Does this executive order signed 3/16 nationalize industry?

I saw this while surfing this morning. It answers some of the questions of "why now." Very interesting is the fact that the original act was passed by Congress who then delegated the authority to the President. As this article points out Obama just took that authority with his EO. I'm also curious as to why Obama feels he needs to add "national emergency" to the list of reasons to activate the EO without any detailed definition as to what that maybe. This is scarey because we already know his administration is sworn to "never to let a crisis go to waste."

http://townhall.com/columnists/stephens ... n_of_power

Here is what the Executive Order has in store for the nations farmers:

http://www.naturalnews.com/035301_Obama_executive_orders_food_supply.html

This is the second conservative link that I have posted that prefers to tell it like it is & not how you all want it to be.
http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/ ... paredness/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... eparedness Read it for yourself.
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/201203200010 Still another recap.

samhill wrote:This is the second conservative link that I have posted that prefers to tell it like it is & not how you all want it to be.
http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/ ... paredness/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... eparedness Read it for yourself.

No Sam, you tell it like you want it to be.

Listen for once.

It doesn't matter who issued the original EO or who updated it afterward.

EO's are unconstitutional on their face because they carry the force of law which is not a function of the executive branch.

This one in particular nationalizes all private property and industry. An action which we overthrew the government of Iran in 1953, and Honduras around the same time for the same reason.

We condemn Venezuela for it and we've had sanctions on Cuba for decades because of it.

You just keep on arguing both sides of the case Sam, maybe someday you'll be right....

I don't want to speculate, but ... OK I will!

Although present politics seems to be at the root of this, there is also a differential thought that keeps circulating in the back of my mind. Recall that about one or two weeks ago, a little publicizied article casually mentioned that NOAA or maybe it was NASA identified a smallish asteriod that apparently had a concerning projected path that would bring it rather close to Earth - say about half the distance between our lowest satellites and Earth. The problem was they knew nothing about this asteroid because its' path brought it from a direction we couldn't see. The agency said it was discovered about eight months ago but nothing was said until that article a few weeks ago. Personally, I think the agency knew about it longer then eight months ago. It's projected intersection with Earth is supposedly around the December 2012 time frame. It was also mentioned in the article that it was too late for any space intervention.

Generally I not a conspiracy theorist but something more seems to be on the minds of our fearless leaders.

Jpete, in the first place that was a opinion from a conservative site I posted, actually two but this whole thing was about the EO that was just signed. Not wanting to leave the 17, 18, or 1900s where ever you want to be is your prerogative, you can live in any time period you like in your mind, that's another of our rights. I was merely pointing out that this EO has very little change or meaning than any previous that we have been living under for decades, if you & others want to go on & prepare yourselves for some type of Gov. takeover go right ahead, that's still another right & you have plenty more you haven't even thought about losing yet. Enjoy your hysteria.

Samhill, so you're saying there's no problem for a (ANY) president to continue to basically make law by executive order bypassing legislative branch of govt. just because it's been done for so long?
Is that the basis for your argument?

Having said that, here's the other side of the coin.... I do hope whoever unseats Obama immediately issues exec. orders to begin the process of repealing the "unaffordable" healthcare act.....Who knows, maybe the SC will do something before then though...?

samhill wrote:Jpete, in the first place that was a opinion from a conservative site I posted, actually two but this whole thing was about the EO that was just signed. Not wanting to leave the 17, 18, or 1900s where ever you want to be is your prerogative, you can live in any time period you like in your mind, that's another of our rights. I was merely pointing out that this EO has very little change or meaning than any previous that we have been living under for decades, if you & others want to go on & prepare yourselves for some type of Gov. takeover go right ahead, that's still another right & you have plenty more you haven't even thought about losing yet. Enjoy your hysteria.

So we just throw out history?

We learn nothing from past events?

I understand this EO has existed for quite a while. It doesn't make it right.

You're using the same excuse people used to justify slavery. "We've always had it so why change?"

Slavery was OK when the Constitution was written, just perhaps that's a shining example of why they left the means of making changes, accept it or not. I'm a big fan of learning from history but we can only learn from it, not repeat it & expect a different result.

samhill wrote:Slavery was OK when the Constitution was written, just perhaps that's a shining example of why they left the means of making changes, accept it or not. I'm a big fan of learning from history but we can only learn from it, not repeat it & expect a different result.

No Sam! Slavery was NEVER "OK". It was legal. There's a difference. I'm sorry you can't see that.

No Jpete, you wanted to go there, it was legal & OK because of that it wasn't only the blacks that were slaves. That was a common thing just about since the beginning of so called civilization, it's easy to look back now & say it wasn't OK but then was then & it was legal, accepted & OK perhaps not to the slave but to the slave owner & the slave had no say.

The solution to the slave problem was freedom. The potential future that can come from this EO and many other recent actions at all levels of our government is enslavement. We are obviously regressing big time here.

samhill wrote:No Jpete, you wanted to go there, it was legal & OK because of that it wasn't only the blacks that were slaves. That was a common thing just about since the beginning of so called civilization, it's easy to look back now & say it wasn't OK but then was then & it was legal, accepted & OK perhaps not to the slave but to the slave owner & the slave had no say.

Do you wear your morals like a spring jacket slipping them off when the temperature changes?

So despite the founding documents expression to the contrary, you say slavery was OK because it was legal.

So what did we rebel against England for? Everything the king was doing was legal so it must have been OK right?

How about murder? If we legalized the random shooting of strangers for any reason or none at all, would it be OK?

You live in a strange world Sam. I guess that's why we can never agree.

Jpete, just where are you trying to go with this? As far as I can tell it has nothing to do with the posting, if it does why not just go there & be done with it?

The crux of the matter in a world where OK and legal have the same meaning may look something like this:

If I am robbed by one obviously needy person is it legal and/or OK?

If I am robbed by a gang of obviously needy people is it legal and/or Ok?

If I am robbed by thousands to perhaps tens of thousands of needy people is it legal and/or OK?

If I am robbed by an entire needy nation (that happens to call it taxation) is it legal and/or OK?

At what level of democracy in action does what is obviously illegal miraculously transform and become legal, and does that ever make it OK?

In my book there is a vast chasm between legal and OK.