July 16, 2012
Do Obama's Executive Orders Reveal A Pattern? (updated)By Warren Beatty
President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama has offered over 900 Executive Orders (EO), and he is not even through his first term. He is creating a wonderland of government controls covering everything imaginable, including a list of "Emergency Powers" and martial law EOs. And while Obama is busy issuing EOs to control everything inside the US, he has been issuing EOs to force us to submit to international regulations instead of our US Constitution.
And comments by North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue and former OMB director Peter Orszag only contribute to this pattern.
Is it now time to start connecting the dots? Obama signed EO 13603 on March 22, 2012. Then he signed EO 13617 on June 25, 2012, declaring a national emergency. Then he signed EO 13618 on July 6, 2012.
In EO 13603, entitled, "National Defense Resources Preparedness," Obama says (among other things) that [we must]:
Obama has the power, through this EO, to "nationalize" (not seize) private assets in order to protect national interests. Further, the EO effectively states that he can:
1. "identify" requirements for emergencies
2. "assess" the capability of the country's industrial and technological base
3. "be prepared" to ensure the availability of critical resources in time of national threat
4. "improve the efficiency" of the industrial base to support national defense
5. "foster cooperation" between commercial and defense sectors
There are pundits that suggest that by signing EO 13603, Obama has given himself power to declare martial law and suspend elections.
The main problem with EO 13603 is that the words/phrases in quotes can be interpreted in many ways, including ways that favor Obama and Democrats. Wait, we can have our Supreme Court decide what they mean. But that won't work since we know four of them to be Democrat hacks, and one justice can be influenced by the MSM.
In EO 13617, entitled "Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons," Obama says (among other things)that"
Obama, by signing this EO, actually declared a national emergency. I guess that President Theodore Roosevelt's famous saying, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," can't apply in this case because we don't want to offend the Russians by having them honor treaties they signed (the "HEU" Agreement). But what's more important is that Obama can now "justify" any action he wants to take by citing EO 13617 since it declares a national emergency.
Then, in EO 13618, entitled, "Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions," Obama states (among other things) that:
Obama cites "national security" in this EO. I guess Obama sees ANY excuse for declaring a national security emergency will appear better than taking over the nation's communications assets by force
Want more examples of what Obama is doing?
Are we beginning to see a pattern here? We're being prepared for a national emergency. Then there's taking control. I personally think that what Obama is doing goes way beyond being prepared.
North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue (Democrat), on September 28, 2011, suggested that perhaps elections should be suspended for two years by canceling, until the economy recovers, the 2012 elections. After that remark got the reception it deserved, Pardue's staff tried to pass it off as a joke.
Former White House director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, who, on September 14, 2011, in a The New Republic article entitled "Too Much of a Good Thing: Why we need less democracy," said that we are that we are hampered by too much democracy, that the constitutional system (not really a democracy) is too slow to react, and the deliberations and negotiations are simply too cumbersome. Orszag suggests that the constitutional rules of limiting government offers impediments to autocratic, dictatorial actions, and are just too great.
That North Carolina governor Perdue would even joke (if it was a joke) about canceling an election is frightening enough, but that Orszag, a former official in Obama's administration, believes that doing away with the US Constitution is a viable solution should cause every AT reader to quake.
I'm never comfortable with laws that give the government broad reaching powers in the event of a "national emergency," especially when there is no clear, set, unchangeable definition of what actually constitutes a "national emergency."
Circumvention of the US Constitution by any means possible is the ultimate goal of Democrats and the Obama administration because the 2012 election is shaping up to be a repeat of the 2010 election.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but these three latest EOs and previous EOs Obama signed, coupled with Perdue's and Orszag's comments, suggest that something besides coincidence is going on.
Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University. He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired. Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at: rwno.limewebs.com.
Watch related American Thinker Video selections.
Update from Warren Beatty:
American Thinker (AT) was kind enough to publish "Do Obama's Executive Orders Reveal A Pattern?" on July 16. AT (and to a lesser extent, me) has received numerous messages questioning the validity of my article. So, regarding validity, please let me try to alleviate confusion and explain how I arrived at the "over 900" number.
The first sentence of the article, particularly one word, has caused much confusion. The first sentence is: "President Barack Hussein 'kill list' Obama has offered over 900 Executive Orders (EO), and he is not even through his first term." The word that has caused such uproar and confusion is "offered." I never said Obama signed over 900 EOs, only that he offered that many. Fact checkers are correct: Obama has not signed over (or even close to) 900 EOs. So the confusion was caused by my not precisely defining what I meant by "offered." Please allow me to do that now.
By "offered" I mean numbered EOs he has signed (139 as of October 5, 2012), unnumbered EOs (such as the ones he offered to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and to take over private property), and EOs signed by previous presidents that are either directly or indirectly updated and/or superseded by Obama's EOs, such as EO 10990 (signed by Kennedy).
Let me be specific. Regarding EO 10990, it was signed by John F. Kennedy, on February 2, 1962, and established "The Federal Safety Council." It refers, in Section 1, to the Secretary of Labor and his subordinates. Section 2 says that, "The Council shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of Labor in matters relating to the safety of civilian employees of the Federal government...." The key words here are: "advisory capacity." I did not say Obama signed it. I said what he has done with his EOs makes a takeover possible.
Now please turn your attention to EO 13603. Section 103 states: "Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall: ..."
(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements;"
Section 701 of this EO refers specifically to the Secretary of Labor being a member of The Defense Production Act Committee.
So, does EO 13603 have any effect upon EO 10990? I say "Yes" if the Secretary of Labor and The Defense Production Act Committee advise Obama regarding "...resources and production capability...", "...the availability of adequate resources...", and "...improve the efficiency and responsiveness...", and use their advice as an excuse to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports, and therefore tell workers how to work, thereby completely circumventing Kennedy's EO 10990.
Now look at EO 10995 (signed by Kennedy) and EO 13618, and tell me (with a straight face) that no pattern is emerging. EO 13618, in Section 5.2 (e), states, "satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;" Just what does "when appropriate" mean? And, this EO completely revokes EO 12472 and amends EO 12382.
Want another example? Look at how Obama revised EO 12859 (signed by Bill Clinton): (b) striking "(v) Senior Advisor to the President for Policy Development;" and inserting in lieu thereof "(v) Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change;"; I have to ask what do "Policy Development" and "Energy and Climate Change" have to do with each other, besides establishing energy and climate change policies?
Want another example? EO 13499 amends EO 12835 (signed by Bill Clinton). EO 12835 established a "National Economic Council," but EO 13499 appoints the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change and the Secretary of Homeland Security to the council. Just what can they contribute to a "National Economic Council" except what Obama wants? This is an example of how Obama operates, "under the radar." Those amendments appear innocuous, but can be very useful in times of a national emergency.
Speaking of "national emergency," look at what Obama has done with EO 13617: "Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons." He declares a national emergency in this EO.
So Obama has set the stage for martial law by declaring a national emergency. Regarding martial law, I said that EO 13603 provides Obama with a vehicle when and if he gets ready to implement martial law. In EO 13603, Obama declared:
"... be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;"
The primary problem with EO 13603 is that it can be interpreted in ways that favor Obama if/when he declares martial law.
Regarding a newsletter from Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) who warns that Obama's "National Defense Resources Preparedness" (EO 13603) created martial law, neither AT nor I had anything to do with her newsletter.
Am I trying to "weasel out" of my assertions? No! In fact, I stand, more than ever, behind what I have said. All I can do is write. How the words are interpreted is not within my control. Perhaps I should have done a better, clearer, more explanatory job of writing.
Am I being paranoid? Well, perhaps. But, given Obama's track record, such as declaring a national emergency in EO 13617, erring on the side of caution is warranted. And that thinking applies to EOs 10997, 11000, and 11002 through 11005 as well. All of them were signed by previous presidents.
My line of thinking all comes down not to specific EOs Obama has or has not signed, but to the pattern Obama is establishing. Yes, fact checkers are correct, but their focus is upon only the number of numbered EOs signed. The various fact checkers may be correct regarding the number of EOs Obama has signed, but the fact checkers ignore (what is, in my opinion, more important) the pattern Obama has established with his EOs. So, my research shows that Obama "offered" (signed, unsigned, updated, amended, and/or superseded) over 900 EOs.
Bottom Line: as I said to Ray Schneider at Political Brambles, "So the number of numbered EOs Obama has signed, number of unnumbered EOs he has signed, plus the number he has updated and/or amended totals over 900. And let's be realistic: Obama himself did none of this."
By the way, a list of Obama's EOs (numbered and unnumbered) can be found at The White House Briefing Room web site.