It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.
Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:
(a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;
(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and
(c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.
Sec. 307. Government-owned Equipment. An agency head is authorized, pursuant to section 303(e) of the Act, to install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to facilities owned by the government and to install government-owned equipment in industrial facilities owned by private persons. source
Originally posted by OldCorp
reply to post by jdub297
Why in the world are you putting this in such a pretty package? "Nationalizing industry?" Let's call a spade a spade shall we? This is SLAVERY!
...
He's not leaving us much choice is he?
Here's the second section of the bill the OP is talking about. It's confusing to understand it shortened.
Again, why now?
The people who are comfortable with the seizure of their freedoms will of course not see this for what it truely is. An excutive order doesn't get voted on like a bill. It simply is.
Originally posted by harlot7
I guess Obama wasn't lying when he said "Yes We Can".
This basically says, if they want our stuff...they can take it. If they want us....they can take us. This is pure draft material.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Ummm probably because it reads like every other National Defense Preparedness Executive Order signed by previous presidents?
The section you pointed out as being "new" is not at all new - the exact phrasing has been written into every single previous "National Defense Resources Preparedness" EO, signed by Bush or Clinton, only the section title has changed some.
The one signed by Obama is a virtual rehash of the one signed by Clinton in 1994, which was largely a re-write of the one signed by Bush in 1988.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by jdub297
Of course it REVOKES those previous orders!
You can't have previous orders conflicting with NEW orders. The languages in this new order is virtually identical with the order issued in 1994 and 1988.
Again here is the 1994 E.O.
Executive Orders And Laws relating to National Emergencies Laws
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919
NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
READ THOUGH it and tell me, how is the one Obama signed AT ALL different from the one signed back in 1994?
All you are doing is using this as another sad attempt to smear Obama for upholding his office. If this executive order was so offensive to you, why didn't you demonize Bush for signing the same thing back in 1988 or Clinton for it in 1994? Did you even KNOW they had signed these orders, and that this 2012 version was a virtual copy of those previous orders? The whole idea of "why does it revoke those orders" is laughable - it supersedes those orders. The one signed in 1994 revokes the one signed in 1988. (read section "Sec. 904. Effect on other Orders" in the 1994 order.)