Barack Obama is at it again. Taking on his shoulders the right of the president by executive fiat order to rewrite the laws of our country. This time it is one even more fraught with dangerous possibilities of a takeover of our country by a sitting president in order to move away from a republic.
It was signed on July 1, 2016 which was the Friday before Independence Day. He was probably cackling malevolently as he put a pen to paper to sign it into executive order, assuming rightly no one would bother to spill the beans before congress let out. In addition, it did not hit the federal register right away and if I remember right did not show up in the White House listing either for a while. I remember checking not long after July 4th and had not seen it then.
Where were congressional leaders? Out politicking of course. What the bloody H##ll were they doing for the last two months? Democrats knew about this order I am fairly certain. Did Republicans? Are we safe from a totalitarian government at this point? If the last few weeks are an example, the answer is NO!
The United Nations and its Agenda 2016 or 2030 should have ZERO place or authority in our country. Obama has worked diligently through his people to make it happen anyway over the last eight years. He has made certain that there were many little chaos fires in order to hide his New World Order activities. From guns, to trade deals, from human rights to law enforcement, Obama has marched clear-eyed toward a goal.
He is no dummy. He does know how to present a “clown face” but it masks an agenda bought and paid for by the elite wanting a genocide restart to the world. People like Soros, the Ford Foundation, and several others have piled money on groups like BLM and others to keep chaos stirring in order to mask their real intent.
CONGRESS – Why would Obama need to even write this or three succession orders so near to a presidential change of command? Why was it not handed off to congress to prepare?
Why wasn’t there a MAJOR meltdown of anger over this executive order by the states and congress? This is not what should be addressed by a president. Impeachment now may be the only way to prevent Obama’s plans from continuing.
UNITED STATES POLICY ON PRE- AND POST-STRIKE MEASURES TO ADDRESS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN U.S. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF FORCE
Sec. 1: Purpose. United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interests, our values, and our legal obligations.
Sec. 2. Policy. In furtherance of U.S. Government efforts to protect civilians in U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense, and with a view toward enhancing such efforts, relevant departments and agencies (agencies) shall continue to take certain measures in present and future operations.
Sec. 3. Report on Strikes Undertaken by the U.S. Government Against Terrorist Targets Outside Areas of Active Hostilities.
Sec. 4. Periodic Consultation.
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
For those interested here are some reference materials:
1- Emergency Power and the Militia Acts. Stephen I. Vladeck,Yale Law Journal October 7, 2004
“…borrowed from the eerily prescient 1998 movie The Siege, this scenario raises some extraordinarily serious and
difficult legal questions.
Among them, what are the limits of such executive military authority, insofar as both time and scope of power are concerned? Are there any? Can there be any? What role can courts, if they are even open, play during such a crisis? What remedy is there for violations of whatever constitutional mandates still apply? Who gets to say when the crisis is over? Most importantly, where would we start, the morning after, in trying to answer these questions, or even in trying to pose them?”
2- Department of Defense – Directive Number 3025.18 December 29, 2010, changes 2012
4 g. Federal military commanders, Heads of DoD Components, and/or responsible DoD civilian officials (hereafter referred to collectively as “DoD officials”) have IMMEDIATE RESPONSE AUTHORITY as described in this Directive. In response to a request for assistance from a civil authority, under imminently serious conditions and if time does not permit approval
from higher authority, DoD officials may provide an immediate response by temporarily employing the resources under their control, subject to any supplemental direction provided by higher headquarters, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage within the United States. Immediate response authority does not permit actions that would subject civilians to the use of military power that is regulatory, prescriptive, proscriptive, or compulsory.
3- The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law
Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist in American Public Law; Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney August 16, 2012.
4- Posse Comitatus Act (1878) Encyclopedia.com. Michael I. Spak and Donald F. Spak
“the willful use of the army or air force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws is a felony, unless the use is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.
Debate is ongoing as to whether the PCA should be repealed, moderated, or strengthened. Some argue that the act should be repealed because the federal government needs the full force of a flexible military to combat terrorism within the territorial United States. Others suggest the act is obsolete and should be repealed because numerous legislative exemptions have eroded the underlying policy and left the PCA a hollow shell. Others insist that although there are many exceptions, the act is essential to bar misuse of the military by civilian authorities and to prevent a military dictatorship from assuming control of the nation through use of the armed forces. Still others argue that the act means only that federal military forces may not be commandeered by civilian authorities for use in active and direct law enforcement as a posse comitatus. If local authorities need military personnel for specialized operations enforcing state laws, it is argued, they may call on the state governor for the assistance of the state National Guard.”