""I know something you don't know." or, Why is this lying anal sphincter smiling?My thanks to Typeay and others for forwarding me this little surprise.
Money quote:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 11, 2010
EXECUTIVE ORDER
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property,it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Council of Governors.
(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.
(b)The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.
Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander,United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such views, information, or advice shall concern:
(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; (Emphasis supplied, MBV) and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
My first thought: And you were putting off that purchase of more ammunition, why, exactly?
My second thought: The Tea Parties ought to hold the GOP governors feet to the fire and demand that NONE OF THEM participate in this farce and thereby add legitimacy to it.
Mike
III
"Hey, peasants, enough with this Czar crap! You're going to give Czars a bad name!"
12 comments:
how is this not a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878?
If I thought for one minute that the goal of this was to transfer some power and responsibility to the states, I'd be all for this.
Since I know - without question - it's intended to further Federal control, well...
'Nuff said.
Why only 10 Governors?
Why the deliberate "non-partisan" angle? I'm not stupid - it's a rhetorical question...
Which brings about an ACTUAL question: What 5 Rinos will he pick?
The Governator's an obvious choice, so ...
What 4 OTHER rinos will he pick?
DD
PS: WV="bledlym" -- is that "bedlam" or bled-something?
Mandated by Congress under Bush in 2008. It arose out of the Katrina debacle and is suppposed to enhance the ability of governors to request help and assistance from other state's national guards.
EXECUTIVE ORDER
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS
By the authority vested in me as President by theConstitution and the laws of the United States of America,including section 1822 of the National Defense AuthorizationAct of 2008 (Public Law 110-181)...........
Mike: I don't know TypeA who apparently sent you the "executive order" press release, but I do know U.S. government. No number is given for the purported order which made it look phony to me. I went to the "source," www.whitehuse.gov, and can find no evidence of the existence of any such order. Even the language: ". . .the President shall. . . ." sounds phony. Thatb would make it a directive TO the President, when it's the President who issues executive orders. Suggest you ask for validation.
I'm not sure that "refusal to participate" is the way to go on this. He'd pick RINOS, or, if the strike got 100% compliance from GOP governors, couldn't he run the thing with 5 members? Better to join and then vote NO on everything. Not that anyone in the GOP has the stones for that.
Here's the link to the White House document that Flavet was searching for... (Just an FYI, I did a scroogle.org search on the first part of the text, and it came up. It's a search method that helps me out quite a bit. No jibe meant at Flavet.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2010executive_order.pdf
Dedicated Dad wrote:
"Which brings about an ACTUAL question: What 5 Rinos will he pick?"
E X A C T L Y.
Nail hit. Tack driven.
They WILL be friendly to him. They will be paid for. They WILL create animosity within the GOP governors' group (I forget, at the moment, what that is called...)Don't expect them to be powerless, either, within the GOP - at least as public perception is concerned.
Check out Sec. 5. (b)....
III More said "Check out section 5b"
==
"...(b)This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations."
Other than the horrible grammar inherent in the "implemented consistent" phrase, what's to check out there?
DD
Mike: I don't know TypeA who apparently sent you the "executive order" press release, but I do know U.S. government. No number is given for the purported order which made it look phony to me. I went to the "source," www.whitehuse.gov, and can find no evidence of the existence of any such order. Even the language: ". . .the President shall. . . ." sounds phony. Thatb would make it a directive TO the President, when it's the President who issues executive orders. Suggest you ask for validation.
Anonymous Jeffrey Quick said...
"I'm not sure that "refusal to participate" is the way to go on this. He'd pick RINOS, or, if the strike got 100% compliance from GOP governors, couldn't he run the thing with 5 members? Better to join and then vote NO on everything. Not that anyone in the GOP has the stones for that."
Even if you had five with the "stones" good luck trying to somehow trick Obama into picking five dedicated patriot governors. HE gets to pick them all. Better to refuse to even participate, and to make it clear that any sell-out who does will be committing political suicide.
Assuming it's true (and whether or not it is, it absolutely could be, which tells us everything we need to know), this smells like a pre-emptive strike at state sovereignty movements. A "council of governors" becomes an exclusive club that can become even more dependent on federal favor--and thus less likely to rock the boat.
III More said "Check out section 5b"
==
"...(b)This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations."
Other than the horrible grammar inherent in the "implemented consistent" phrase, what's to check out there?
DD
Hi DD,
I was referencing "applicable law". Posse Commitatus (sp) would seem to be applicable here. This EO is ground work for nationalizing the guards of the several states. As law and precedent pile on top of each other, I would expect to see additional applicable law to target "militias" as being obstructions to fulfillment of the EO.
5b will be one more tool to target patriots, and concurrently bring real military hardware to the game as "needs" dictate.
Why only 10 governors "Dedicated Dad" asks...
I can't post pictures here, so go here and maybe it will answer your question?
http://causapatet.blogspot.com/2010/01/establishment-of-council-of-governors.html
Scroll down a tad.
December 10, 2009
RAND Corporation Blueprint for Militarized “Stability Police Force”
The RAND Corporation, one of the most fecund research arms of the Military-Industrial-Homeland Security Complex, has released a study entitled A Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Creating U.S. Capabilities.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG819.pdf
The SPFOR (to use the inevitable acronym) would be a “hybrid” military/law enforcement unit created within the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) for use “in a range of tasks such as crowd and riot control, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), and investigations of organized criminal groups” — both abroad, in UN-directed multilateral military operations, and at home, as dictated by the needs of the Regime.
Initially as small as 2–6,000 personnel, the SPFOR’s size “could be increased by augmenting it with additional federal, state, or local police from the United States” as necessary.
The RAND study, which was conducted for the U.S. Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute, recommended using the Marshals Service rather than the US Army’s Military Police as host for the SPFOR in order to avoid conflicts with the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids (albeit in principle more than in practice) the domestic use of the military as a law enforcement body.
“The USMS hybrid option … provides an important nondeployed mission for the force: augmenting state and local agencies, many of which currently suffer from severe personnel shortages,” states the report without explaining how the SPFOR could at once “augment” those under-manned agencies while at the same time being “augmented” by them if necessary.
That little lapse in logic is one of several indications that the report’s authors weren’t so much addressing a “problem” as making a case for a preordained “solution” — in this case, creating the vanguard of a militarized internal security force.
Building the SPFOR within the Marshals Service “would place it where its members can develop the needed skills under the hybrid staffing option,” summarizes the document. “Furthermore, the USMS has the broadest law enforcement mandate of any U.S. law enforcement agency…. [This model] provides significant domestic policing and homeland security benefits by providing thousands of additional police officers across the United States.” (Emphasis added.)
Back in 1961, the U.S. Government produced a document entitled “Freedom From War” that envisioned the creation of a globe-spanning United Nations “Peace Force” that would work in collaboration with a militarized “internal security” force in each country. Since that time, critics of the UN have anticipated the day when foreign “peacekeepers” would be assigned to police American streets and, if necessary, confiscate privately owned firearms.
While the monstrosity headquartered on the East River is a proper target of our scorn and hostility, the new RAND study underscores the fact that if “peacekeepers” end up patrolling American streets, they probably won’t be foreigners in blue berets, but homegrown jackboots commanded by Washington.
Post a Comment