http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=2169

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0070509-12.html


The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.

The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.

"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;

So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.

The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort.

The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following.

"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;

Further on in the document it states the following.

The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all branches of government what to do.

Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that country an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an emergency is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the Homeland Enslavement department will have for us.

The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that’s the case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures for all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a so called “Catastrophic Emergency”.

It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the President.

It's standard, the MSM "missed" it because it isn't news. The right tried to make hay out of it when Clinton did it, the left tried to make hay out of it when Bush did the earlier version, prior to that ethics took precedence over sensationalist misinformation. This has been standard since Truman.

Thanks, Tom.

I'll sleep better tonight.

No problem, it's something to be watched in case something creeps into a new PD that raises red flags (but that takes the exact wording of the new one and the ones it supercedes), the MSM can easily miss things so any substantive changes may need to be brought to their attention. It's an artifact of the cold war, the provisions are chilling but the level of emergency required to trigger it are well determined, it's changes in definitions or combinations of powers that would require great scrutiny. My guess is the very people who would have to implement it would alert the press (on deep background) if anything worrisome is in a new version, most tend to be lifelong public servants who truly believe in our constitution.

Just heard about this on the Tom Hartman show. This I notice all the vague language. Talk about a power grab. This basically makes the President the Emperor.

Unfortunately my brother it ain't 1947 anymore...
one nuke on a coast and the game is on...it doesn't
take a Soviet missle anymore, just a Mexican dope
gang's smuggling route, a Pakistani bomb and a
true believer. You're right not to lose sleep over it
because such wouldn't do a damned thing...but
I'm glad I don't live in a Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area. Maybe I'll watch Dr. Strangelove
(subtitle: Or, How I stopped worrying and learned
to love The Bomb) tonight and listen to that lovely
WWII song ending
the film:

"We'll Meet Again" -Ross Parker, Hughie Charles

We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when,
But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.
Keep smiling through, just like you always do,
'Til the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away.

William Langweische wrote this book:


http://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Bazaar-Rise-N...r/dp/0374106789

His point is that the chance of a suitcase nuke (requiring Highly Enriched Uranium bricks) actually DECREASES with every passing year.

Because "THEY" would have done it already if they could have.

An interesting position.

From what I read the same "power grab" Clinton "made". It has no more to do with reality when the left hallucinates about what it means than it did when the right was hallucinating about it.

You're right about a single nuke probably triggering it, anything much less wouldn't. It'd be like when Nixon considered declaring martial law, if it was sufficient reason it'd be supported, if it was a power grab...he chose life instead. There are specific protections in place, I trust the people who put them in place and their judgment on who took their place. Bush is a punk, Cheney is a traitor, they make that move without cause and it's instantness.

And what did you read? Do you have a link?

Reality, not web BS! Saw the right panic over Clinton regarding this in the 90s, when it comes to the safeguards I won't go there.

If there were any such comparable executive order by Clinton, it still would be accessible through the web.

The right is not a mirror of the left. The right has a different set of problems. You can claim that the left is just as bad, but you'd probably have to go back to FDR to find any examples of power grabbing overreaching at this level. Clinton never declared war on an ambiguous enemy to gain special "war-time presidency" executive powers with no foreseeable end.

I don't emember the number but Clinton had a similar order, every POTUS since Truman has, if you aren't aware of that you can check it out or remain ignorant, it isn't my problem.

Let me butt into this male conversation:

Whaddya mean ?Bush TO BE d_______? Seems to me he already has adopted the position. And there isn't adequate resistance.

lenal

It would be ignorant if didn't want to know. Calling your bluff was my effort to be informed. Since I doubt there is any such power-grabbing executive order from Clinton, I'll leave the burden of proof with the accuser.

I don't have time to figure out how to look it up, if you don't have a good enough memory to recall the right screaming about it around the mid 90s (and what complete BS it was) you shouldn't use the dodge of making other people waste their time to convince someone who chose not to be informed. It isn't a power grabbing move, I accused nobody, you're just clueless regarding standard PDs regarding catastrophic events that would temporarily interfere with the normal functioning of government. Since most of the conditions remain unspecified these PDs usually scare people hoodwinked by the out of power party (theyre written vaguely to cover unforseen emergencies), but POTUS can't just invoke them at will, just like Nixon learned he couldn't declare martial law to avoid impeachment.

It's not a case of memory when one was never made aware. I've never heard the right screaming about a power-grabbing executive order in the mid 90s at that comparable level. Yes, the right did a lot of screaming in the 90s. They screamed about everything Clinton did, including the infidelity.

All your hot tempered insults won't change the fact that you're the one who mentioned Clinton. Either you are the one lacking memory, or you are remembering things that never occurred. With no proof, you are the one who is dodging when your bluff is called by telling me to look it up. I'm not the one accusing Clinton. I have no reason to comb Clintons history looking for something I doubt exists.

There is no reason for the conditions to be unspecific. Catastrophic could simply be defined by the number of casualties. I know our vulnerabilities. There is no way to protect against all of them. Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither. You're just clueless regarding the seeds of tyranny.

No, you claimed I was accusing Clinton when I was stating that he made the same VALID move, is that too nuanced for you?

No, casualties are only one metric, there are others based on infrastructure and nationalnsecurity that cant be comprehensively defined, much less quantified.

If you weren't aware you weren't paying attention, educate yourself instead of petulantly demanding a handout.

It's still an accusation. It doesn't matter if you think it's valid or not. You are saying Clinton did the same thing. But you can't prove it.

Casualties are one metric that can be defined, so therefor it should be defined. And there is plenty of other things that could be better defined in the order as well.

It's not a hand out. It's calling your bluff. You're the one who can't back your statement.

I'm too busy to look things up for a lazy, arrogant ignoramous. It was around 93-94, the right wing dishonestly made noise about it. Yeah, I accuse him of being a politician too, your claims are irrational. I can prove that Clinton recognized the work I did at the time (a hand signed note) BSers like younaren't worth my time, from now on you're on ignore (where you already should have been).

Looks like I pushed a button. I'll miss your civil replies.