, and prefer near instant gratification, not the endless grind of decades of conflict.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 29, 2012, 06:16:43 PM
I suppose it doesn't help that "National Emergency" isn't even remotely defined.
And I also suppose that we have a precedent (thanks to W) for "pre-emptive war", so perhaps we can declare an emergency before it even happens?
Um, the precedent for "pre-emptive war" is about a hundred years old.
Point taken.
What Bush wanted was "preventative war", probably chosen because the word sounds like pre-emptive, if said fast enough.
Pre-emptive war: you're allowed to attack a nation if it is going to attack you (for instance, Poland would've been justified in attacking Germany in late August 1939).
Preventative war: you're allowed to attack a nation if it looks like it could be a threat in the future (any nation developing WMD or posing some kind of strategic risk, ever).
I'm gonna go with "that's what I meant to say," whether or not that's really true.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 29, 2012, 10:19:46 PM
I'm gonna go with "that's what I meant to say," whether or not that's really true.
Same here.
As far as I'm aware, the embrace of preventative war has never actually been removed from US security planning (it was introduced in the 2002 National Security Statement, one of the most odious documents in the history of humanity).
I suspect some of this is driving the current US thinking on Iran, that Iran is essentially sitting on a choke-point and is unfriendly to the US (though not as unfriendly as some people would have you believe) and in the future it could, as part of a dispute with the USA or Israel, use military power to shut down the Straits and force an outcome it prefers.
Personally, though, I don't see it happening, not unless the US is also involved in such an attack. Blockading it will definitely merit a US response, regardless of how in/effective the blockade actually is, and despite Iranian planning for a conflict in the Straits, a far superior plan would be to not have the US involved at all.
This is why I feel kinda sorry for Obama: he's stuck in a hell of a situation. The Israelis and Saudis are doing everything in their power to force a US attack, the Iranians are sniping and responding at both, and no matter what the US does, there is going to be awful political fallout, whether it's President Romney or an economic crash.
We are sooooo fucked.