I've been amazed at the willful ignorance of those who ridicule "rumors" of martial law plans. They are NOT "rumors," they are public documents that must be addressed and refuted if one is to plausibly claim that the government has no martial law plans. You will note that the "rumor" was recently dealt with by white house statements that they have "no intention" of suspending the Constitution and instituting a dictatorship. Note that this is a "non-denial denial." In fact plans have been drafted for just such an assault on our liberties, down to the last mean detail (see article below).

A typical polly banishment of the topic is the assertion that "they can't possibly lock ALL of us up." Note that this is comforting only to those who A) believe they will be the last folks a dictatorship would bother with, and B) don't give a tinker's damn about their rights under the Constitution or the fate of their fellow man.

Another snappy ostrich comeback is that "the military has sworn to uphold the Constitution." This is naive. Soldiers follow orders. Many, many military are prepared to confiscate guns and forcibly evacuate citizens from their property. Many others are not, and would surely resist. But, in an environment where the fourth and tenth amendments have been obliterated, the 1st and 2nd amendments targeted amid overblown gun-hysteria, and the validity of the Constitution itself is openly questioned (it being written by white slave-owners, after all), are we to assume that the President "wouldn't dare" to implement the Executive Orders and Directives that outline the detailed form of a future American dictatorship? Especially if Y2k is half as bad as the average "doomer" expectation? Governors and local officials are on-board with this. Everyone is informed and prepared for it to occur - except the American People. Here's a good place for us to start:

The Secret Government No One Wants You To Know About

Ether Zone Online! 12/01/98 Bob Momenteller

This secret government organization has more power than the President of the United States or the Congress, it has the power to suspend laws, move entire populations, arrest and detain citizens without a warrant and hold them without trial, it can seize property, food supplies, transportation systems, and can suspend the Constitution.

It it not only the most powerful entity in the United States, it was created without regard to Constitution Law under Congress. This Governmental agency was created by Executive Order. It is not part of the CIA or the Military. This Governmental agency was first created by President Richard Nixon and has been refined since by Carter, Regan and Bush. The organization is called FEMA, short for Federal Emergency Management Agency. Most people who are familiar with this agency, often relate it to weather storms, hurricanes and the like. While this serves as a primary function of this agency, far more power has been licensed to this entity than meets the eye.

The original intent of FEMA was to assure the survivability of the United States government in the event of a nuclear attack on this nation. The powers of FEMA continued to grow under people like Lt. Col. Oliver North and General Richard Secord, the architects on the Iran-Contra scandal and the looting of America's savings and loan institutions. FEMA has even been given control of the State Defense Forces, a rag-tag, often considered neo-Nazi, civilian army that will substitute for the National Guard, if the Guard is called to duty overseas.

Few of the mass populace even know that this agency exists. A close inspection of your home mortgage papers however, will reveal it's existence if you live in a flood plain. Where ever disaster strikes, FEMA has probably had a hand in it. They were deeply involved in the Los Angeles riots and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area. Many of those black helicopter reports are flown by FEMA personnel. FEMA has been given new responsibilities that include urban forest fires, home heating emergencies, refugee situations, urban riots, and emergency planning for nuclear and toxic incidents.

FEMA was created with a series of Executive Orders. These orders became law whether or not they are Constitutional. They become law by simple publication in the Federal Registry. The key Executive Order Number 12148 created the agency that would interface with the Department of Defense. To date, FEMA has only spent 6% of it's budget on national emergencies. The bulk of their funding has been spent on secret underground facilities and internment camps. An Executive Order signed by President Bush in 1989 authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency to build 43 primary camps having a capacity of 35,000 to 45,000 prisoners each and also authorized hundreds of secondary facilities. Executive Order Number 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Here are just a few Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Below, we list some of the Executive Orders that could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports. EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media. EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power,gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001: allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002: designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003: allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004: allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005: allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051: specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310: grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049: assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921: allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919: "National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness" signed by President Clinton on June 3, 1994, delegates authorities, responsibilities and allocations of FEMA's Executive Orders for the confiscation of ALL PROPERTY from the American people, and their re-location and assignment to 'labor' camps. The Executive Order also supersedes or revokes eleven (11) previous Executive Orders [from 1939 through 1991] and amends Executive Order 10789 and 11790.

FEMA's enormous powers can be triggered easily. In any form of domestic or foreign problem, perceived and not always actual, emergency powers can be enacted. The President of the United States now has broader powers to declare martial law, which activates FEMA's extraordinary powers. Martial law can be declared during time of increased tension overseas, economic problems within the United States, such as a depression, civil unrest, such as demonstrations or scenes like the Los Angeles riots, and in a drug crisis. These Presidential powers have increased with successive Crime Bills, particularly the 1991 and 1993 Crime Bills, which increase the power to suspend the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and to seize property of those suspected of being drug dealers, to individuals who participate in a public protest or demonstration. Under emergency plans already in existence, the power exists to suspend the Constitution and turn over the reigns of government to FEMA and appointing military commanders to run state and local governments. FEMA then would have the right to order the detention of anyone whom there is reasonable ground to believe...will engage in, or probably conspire with others to engage in acts of espionage or sabotage. The plan also authorized the establishment of concentration camps for detaining the accused, but no trial.

Over the last 14 years , FEMA's readiness has been tried three times. In 1984, President Regan signed a directive that allowed FEMA to engage in a secret national "readiness exercise" under the code name of REX 84. REX 84 was so highly guarded that special metal security doors were placed on the fifth floor of the FEMA building in Washington, D.C. Even long-standing employees of the Civil Defense of the Federal Executive Department possessing the highest possible security clearances were not being allowed through the newly installed metal security doors. Only personnel wearing a special red Christian cross or crucifix lapel pin were allowed into the premises. The plan called for the suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to FEMA, appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and the declaration of Martial Law.

For the second time in 1990, FEMA was readied again during the Gulf War. Just prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq, newly drafted legislation would give FEMA the power to set up operations in any locality without permission. The agency was put on full alert in anticipation of the economic collapse of the Western World.

The third scenario for FEMA came with the Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King brutality verdict. Had the rioting spread to other cities, FEMA would have been empowered to step in. As it was, major rioting only occurred in the Los Angeles area, thus preventing a pretext for a FEMA response.

Any crisis that would trigger the use of FEMA appears to be in the area of civil unrest. Indeed, President Nixon changed the direction of these emergency powers during the Vietnam era. Prompted by mass war protests, Nixon considered domestic upheaval of greater importance. Diana Raynolds, program director of the Edward R. Murrow Center, summed up the dangers of FEMA today and the public reaction to Martial Law in a drug crisis: "It was James Madison's worst nightmare that a righteous faction would someday be strong enough to sweep away the Constitutional restraints designed by the framers to prevent the tyranny of centralized power, excessive privilege, an arbitrary governmental authority over the individual. These restraints, the balancing and checking of powers among branches and layers of government, and the civil guarantees, would be the first casualties in a drug-induced national security state with Reagan's Civil Emergency Preparedness unleashed. Nevertheless, there would be those who would welcome NSC (National Security Council) into the drug fray, believing that increasing state police powers to emergency levels is the only way left to fight American's enemy within. In the short run, a national security state would probably be a relief to those whose personal security and quality of life has been diminished by drugs or drug related crime. And, as the general public watches the progression of institutional chaos and social decay, they too may be willing to pay the ultimate price, one drug free America for 200 years of democracy."

The next event that may trigger FEMA for real may come at midnight on December 31, 1999. If the Y2K glitch turns out to be fact and not fiction, FEMA may suspend the Constitution and invoke martial law. A proposition that should scare the hell out of all of us.

Published in the December 1, 1998 issue of Ether Zone Online . Copyright ) 1998 Ether Zone Online (http://etherzone.com). Reposting permitted with this message intact.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 25, 1999

Answers

Clinton appointed one of his FAVORITE Arkansas State Troopers to a regional FEMA office a few years back, I believe his name was Buddy Young. Anyone know if he is still around??

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 25, 1999.

Liberty,

right on!

Right On!

RIGHT ON!!!

"When the governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Thomas Jefferson

Thanks,

PJ

-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), August 25, 1999.

Thank you, Liberty.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

In 1984, President Regan signed a directive that allowed FEMA to engage in a secret national "readiness exercise" under the code name of REX 84. ...Only personnel wearing a special red Christian cross or crucifix lapel pin were allowed into the premises.

Why would they choose a religious symbol as their ingroup identifier? Would people be in danger who were adherants of other religions or to no religion at all? Does anyone have links to more information about this specific exercise?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 25, 1999.

So, the FEMA annointed wear red christian crosses/crucifixes? Wonder if Gary North is in on that? Or some of the b-thumpers on the forum like Mumsie. :-)

BTW, other agencies are working for FEMA. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is humping to get a national database of the actual physical address (not merely mailing address) of everyone in the U.S. by October.

Aug 28 (3 days from now) is the deadline for a holders of Private Mail Box (PMB) through Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRAs) to provide photo ID, copies of rent receipts, utilitiy bills, etc., to "verify" their physical address. You know that the USPS has "mail covers" on millions of people -- everyone getting "suspicious" mail and mail from overseas. (They have gone so far as to track down who you get mail from by reading the ident printed by postage meters, and the postmark, even if no return address on the envelope.)

This deadline is a reneging on a previously agreed to deadline reached with a group of CMRAs. They, the USPS/FEMA want this database pronto and distributed to local "authorities" well before 2000-01-01.

Of course, the justification includes "Save the children" (sob, sniff, snuffle) by making it easier to track down "child porn" buyers and sellers.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 25, 1999.

Freedom and Order are mutually exclusive of each other. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Anyone who is surprised by that, spent all their time sleeping through, not only high school and whatever college they took, but life itself. Ain't no news to me, in a time of national crisis, that there are people who would advocate that freedoms be sacrificed, in the interest of preserving order.

The real question is, what would you suggest is the alternative? The expectation of, what seems to be anyway, the overwhelming majority of posters here, is that John/Jane Q. Public is going to go off his/her nut, when he/she finds out that there REALLY is a Y2K problem, and he/she choose to not take it seriously.

None of us can have it both ways. Either you think that people are going to control themselves, so any action plan that abrogates freedoms can only be the evil scheming of some would-be dictator - Or you believe there will be this frenzied mob, hell bent on sacking and looting, and you accept the need for there to be a plan for dealing with it.

Actually, I agree with you, that the above mentioned Executive Orders go way overboard. But then, I don't expect Y2K to turn into this scene from "Night Of The Living Dead", that most of the more vocal posters on the board seem to expect.

So again, if you're someone who expects disorder, what do you think the Government's plan should be?

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 25, 1999.

Oh come on, have you guys ever seen the head of FEMA, James Witt? We're not talkin General Patton or the Duke...he's a girly man.

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), August 25, 1999.

Thread initiator:

I don't have a clue who you are.

I only know that your bad writing style, grammar and punctuation makes you less effective in communicating your message.

-- grammar (police@gobackto.school), August 25, 1999.

Mabel, I've often speculated about that myself! LOL!

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), August 25, 1999.

"a girly man?"

a girly man???????

they're the worst!!!!!!!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 26, 1999.

Thanks Liberty---

You are not alone in your concern. Many others are worried by the recent honing of the executive orders.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), August 26, 1999.

grammer,

Only to people more concerned with window dressing, than contents.

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are constitutional rights secure."

Albert Einstein

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

Yes R Wright, that concerns me more than anything else. Just look at the voting record, and then visit your local Mall. It would appear each Patriot will need to do the work of 100 or more. (if you include wimps in addition to sheeple).

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.

Seriously, I've been watching the EO's myself for a long time and have wondered why no one (Congress) has said anything. I read something on this forum the other day about some Congressional aide(don't know if true or not) saying that Congress is afraid. I've thought that as well. Will, I agree. IMO, sovereign citizenship and responsibility has been forgotten to the benefit of the socialistic inclinations of the NWO folks. Anything in this climate of power grabbing is a possibility.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), August 26, 1999.

The head of FEMA is irrelevant. I recall reading somewhere that in the event of nuclear war, the head of FEMA would have to stay in Washington DC to be 'cindered.'

He's just a figurehead. The real people in power are the ones whose names you do not know.

Tim

-- Tim the Y2K nut (tmiley@yakko.cs.wmich.edu), August 26, 1999.

Ok. It's me. The guy in the militia. Remember? So I guess most people consider me to be a, how shall we put it, fringe element?

I read the post. I have to take issue with some things. For instance:

"The bulk of their funding has been spent on secret underground facilities and internment camps. An Executive Order signed by President Bush in 1989 authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency to build 43 primary camps having a capacity of 35,000 to 45,000 prisoners each and also authorized hundreds of secondary facilities."

This I presume has an executive order to go along with it? Is it supposed to be this one:

"EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919: "National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness" signed by President Clinton on June 3, 1994, delegates authorities, responsibilities and allocations of FEMA's Executive Orders for the confiscation of ALL PROPERTY from the American people, and their re-location and assignment to 'labor' camps."

I imagine since someone found a site with all the executive orders on it we could look this up. Where is that site again?

Ok. Has anyone SEEN an interment camp? Anyone?

The reason I'm asking is this. I have been watching spin in action for quite a few years now. It seems that one tactic is to cause the public to identify certain key phrases as the language of "loonies". I'll give you a hint. "Black Helicopter" is one. Another would be "UN Invasion". Amongst these key phrases seems to be "Internment Camp" or "Concentration Camp". These key phrases are infectious as well. The term "New World Order" has become "Loony Speak" even though we are loosing our sovereignty through executive orders and treaties with the UN right now. You see, if enough one world-ers in other countries can make their nations obligated to do/give things for/to the UN, you don't need any armies invading, you have a world government. Would the people stand for this? Well, if you spread stories around the nationalist camp about the UNs Black helicopters taking people to Internment camps, and they get repeated by the least polished of those who oppose a New World Order, then those in the nationalists camp can easily be tarred as loonies who believe in black helicopters. They are now marginalized and no longer a factor in the national debate. Done.

The original post looks to me like a piece that is meant to cause some of the people who think FEMA has too much power to start talking silly. Then the Fed spokesperson can say "Don't listen to them. They think FEMA builds concentration camps!"

Just for the record, I think FEMA has too much power.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'll be happy to read the executive order that mandates internment camps. I'll come back and say I'm wrong. But I suspect this is spin.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), August 26, 1999.

FYI, EO listing site. http://www.tricor.net/~myfirst/ClintonEO.htm

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), August 27, 1999.

eyes open,

I agree with your spin theory. Catch words are very important in population control. Divide and conquer is very effective when dealing with emotional deversions.

I believe fascists (using socialism idealogy) worked almost a century at infiltrating a soveriegn nation. Fascists entered key govt. positions, influencing UN (Hess, White, etc...) decisions, meanwhile promoting socialist positions in the interior.

The EO's are not in use at the moment. They are keys, very instrumental keys, to be used when the time is right for the fascist move.

Yes Liberty's cut and paste contains spin, by simple emotion in the first paragraph, Liberty offers selective words on "Hot Topics", therefore influencing emotionals.

On the other hand, one who is not influenced by black ops, ammendments, martial law, etc.., but is very interested in the direction of govt. pertaining to the implications of these "documents", Liberty is correct in requesting a clear consise review of said documents.

Will,

I was at one of mit's sites a bit ago, NWO, Rockerfellers, Bilderburger, etc.., and one statement I could not find support to was "There is an estimated 20,000,000 patriots (American) left". Your figure of 1 in 100 is only about 2,500,000. Care to elaborate?

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

Liberty,

I used to be amazed by the willingness of people to recirculate this nonsense about Executive Orders, but now I understand that the average person simply does not know how to go about verifying claims such as you repeat here, and does not know basic aspects of how our government works.

(to be continued)

Even though I've debunked this stuff on many earlier occasions and I'm getting rather tired of doing so, I think it's important to keep on presenting basic facts and refutations that will enable the average reader to recognize the falsities in material such as the posting at the head of this thread.

>white house statements that they have "no intention" of suspending the Constitution and instituting a dictatorship

Too bad they didn't explain it more plainly: the White House (i.e., the executive branch of the U.S. government) has _no authority by which it could suspend the Constitution_ and institute a dictatorship. The executive branch of the U.S. government is _created by_ the Constitution, and cannot suspend it.

If what you meant to write about was a military coup, then please say so instead of dragging in all this irrelevant stuff about EOs and the Constitution.

>"the military has sworn to uphold the Constitution." This is naive. Soldiers follow orders.

... and their primary order is to uphold the Constitution.

A military overthrow of the U.S. government would have to involve soldiers' _not_ following orders. No military order that contradicts the Constitution is legal, and no soldier is obligated to obey such an order.

>But, in an environment where the fourth and tenth amendments have been obliterated, the 1st and 2nd amendments targeted amid overblown gun-hysteria, and the validity of the Constitution itself is openly questioned (it being written by white slave-owners, after all)

Typical propaganda verbiage -- throw in a bunch of false and misleading statements as though they were true, then let the rest of the argument flow from them. Cute. But not valid.

All of the first ten amendments are still in effect, despite rhetorical contentins to the contrary. And if "the validity of the Constitution itself is openly questioned", that just demonstrates my point in regard to freedom of sppech and press.

The environment which you presuppose in the above passage does not exist, so your speculation about "a future American dictatorship" is meaningless.

>The Secret Government No One Wants You To Know About

"Secret"? Is that why it's all laid out in _public documents, where anyone can read about it_?

>can suspend the Constitution.

No, it can't. It was created by the authority granted by the Constitution, so inherently cannot suspend the Constitution.

>it was created without regard to Constitution Law under Congress.

This is tricky wording by the author, apparently designed to convey the false impression that FEMA is unconstitutional.

FEMA was created by Executive Order, not by Congressional law, but EOs are just as constitutional as Congressional laws.

>This Governmental agency was created by Executive Order.

See?

Other government agencies have been created by Executive Order. So? That's legal. That's constitutional.

There is a myth being spread by a lot of people that Executive Orders are somehow unconstitutional or otherwise illegal or improper. Sometimes these people give the impression that EOs have some sort of mysterious legal power over all other governmental documents.

The truth is that an Executive Order is simply a presidential order that is intended to survive past the end of the current administration. The President is the chief executive of the U.S. government; orders are the means by which executives of any organization carry out their duties and direct the actions of their subordinates. If the President intends that a particular order is to remain in effect past the end of his administration, he issues it as an Executive Order, which is published in the Federal Register (a publication which is distributed to thousands of libraries all over the country and is available for direct mail subscription by individuals). The EO cannot take effect until it has been published in the Federal Register, but this is no bottleneck because the Rederal Register is printed and distributed every day if necessary.

If Congress objects to an EO, it can pass a resolution to nullify it, or pass a law which has the effect of cancelling those aspects of the EO which are within the congressional areas of authority. E.g., even if the President creates an agency, Congress can refuse to fund it.

EOs are not magical. All EO authority is derived from the office of the Presidency, which derives its powers from the Constitution. EOs do not supercede the Constitution. They cannot amend, suspend, or otherwise change any provision of the Constitution.

>FEMA was created with a series of Executive Orders. These orders became law whether or not they are Constitutional.

If someone thinks an EO is unconstitutional, they can challenge it in the Supreme Court. Senators and Representatives sometimes do this.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

Liberty, (continued)

Didn't you notice that the first EO listed by Bob Momenteller has been superceded, and the next 12 have all been revoked? I.e., 13 out of 15 EOs presented by Momenteller to illustrate his argument are no longer in effect, many for three decades.

Can you find someone who knows how to tell the difference between a dead EO and a live one?

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990

... was superseded in 1971.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995

... was revoked in 1970.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997

... was revoked in 1969.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998

... was revoked in 1969.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000

... was revoked in 1969.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001

... was revoked in 1969.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002

... was revoked in 1969.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003

... was revoked in 1969.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004

... was revoked in 1969.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005

... was revoked in 1969.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051

... was revoked in 1979.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310

... was revoked in 1969.

>EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049

... was revoked in 1986.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

no spam,

you wrote>>"I used to be amazed by the willingness of people to recirculate this nonsense about Executive Orders"

Yes the article was refering to old EO's. You wanna debunk #'s in the 13,000 range now?

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

No Spam,

Your response to Liberty's post was excellent; your points very well taken. I am preparing for Y2K, but am alone in doing so (at least in my circle). The only time I have odd misgivings about investing so much time and resource in my preparations, is when I realize I share an outlook on the impact of Y2K that is held by those given to black helicopter beliefs. It has the strange effect of causing me to question my own Y2K beliefs.

Your response is a good keep against the misgivings that posts like Liberty's inspire.

Id Pro Quo

-- IPQ (IdProQuo@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

R. Wright,

>You wanna debunk #'s in the 13,000 range now?

I was debunking false and misleading statements related to EOs, not the EOs themselves. Furthermore, the statements in the first part of my posting above applied to all EOs regardless of number range.

Do you intend to post false and misleading statements related to EOs in the 13,000 range? If not, then please explain just what you are asking.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

Liberty,

Some more notes:

1. If you agree with Momenteller's contention that FEMA has some sort of power to suspend the Constitution, will you either provide a specific citation of an example of that power in FEMA laws, or quote such a citation from Momenteller? If you cannot find any such specific instance of authorization of FEMA to suspend the Constitution, then please explain why anyone should believe such an absurd claim.

2. If all this fuss about EOs is really a disguised partisan attack on Clinton, please some out in the open about that. Do any of your sources about this business of EOs being unconstitutional cite any examples from earlier administrations' carrying out any of the alleged unconstitutional powers being discussed here? In fact, were any of your sources even _written_ before the beginning of the Clinton administration? Ronnie Reagan issued lots of EOs (381) -- were any of _his_ EOs unconstitutional, according to your sources?

Or is it only Democratic presidents that issue unconstitutional EOs, according to your sources? Is *that* why all these articles about EOs keep citing the same list (in the 10900-11100 range) issued by Kennedy, without mentioning that they were revoked or superseded later? To give the impression that it's only the bad, bad Democrats that want to set up nefarious schemes? And to make us forget about Republican attempts ("dirty tricks") to subvert the 1972 presidential election?

3. Momenteller's comments on EO 12919 claim that it has something about "confiscation of ALL PROPERTY from the American people, and their re-location and assignment to 'labor' camps." If you have actually read the actual text of EO 12919, will you please point out where those provisions are in that order? I've read EO 12919 (at http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/199 4/6/7/20.text.2, for instance), and find no such provisions.

If you can't find them either, then (a) was Momenteller so sloppy in his research as to mistakenly attribute such serious stuff to that EO, or (b) was Momenteller aware than there were no such provisions in that EO, but deliberately wrote false and misleading statements anyway, knowing that hardly any of his readers would take the trouble to go to the actual EO text to check out his claims?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

NoSpam,

Your objections are semantic and picayune, in relation to the magnitude and seriousness of the problem I'm trying to address. I'm saying there's a bear in the kitchen, and you seem to both argue that there can't be because it's against the house rules, and besides, it's claws don't look very sharp. Which is it?

You don't deny that the President can make law by Executive Order, by invoking a "State of Emergency." This imperial power of the Presidency is unconstitutional on it's face, as is the President's unconstitutional power to (effectively) declare war, which Congress has not challenged since the 1800s. So, in an age where doors are broken in by the Federal govt., and available property seized (stolen) even when the victims are not charged with any crime (violation of our 4th Amendment right to be "secure in our persons papers and effects), don't tell me that the dictatorship blueprint in CURRENT (NOT RECINDED) Executive Orders can't ever be effected because "it's unconstitutional." The criminal organization behind the office of the President have no regard whatever for this founding document. This is a common bullshit "debunking" strategy with regard to E.O.s: yes, yes, yes, sitting presidents "recind" the E.O.s of previous presidents, but THEY INCORPORATE THE SAME UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATIONS OF THE VERY SAME DICTATORIAL PREROGATIVES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTO SUBSEQUENT, RE-WRITTEN, E.O.s AND P.D.D.s.

Your feeble attempt to turn the destruction of our Republic into a partisan debate - to defend your beloved Clinton at the cost of our future - is unworthy of a response. Yes, it's a bipartisan problem. Yes, Bush would be little better than Clinton - they work for the same people, and it's not us. Get off the blame game and help solve the problem - or prepare to be solved along with it, brother.

You set up a straw man by asking me to "prove that FEMA can suspend the Constitution." This is pure semantics. You know as well as I that the President, not FEMA, can effectively suspend the Constitution, and FEMA is the mere instrument in this exercise. Congress is not allowed to question such a state of emergency for six months - assuming it had the guts to question it even then.

As for E.0. 12919, this is more piddly semantic game-playing, and the same ethically hollow "argument" made about internment camps. People argue that (despite the well-known REX 84 exercise) there could be no plans to intern ALL Americans, because no reasonable amount of camps could hold us - ALL! Well, of course not. Just as they would only "disappear" people who are dissidents, patriots, critics of government, they won't confiscate ALL property. But they have given themselves the power to confiscate ANY property they want. You are arguing the finest point imaginable, between the of course ridiculous ALL, as if it mitigated the horror and the shame of our government claiming the right to ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY IT WANTS, at gunpoint, if necessary (this is not to mention the absolute control of political speech, public assembly, etc.). In saying "ANY is not so bad," you are effectively saying, "sure, they can take anything they want, but they probably won't take your stuff or mine." Do you have any inkling of what a turd this makes you? I hope you realize that you are capable of being better than this - if you are bipedal, believe me, you can do better. I sincerely hope you look into your statist self and make the effort while there is still time. Here is the relevant part of the E.O.:

(d) The head of each Federal department or agency assigned functions under subsection 201(a) of this order, when necessary, shall make the finding required under subsection 101(b) of the through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Upon such approval the head of the Federal department or agency that made the finding may use the authority of subsection 101(a) of the Act to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.

This means EVERTHING BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT - even if it doesn't take it today, it can take it tomorrow. It can be argued that this means it has appropriated/stolen ALL of it, even if it chooses not to take possession of ALL of it at any given time. It's called SOCIALISM.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 27, 1999.

Liberty: There was a thread or threads on this forum several months ago about EOs. "No Spam" is now regurgitating the same weasly puke he spewed back then.

Bottom line, "No Spam" quisling: Any individual EO can be cancelled, to be revived immediately under a new number, with or without changes. It can be held to be redeclared under a new number at any time. Your assertion that they cannot contain unconstitutional provisions is ridiculously comtemptible. I'm not even sure that EOs themselves are constitutional. Supposedly, the Executive branch is to merely carry out the laws that Congress passes. I suppose you could say that Congress passed a law "Saying -- here's a blank check -- fill in the amount and payee at your discretion."

The simple fact that there are so many EOs published, detailing this and that, whether they have to be in effect at this very moment, should tell you something.

Unless you are real high up and have a spot in one of the taxpayer funded bunkers for important government people, you quisling, you're gonna be in the soup with the rest of us. And you better have a kind word then for Spam (the mystery meat).

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 27, 1999.

A,

Nospam, or his employer, realizes that people don't want to believe this is happening to America. Or, if they are forced to realize it is happening, they want to think it will somehow be okay, and they shouldn't worry about it. In any case, Nospam knows they won't take the time or trouble to investigate the issue, so he just repeats the same falsehood (that the dictatorial emergency powers in "revoked" E.O.s are not reincorported into subsequent E.O.s but somehow disappear into thin air).

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 27, 1999.

Liberty,

Here's a copy of what I've posted in another thread, except that I've changed it to address you instead of A (A@AisA.com), and to remove references to David Icke.

- - -

I haven't had time to complete a comprehensive response to the invalidities in the arguments by A and you in the earlier thread, but here's a couple of fragments (I'm condensing my summaries of your positions and my responses -- keep in mind that the following are just outlines omitting some details, and that my omission of parts of your arguments does not imply that I have not recognized them or that I consider them invalid):

(A) You argue that some EOs contain unconstitutional provisions. My response is that people who sincerely think so should challenge those unconstitutional provisions in federal court. That's been done in the past, and the court has indeed overturned some challenged provisions. If no one mounts a challenge, then it's hard for me to believe that anyone _sincerely_ and _knowledgeably_ thinks that the provisions you allege to be unconstitutional, are unconstitutional. IOW, put one's "money" (i.e., legal resources) where one's mouth is -- if you don't have the "money" (legal resources) yourself, then find someone who does who shares your opinions. _Surely_ if there is merit to your argument, you can find _someone_ who agrees with you among the thousands of people (attorneys and Congresspeople) qualified to initiate proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of the EOs in question. Have you tried?

(B) There seems to be some confusion in your argument between what laws can do and what people can do. You claim that the President can use EOs to accomplish some unconstitutional things and that military people may follow unconstitutional orders. My response is that we need to separate what laws do from what people do aside from laws.

It is of course possible for any individual (or group) to disobey provisions of the Constitution or lesser laws, and it is possible for such an individual (or group) to claim that his/her actions are justified by other provisions of the Constitution or lesser laws. _But this by itself does not invalidate the provisions which were disobeyed, or lend validity to the claims of justification._ We have to keep in mind that the individual (or group) is responsible for his/her actions. E.g., if a President were to order the unconstitutional creation of detention camps on the basis of some EO, that does not necessarily mean that the EO in fact justifies such action or that the creation of the camps is legal -- instead it would be an illegal action outside the law. The individual (President) would be to blame, not the EO. And the legal structure of U.S. government would still have validity to be obeyed by (law-abiding) citizens and to punish the President for illegal actions.

If part of the U.S. military were to stage a coup to take over control of the government, that would be a crime against the Constitution and derivative laws. Those laws might not be able to prevent the action of the coup itself, but the legal structure would still be valid, and those portions of the military and civilian population which still obeyed the Constitution and derived laws would still have their legal authority to oppose and punish those who didn't.

(C) You argue that the President will use some revoked EOs to do things. When I point out that those EOs cannot be used to do those things because they've been revoked, your response is that the President can simply issue new EOs with repetition of provisions from the revoked EOs.

But that response just confirms that the revoked EOs cannot be used, which is what I was arguing! So why did you present the revoked EOs in the first place if you agree that they can't be used unless reissued???

And if one argues that the President can simply issue new EOs at any time to do unconstitutional things, then one is saying that all existing EOs are meaningless. So, again, why do you use existing EOs to bolster your arguments???

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 29, 1999.

Liberty,

Since I tend to overcommit my time, maybe I'd better just post some specific responses now in case I don't finish the unified document I started and outlined above.

>Your objections are semantic and picayune

I regret that I did not explain myself well enough at first to make my meanings clear to you. I hope that my preceding posting of outlines (A), (B), and (C) will be clearer to you.

>I'm saying there's a bear in the kitchen, and you seem to both argue that there can't be because it's against the house rules, and besides, it's claws don't look very sharp.

No. It seems that you're saying that the bear (Prez) is going to use house rules (EOs) to do bad things. I'm saying that EOs don't have all the properties you're attributing to them.

>You don't deny that the President can make law by Executive Order, by invoking a "State of Emergency."

But most EOs have nothing to do with states of emergency. "Executive Order" and "national emergency" are two separate things.

>This imperial power of the Presidency is unconstitutional on it's face,

"This imperial power": Are you referring to Executive Orders, or to national emergencies?

If Executive Orders, do you or do you not understand that EOs are simply orders by the President that are intended to remain in effect beyond the end of term of office of the individual President who issues them?

Do you or do you not agree that the President, as the chief executive of U.S. government, necessarily issues orders as part of carrying out the duties of his office?

Are you contending that the subclass of presidential orders known as Executive Orders has some sort of power that significantly differentiates them from other presidential orders? If so, what is that differentiation?

If by "This imperial power", you are referring to the declaration of national emergencies, then what do you suggest as a practical substitute? Do you or do you not agree that it is possible for a situation to legitimately exist in which there is some threat to the U.S. which is short of war, but cannot be handled by "business as usual"? (I'm not asking you to agree whether any particular existing national emergency is legitimate, just whether you agree to the concept.)

>The criminal organization behind the office of the President have no regard whatever for this founding document.

Are you referring to the current administration only, or to both current and past administrations?

>yes, yes, yes, sitting presidents "recind" the E.O.s of previous presidents, but THEY INCORPORATE THE SAME UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATIONS OF THE VERY SAME DICTATORIAL PREROGATIVES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTO SUBSEQUENT, RE-WRITTEN, E.O.s AND P.D.D.s.

Then why does Momenteller present those rescinded EOs to support his argument instead of presenting only EOs which are still in effect?

Is it because he doesn't know the difference, which calls into question his overall knowledge of federal law?

Or is it because he knows the difference, but thinks his audience won't. which calls into question how much his audience can trust his opinions?

And please stop dodging my questions about revoked EOs, Liberty. Can't you answer them instead of just insulting me? If you can't answer my simple questions, then I'm going to ask: why can't you? If you really know the answers, just post them. If you don't, admit that.

>Your feeble attempt to turn the destruction of our Republic into a partisan debate

Please stop twisting my words. Everyone reading this thread can see that I asked only about the odd concentration of EOs issued by Democrats and the absence of EOs issued by Republicans in your posting.

You _could_ have rendered your argument bipartisan by listing EOs issued by Republicans. Why haven't you?

>defend your beloved Clinton

I bristle at unjustified attacks on the U.S. government. Clinton is the current President. You should have written "defend your beloved office of the President".

>is unworthy of a response.

I notice that you repeat that theme in your responses to my questions. It seems to be a way of avoiding answering my questions. Is that because you can't answer my questions, or because you're afraid? Why not just write out the straight answers?

>Get off the blame game

Get off the avoiding-my-questions game.

>You set up a straw man by asking me to "prove that FEMA can suspend the Constitution." This is pure semantics.

No, that is an example of your twisting of semantics.

First, the phrase within quotes is not a quotation of my words, as your presentation of it in quotation marks implies. If you're going to paraphrase my words, please do not present such paraphrase as a quote. Your presentation is a semantic distortion because it sets up the quoted phrase as a target for your response even though it is not my wording.

Now, I can just imagine your attacking my previous paragraph as "semantics", but when the reader compares my actual words with your quoted phrase, he/she will notice a _significant_ difference.

My actual words were "If you agree with Momenteller's contention that FEMA has some sort of power to suspend the Constitution, will you either provide a specific citation of an example of that power in FEMA laws, or quote such a citation from Momenteller?"

Note that my actual words start with the phrase "If you agree". I don't see where you told us whether or not you agree. This is not mere semantics -- this is attempted communication with you. I was implicitly asking you to confirm whether you agreed with Momenteller.

Next, I wrote "Momenteller's contention that FEMA has some sort of power to suspend the Constitution". If you will refer to your posting at the top of the rhread, you will see that this is accurate. Momenteller did indeed write "... it ... can suspend the Constitution", and he later made it clear that by "it" he meant FEMA.

So there's no straw man, Liberty, except your own false accusation directed at me. Please apologize for this false accusation.

>You know as well as I that the President, not FEMA, can effectively suspend the Constitution,

No, I don't know that at all. Please separate law from action as I pointed out in my previous posting. If you want to argue that the President could do something illegal, that's one thing. But claiming that such illegal action suspends the Constitution is incorrect.

>Nospam, or his employer,

Because of a temporary medical disability (from which I am currently recovering), I am not employed.

>Nospam knows they won't take the time or trouble to investigate the issue,

But long-time readers of this forum know that I have posted dozens and dozens of links to Internet pages at which others can find original text of many items under discussion. I may agree with the pessimistic view, but at least I'm trying to fight it by providing accurate information. How come _you_ don't post links to where folks can read the actual texts of EOs, or see their current legal status, as I have on multiple occasions? Hunnh? Or didn't you know that I've done that?

>so he just repeats the same falsehood (that the dictatorial emergency powers in "revoked" E.O.s are not reincorported into subsequent E.O.s but somehow disappear into thin air).

THAT IS _NOT_ WHAT I WROTE!

If you think that accusation is correct, then you have been very careless in reading what I have written. (1) I have never contended or agreed that there were "dictatorial emergency powers" in EOs.

(2) I have never contended or argued that any provisions of revoked EOs are nor or could not be incorporated into subsequent EOs.

Please retract this false accusation and apologize for your having posted it.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 29, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

In a series of three EO's issued by President Kennedy, a seemingly endless list of emergency government powers were enumerated relating to transportation, food and water, and energy. Reading these documents was an eye opener to me, since I couldn't then imagine any steps to prepare my family or my neighborhood that couldn't be easily nullified by anybody who passed for an authority figure.

In 1994 President Clinton updated these orders. Whether or not such plans are currently in effect is fairly irrelevant, since they may be easily reinstated at any time (apparently).

When asked whether martial law would be enacted for the rollover, the administration replied "The President has no intention but the Federal Government will be prepared to take such action if circumstances warrant." The primary source link I had for that quote went south, but you may view the entire pronouncement, here. I guess it is to be expected that the White House PR wouldn't want to draw attention to the actual content of these orders.

Historically, in times of extreme trouble, governments can be counted upon to appropriate whatever they can conveniently lay their hands on. -- reference Man and Society in Calamity ...by P.A. Sorokin (1942)

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 29, 1999.

Nospam,

I'm not interested in parsing Momenteller's document. He wrote it, not I. Your focus on "past" E.O. powers is a lot like the official response to the Navy Y2k assessment: "that old thing? It's outdated." Dancr has posted all the information people need to make their own decision on this issue. It really is about whether we want an emperor (dictator) in the office of the President, or if we are willing to demand the limitations on centralized government, and on the Executive, that the Constitution requires.

Spiralling into gigabites of pissy hair-splitting debate is not my idea of a productive pastime. Though if I too were laid up with a headwound, I might think differently.

Get well soon,

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 29, 1999.

Perhaps all of us are missing the "big picture" here. It will not matter whether the EO's PD's, etc. are "legal" or not. If it becomes necessary to claim that such measures are "necessary to help stabilize the situation" you can bet the power that these orders bestow will be excersised. You can stand on your soapbox all day and shout that it is illegal, tramples your rights, but it will not make a bit of difference in the end. You can be silenced, arrested, etc. and there will not be a damn thing you can do about it.

Get a grip here please folks. Power in the wrong hands is still power. Your puny stash of weapons, food, etc. will not be much of a match. If "they" want it they can take it, period. All the legal posturing in the world will not change this. Your best bet is to have a plan on how you would handle this kind of a situation. I realize that the forces necessary to accomplish all of this will be spread thin but are you willing to gamble that they won't get around to you sooner or later? This ain't a game, there will be no rules so you should start considering your options if you really believe something like this could happen here in this country.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly"

or something like that.....:)

-- Watcher (watcher@yahoo.com), August 29, 1999.

"FEMA was created by Executive Order, not by Congressional law, but EOs are just as constitutional as Congressional laws

EOs are just as constitutional as Congressional laws

Other government agencies have been created by Executive Order. So? That's legal. That's constitutional

The truth is that an Executive Order is simply a presidential order that is intended to survive past the end of the current administration

The EO cannot take effect until it has been published in the Federal Register, but this is no bottleneck because the Rederal Register is printed and distributed every day if necessary."

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are constitutional rights secure."

-- Sick of Fascism (Tohellin@handbasket.com), August 29, 1999.

Readers,

Notice how "Liberty" is just as afraid of answering my questions and challenges as "zzzzzzzzz" was in another thread.

They both(?) know their arguments are on shaky ground and cannot withstand close scrutiny.

Ask yourself: "If it supposedly is all right to use the revoked EOs as examples because their provisions have been incorporated into newer EOs that are currently in effect, then why didn't they simply cite those newer EOs and provide quotations from them instead of using the outdated ones? How do we know their claims that the provisions of the Kennedy EOs have been incorporated into later ones, when they provide no examples of such incorporation?"

Well, Liberty, zzzzzzzzz, can you provide any actual evidence to support your claim that the provisions of the Kennedy EOs have been incorporated into later EOs? Or are you afraid of the hard work of doing the research to get that information, because the authors you like to quote from didn't bother to do that research either?

Readers, also ask yourselves, "If Liberty's/zzzzzzzzz's allegations about certain EOs are really nonpartisan, why don't they cite or refer to EOs issued by Republicans instead of exclusively using only those issued by Democrats as examples?"

I, No Spam, myself know (because I did the research a while back) that some relevant provisions in EOs issued by Reagan and Bush have not yet been revoked. Those provisions are still in force, have not been incorporated into any later EO by Clinton, yet are consistently ignored by the folks making these claims about "dictatorial" powers that Clinton is supposedly planning to use. Why? Because this is an anti-Clinton attack being run under guise of nonpartisanship, that's why. If "zzzzzzzz" and "Liberty" want to disprove that, all they have to do is to start citing and posting quotations from the relevant EOs that were issued by Republicans.

But I think they're both(?) allergic to the work of doing the research to dig out that information.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 30, 1999.

"A", "zzzzzzzzzz",

I apologize for mixing up "zzzzzzzzz" and "A" in my preceding posting.

- - - - -

Readers,

Wherever I wrote "zzzzzzzzz" in the preceding posting, please substitute "A".

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 30, 1999.

Nospam,

Read Watcher's post. This isn't about defending Billy, and it isn't about legalism. It's about the government 1. Seizing control of radio and t.v. stations, as well as all print media. 2. Confiscating (stealing) entire businesses, inventories, land, vehicles, homes - as it feels the need to do so. This includes our personal stockpiles of food, fuel - and guns. 3. Preventing people from meeting publically, including church services, if it feels threatened by these. 4. Arresting and detaining anyone they want, without trial, ON MERE SUSPICION that the detainee MIGHT be a threat to the dictatorship. 5. Drafting labor: taking men away from their families to work where and as needed, without compensation: literal SLAVERY. 6. Identifying all citizens with one universal I.D. (the Post Office is charged with this tagging procedure). 7. Relocating people off their land, to internment or work camps, or anywhere else the government wants them, without compensating them for their land. The E.O. specifically allow for the separation of families, "if necessary."

This is what the government can do, and has prepared to do, with much effort and expense, "should the need arise." I DON'T CARE IF IT'S "LEGAL" OR NOT. Hitler was democratically elected. The holocaust was perfectly legal, at the time. Do you see my point? No one gives a shit about Bill Clinton, especially his handlers. This is scheduled to go down with or without him. From this perspective, you are arranging deck chairs. I'm talking lifeboats. Do you understand yet?

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 30, 1999.

Liberty: Looks like "No Spam" has hijacked this thread, also. I suspect he is a government flunky lawyer in some fascist burueacracy, so proud of his ability to split hairs and obfuscate -- to drown the important point -- or the forest -- in a morass of inconsequential details.

Non illigitimi carborundum!

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 30, 1999.

A,

Sounds about right. Or worse, a wanna-be.

They aren't grinding me down, they are sharpening my blade.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 30, 1999.

Damn it, A, say it in American if you have something to say!!! (Reminds me of Decker. Gawd!)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 30, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Non illigitimi carborundum! Don't let the bastards get you down.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 31, 1999.

Liberty,

Why do you keep dodging my questions? Cowardice? Inability to defend your position? Or what?

_You_ are the one who presented Momenteller's article as "a good place for us to start".

So why, when I point out flaws in the evidence Momenteller presents, aren't you willing or able to do the moderate amount of work necessary to fill in the gaps of research yourself? Do you just parrot the words of others without comprehending what they mean?

>This isn't about defending Billy,

Then why did _you_ accuse me of defending Clinton?

>it isn't about legalism.

Then why did _you_ present Momenteller's article with all the EO legalism?

Do you now wish to disavow Momenteller's article?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

Liberty,

Will you please esplain where you found the evidence for the seven numbered items you listed after writing "It's about the government"? I'm particularly interested in numbers 3 (regarding church services), 4, 5 (regarding "slavery").

Also, in which EO did you find evidence for your statement "The E.O. specifically allow for the separation of families, 'if necessary'"?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

Nospam,

Despite the fact that you are being really shitty about this, here's my best effort to explain what is happening, what is at risk. You have seized upon the E.O.s in the original article, and won't let go. For God's sake, look at what's really happening. This is what FEMA and Martial Law plans are about (courtesy of "FEMAWatcher" from another thread). This is really happening, and continues to happen, in secret, with a black budget. We know this from the Iran-Contra hearings, when any mention of Oliver Norths FEMA and REX 84 involvement was brought into closed session for "national security" purposes. This is all about instituting a police state "in an emergency." Some believe that an emergency of sufficient magnitude would justify such a dictatorship. Others of us believe that there is no excuse whatsoever for "suspending" our Constitutional Republic in favor of a national security state; we believe that legitimante government is "of the people, by the people and for the people," or it's not legitimate at all. There's not much more to say at this point, unless you think correction for grammatical errors or pagination proves that there are no plans for dictatorship in America:

REX-84

By 1984, the biannual "REX exercises" had fallen under the auspices of FEMA. President Reagan signed Presidential Directive Number 54 specifically authorizing REX-84 as formulated by Lt. Colonel Oliver North. Whereas REX-82 had been conducted in conjunction with a Pentagon war game termed "Proud Saber," REX-84 was so highly classified that special metal security doors were installed on the fifth floor of the agency's Washington headquarters building. Even long-term officials of the Civil Defense Office were barred.

The stated intention of REX-84 was to test the readiness of FEMA and those elements under its command to assume military control in the event of widespread civil unrest concurrent with a significant U.S. military incursion into Central America, specifically the invasion of Nicaragua planned by North and his accomplices in the National Security Council.

An internal memo written by the Joint Chiefs of Staff the previous December first described in considerable detail the steps involved in calling out the troops in response to an undefined national emergency. Listed were exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the U.S. military from law enforcement activities within our national boundaries. Authority cited was "the inherent legal right of the United States Government to ensure the preservation of public order ... by force if necessary," a murky and inaccurate assertion struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1952 when President Harry Truman seized the steel mills.

REX-84 assumed a mass of some 400,000 refugees streaming into the U.S. from across the Mexican border. Within a six-hour period, FEMA and its subordinate agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), were to apprehend and detain such persons in 10 detention centers established on active or former military bases scattered around the country. Strategists have privately raised several troubling questions about this exercise. Could that many people physically rush the U.S.-Mexico border within the stated time frame? Considering the rough, foreboding terrain typical along the border and the extent to which refugees could disperse, how logical is it to attempt to roundup 400,000 persons, who have very little to lose, within six hours? If such was the true intent of the exercise, why would not the concentration camps -- sorry, the "detention centers" -- be set up near the border?

"The Spotlight," a long-standing populist newspaper based in Washington, D.C., exposed REX-84 that year in a series of investigative reports which uncovered plans to stir into the mix the arrest of dissidents and "potential subversives."

Strenuously opposing Rex-84 was William French Smith, who had been serving as U.S. attorney general since 1981. He was a long-time confidante of Ronald Reagan, as well as his personal attorney and a member of the "kitchen cabinet" that engineered Reagan's rise to the presidency. Smith criticized stipulations for the declaration of martial law, turning control of all governmental functions over to FEMA, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the appointment of military commanders to run all state and local affairs.

Wallace Stickney, George Bush's FEMA director, has stated that he was not given access to the agency's most sensitive plans. He relates an instance wherein a congressional appropriations committee questioned his staff about a particular expenditure. He reacted: "I was aware funding was being passed through but didn't know where it was going -- nor did Congress, which demanded to know." Generally, when the "doomsday budget" was questioned, says Stickney, national security was mentioned, and "it was overlooked by gentlemen's agreement."

Miami Herald Exclusive

On July 5, 1987, the front page of the Miami Herald led with an extensively researched article on what the lead counsel for the Senate Iran-Contra Committee called "a secret government within a government."

It was the conclusion of many administration officials and congressional investigators that from the first days of the Reagan administration, a parallel government operated outside the established cabinet and department lines of authority. Oliver North was found to be a key figure in the group, which conducted activities through a network of colleagues who acted under their directions, but did not officially report to them. From time to time, cabinet members or top aides detected side channel operations.

However, their efforts to question such projects were ineffectual, partly due to concerns that the president's wishes might be involved. Indeed, a number of ranking sources confirmed Mr. Reagan's knowledge of and participation in a number of these unofficial programs.

The Herald went on to name Attorney General Edwin Meese, CIA Director Wil-liam Casey and National Security Advisor William Clark, all close friends and advisors to the president, as major players in "the secret structure."

Operating out of the Old Executive Office Building most of the time, North worked closely with FEMA to redraw national contingency plans dealing with nearly everything from nuclear attack to civil insurrection. The martial-law component was reflected in a June 30, 1982, memo written by John Brinkerhoff, deputy to Director Guiffrida. The text was reminiscent of Guiffrida's controversial paper written at the War College in Carlisle, Pa., in 1970.

FEMA's action plan included the declaration of martial law, suspension of the Constitution and aggressive moves against dissenters. A trigger could be "violent and widespread internal dissent." This plan and its failure to clearly define a national crisis caused Attorney General Smith to issue an official protest. The Herald reported that on Aug. 2, 1984, Smith emphatically expressed to National Security Advisor Robert "Bud" McFarlane his alarm over FEMA's "expansion of the definition of severe emergency to encompass 'routine' domestic law enforcement emergencies."

Smith openly fumed that FEMA's "mobilization exercise scenarios continue to assign FEMA the responsibility of representing the Department of Justice and other cabinet agencies at meetings with the president and the National Security Council during national security emergencies."

Understandably, Smith's resignation was accepted in early 1984, although he agreed to remain until his successor, the more flexible Edwin Meese, could gain Senate confirmation. In the closing days of his service, Smith wrote, "This Department and others have repeatedly raised serious policy and legal objections to the creation of an 'emergency czar' role for FEMA."

It is thought that the courage of Attorney General Smith and the expose by The Spotlight helped cost Giuffrida his top post.

In its Oct.17, 1994, issue, The Spotlight published an article titled "Dictatorial Powers for FEMA" based on Senate bill S. 1697, introduced in November 1993 by Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). The bill died without reaching the Senate floor. But who needs actual legislation anymore? Bill Clinton accomplished the purposes of the bill and more when he signed Executive Order 12919 on June 3, 1994.

This executive order cited authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950 and one section of the U.S. Code. Thirteen executive orders were revoked or amended, definitions were expanded, and more presidential powers were delegated to the director of FEMA.

Of particular interest is Part VI of Executive Order 12919. The head of any FEMA department or agency is empowered to establish an expertise-based National Defense Executive Reserve. Section 602 authorizes any head "to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation. ..." This writer believes there is an impolite term for that.

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 01, 1999.

WOW!!

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.

no spam: No Spam?

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 02, 1999.

ROTFFLMFAO!! With tears!

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), September 03, 1999.

Liberty,

You may e-mail me at the e-address (it's real) with which I have been signing my postings to let me know when you will answer my questions and challenges to your use of EOs as evidence for your assertions, instead of continuing your dodging and avoiding of such questions.

When you decide to address the issues I've raised about your use of EOs to support your arguments, then we can proceed to discuss the validity of the other parts of the topic of this thread.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

Liberty?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), September 05, 1999.