Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring International Law for the United States

37 posts / 0 new

Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring International Law for the United States

May 2, 2012 by Henry Shivley

On May 1, 2012, our Glorious Leader, Premier Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro AKA Barry the Rat, signed yet another Executive Order – Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. This dictate is designed to standardize regulations between the United States and it’s so called trading partners.

What is a regulation? A law. So what is actually being attempted here is a standardization of international law. It is an absolute violation of the Constitution for the United States to legislate our law outside of our borders.

Considering the many international security agreements the traitors occupying our highest seats of power have entered into, this latest executive order can absolutely be used to institute gun confiscation laws/regulations, without any consent by our Congress or our Judicial. And once these foreign laws are brought to the United States under the various security agreements, foreign troops will be brought in to enforce the foreign laws upon the people of the United States.

So look at what we have now.

The Patriot Act which allows unlimited spying on the American people by the government.
The National Defense Authorization Act with Sections 1021 and 1022 for the military arrests and indefinite detention of American nationals without any due process of the law.
HR 347 Trespass Law for the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act upon any citizen who dares to speak out against the insurgency.
Executive Order National Defense Resources Preparedness Act, which allows the dictator to confiscate every resource of the United States, including we the people as conscripts to be put in servitude to the insurgency.

This is exactly what the Bolsheviks did to the Russian people in 1917. Now we have this new executive order for the implementation of laws not legislated by our Congress. If we were to allow ourselves to be disarmed by these international soviet socialists, the next step would be to eliminate everyone who refuses to acquiesce to collective slavery.

This latest executive order is nothing more than another act of blatant treason and we the American people must reject it absolutely.

Here is the Executive Order. Read and interpret it for yourself.

EXECUTIVE ORDER PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY COOPERATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote international regulatory cooperation, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.

The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Sec. 2. Coordination of International Regulatory Cooperation. (a) The Regulatory Working Group (Working Group) established by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), which was reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, shall, as appropriate:
(i) serve as a forum to discuss, coordinate, and develop a common understanding among agencies of U.S. Government positions and priorities with respect to:
(A) international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulatory actions;
(B) efforts across the Federal Government to support significant, cross-cutting international regulatory cooperation activities, such as the work of regulatory cooperation councils; and

(C) the promotion of good regulatory practices internationally, as well as the promotion of U.S. regulatory approaches, as appropriate; and

(ii) examine, among other things:

(A) appropriate strategies for engaging in the development of regulatory approaches through international regulatory cooperation, particularly in emerging technology areas, when consistent with section 1 of this order;

(B) best practices for international regulatory cooperation with respect to regulatory development, and, where appropriate, information exchange and other regulatory tools; and

(C) factors that agencies should take into account when determining whether and how to consider other regulatory approaches under section 3(d) of this order.

(b) As Chair of the Working Group, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall convene the Working Group as necessary to discuss international regulatory cooperation issues as described above, and the Working Group shall include a representative from the Office of the United States Trade Representative and, as appropriate, representatives from other agencies and offices.

(c) The activities of the Working Group, consistent with law, shall not duplicate the efforts of existing interagency bodies and coordination mechanisms. The Working Group shall consult with existing interagency bodies when appropriate.

(d) To inform its discussions, and pursuant to section 4 of Executive Order 12866, the Working Group may commission analytical reports and studies by OIRA, the Administrative Conference of the United States, or any other relevant agency, and the Administrator of OIRA may solicit input, from time to time, from representatives of business, nongovernmental organizations, and the public.

(e) The Working Group shall develop and issue guidelines on the applicability and implementation of sections 2 through 4 of this order.

(f) For purposes of this order, the Working Group shall operate by consensus.

Sec. 3. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies. To the extent permitted by law, and consistent with the principles and requirements of Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866, each agency shall:

(a) if required to submit a Regulatory Plan pursuant to Executive Order 12866, include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563 and this order;

(b) ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, on RegInfo.gov, and on Regulations.gov;

(c) in selecting which regulations to include in its retrospective review plan, as required by Executive Order 13563, consider:

(i) reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major trading partners, consistent with section 1 of this order, when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary; and

(ii) such reforms in other circumstances as the agency deems appropriate; and

(d) for significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts, consider, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan.

Sec. 4. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(b) “International impact” is a direct effect that a proposed or final regulation is expected to have on international trade and investment, or that otherwise may be of significant interest to the trading partners of the United States.

(c) “International regulatory cooperation” refers to a bilateral, regional, or multilateral process, other than processes that are covered by section 6(a)(ii), (iii), and (v) of this order, in which national governments engage in various forms of collaboration and communication with respect to regulations, in particular a process that is reasonably anticipated to lead to the development of significant regulations.

(d) “Regulation” shall have the same meaning as “regulation” or “rule” in section 3(d) of Executive Order 12866.

(e) “Significant regulation” is a proposed or final regulation that constitutes a significant regulatory action.

(f) “Significant regulatory action” shall have the same meaning as in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Sec. 5. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof;

(ii) the coordination and development of international trade policy and negotiations pursuant to section 411 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2451) and section 141 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171);

(iii) international trade activities undertaken pursuant to section 3 of the Act of February 14, 1903 (15 U.S.C. 1512), subtitle C of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended (15 U.S.C. 4721 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2171 note);

(iv) the authorization process for the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(c) and its implementing regulations (22 C.F.R. 181.4) and implementing procedures (11 FAM 720);

(v) activities in connection with subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31 of the United States Code, title 26 of the United States Code, or Public Law 111-203 and other laws relating to financial regulation; or

(vi) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/obama-signs-executive-order-declaring-international-law-for-the-united-states/14439

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=231698.0;topicseen

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm

Comments

Quote antikakistocrat:...What is a regulation? A law. So what is actually being attempted here is a standardization of international law. It is an absolute violation of the Constitution for the United States to legislate our law outside of our borders.

Would you stop polluting this board with your propagana? It's really annoying.

Seriously, read the fracking order that you quoted and tell me in what possible way it is 'in violation of the constitution'.

Tell me why I shouldn't report you for spreading libertarian wacko nonsense.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If you want to know what the Executive Order National Defense Resources Preparedness Act is.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Here, here! (Or is it "Hear,hear?") This is one of the wackier ones.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Even after a treaty is signed it is up to Congress to make laws to comply. Do you know how many treaties we are signed on to that we don't follow?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

What in the hell is the controversy, here?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Any international treaty ratified by the Senate and signed by the Pres. becomes U.S. law unless it's in conflict with the Constitution.

When Bush violated the Geneva Convention...he was violating U.S.. law. Ditto Obama when he does the same thing.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

apparently the OP does not believe in the Constitution and thinks the President should not be allowed to sign treaties.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote Executive Order:EXECUTIVE ORDER PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY COOPERATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote international regulatory cooperation, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.

The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Sec. 2. Coordination of International Regulatory Cooperation. (a) The Regulatory Working Group (Working Group) established by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), which was reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, shall, as appropriate:
(i) serve as a forum to discuss, coordinate, and develop a common understanding among agencies of U.S. Government positions and priorities with respect to:
(A) international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulatory actions;
(B) efforts across the Federal Government to support significant, cross-cutting international regulatory cooperation activities, such as the work of regulatory cooperation councils; and

(C) the promotion of good regulatory practices internationally, as well as the promotion of U.S. regulatory approaches, as appropriate; and

(ii) examine, among other things:

(A) appropriate strategies for engaging in the development of regulatory approaches through international regulatory cooperation, particularly in emerging technology areas, when consistent with section 1 of this order;

(B) best practices for international regulatory cooperation with respect to regulatory development, and, where appropriate, information exchange and other regulatory tools; and

(C) factors that agencies should take into account when determining whether and how to consider other regulatory approaches under section 3(d) of this order.

(b) As Chair of the Working Group, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall convene the Working Group as necessary to discuss international regulatory cooperation issues as described above, and the Working Group shall include a representative from the Office of the United States Trade Representative and, as appropriate, representatives from other agencies and offices.

(c) The activities of the Working Group, consistent with law, shall not duplicate the efforts of existing interagency bodies and coordination mechanisms. The Working Group shall consult with existing interagency bodies when appropriate.

(d) To inform its discussions, and pursuant to section 4 of Executive Order 12866, the Working Group may commission analytical reports and studies by OIRA, the Administrative Conference of the United States, or any other relevant agency, and the Administrator of OIRA may solicit input, from time to time, from representatives of business, nongovernmental organizations, and the public.

(e) The Working Group shall develop and issue guidelines on the applicability and implementation of sections 2 through 4 of this order.

(f) For purposes of this order, the Working Group shall operate by consensus.

Sec. 3. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies. To the extent permitted by law, and consistent with the principles and requirements of Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866, each agency shall:

(a) if required to submit a Regulatory Plan pursuant to Executive Order 12866, include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563 and this order;

(b) ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, on RegInfo.gov, and on Regulations.gov;

(c) in selecting which regulations to include in its retrospective review plan, as required by Executive Order 13563, consider:

(i) reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major trading partners, consistent with section 1 of this order, when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary; and

(ii) such reforms in other circumstances as the agency deems appropriate; and

(d) for significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts, consider, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan.

Sec. 4. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(b) “International impact” is a direct effect that a proposed or final regulation is expected to have on international trade and investment, or that otherwise may be of significant interest to the trading partners of the United States.

(c) “International regulatory cooperation” refers to a bilateral, regional, or multilateral process, other than processes that are covered by section 6(a)(ii), (iii), and (v) of this order, in which national governments engage in various forms of collaboration and communication with respect to regulations, in particular a process that is reasonably anticipated to lead to the development of significant regulations.

(d) “Regulation” shall have the same meaning as “regulation” or “rule” in section 3(d) of Executive Order 12866.

(e) “Significant regulation” is a proposed or final regulation that constitutes a significant regulatory action.

(f) “Significant regulatory action” shall have the same meaning as in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Sec. 5. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof;

(ii) the coordination and development of international trade policy and negotiations pursuant to section 411 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2451) and section 141 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171);

(iii) international trade activities undertaken pursuant to section 3 of the Act of February 14, 1903 (15 U.S.C. 1512), subtitle C of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended (15 U.S.C. 4721 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2171 note);

(iv) the authorization process for the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(c) and its implementing regulations (22 C.F.R. 181.4) and implementing procedures (11 FAM 720);

(v) activities in connection with subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31 of the United States Code, title 26 of the United States Code, or Public Law 111-203 and other laws relating to financial regulation; or

(vi) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Actually, this seems to be part of the creation of an oligarchic global fascist dictatorship, and represents the attempt to legitimize that process. The "international regulatory cooperation" being promoted is the replacement of national regulations by imperial decrees. That is, Obama invokes his authority under the Constitution to issue orders which shred that same Constitution and the nation it created. The United States is steadily being remade in the image of the UK, with our government being transformed from one which protects the people from the oligarchy, into one which controls the people on behalf of the oligarchy.

The legalisms tend to trail the changes, rather than lead them. Things are allowed that are not legal, and then the law is changed to protect the criminals. The repeal of Glass-Steagall, done well after the merger of Travelers and Citicorp to form Citigroup, is a good example--an illegal merger was legalized well after the fact. A lot of the police state surveillance is the same way.

We, like Europe, are slipping into a corporatist dictatorship in which the political process is a facade. The decisions are made behind the scenes, top down. Congress is a sideshow, passing laws dictated by others, over the repeated objections of the people. It is like Parliament — a sort of soap opera in which the people are led to believe they have a voice, when in fact they do not.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

I'm not sure how this international agreement applies, but I have one particular example in mind. Does this mean that European Countries will be obliged to accept Monsanto's GMOs because they are not now and to refuse to do so such as:

(b) “International impact” is a direct effect that a proposed or final regulation is expected to have on international trade and investment, or that otherwise may be of significant interest to the trading partners of the United States.

(c) “International regulatory cooperation” refers to a bilateral, regional, or multilateral process, other than processes that are covered by section 6(a)(ii), (iii), and (v) of this order, in which national governments engage in various forms of collaboration and communication with respect to regulations, in particular a process that is reasonably anticipated to lead to the development of significant regulations.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Karolina:...Actually, this seems to be part of the creation of an oligarchic global fascist dictatorship, and represents the attempt to legitimize that process. The "international regulatory cooperation" being promoted is the replacement of national regulations by imperial decrees. That is, Obama invokes his authority under the Constitution to issue orders which shred that same Constitution and the nation it created. The United States is steadily being remade in the image of the UK, with our government being transformed from one which protects the people from the oligarchy, into one which controls the people on behalf of the oligarchy.

I think it's all in your paranoid minds. Try this: stop the data dump and give me a quote of the part that proves your point. I don't think you can. Congress writes laws and gives the authority to the president to make regulations. That's the way it has been for generations.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Once again, Choco—this is another step in slowly, gently, and irreversibly easing us into a coporatist dictatorship.

Nothing else matters, because, unless we change our strategy, all unite, and try to keep our nation—we will have no real representation, and no power to fight what they decide to make what is written here be anything other than what best feeds the ambitions of these cancer-like oligarchs.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Once again, Choco—this is another step in slowly, gently, and irreversibly easing us into a coporatist dictatorship.
I didn't get that from the Executive Order. It looked to me more like a stab at more fair trade, as opposed to free trade. Also about settting standards that would solve some of our issues with off-shoring.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm with Dr. Econ on this. You guys are really stretching intent and meanings here. Ronpaulism.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

I am not for Ron Paul at all.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Can you quote the part that proves your point? If not, let me.

Consider:

" In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563."

Notice the phrase "consistent with domestic law". This refutes your hypothesis that the order is inconsistent with our laws and constitution.

And what, exactly does this order do? Apparently makes "reforms to existing significant regulations" - regulations which the Administration made in the first place. Oh my god!

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Let me just add something here.

We have nothing to fear from any other nation. International Law is not threatening us. What is threatening us is international capitalism leaving the US a ghost town.

And that is not a conspiracy - it's carried out in the open every day.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This is actually a reply to #16.

Quote Karolina:The legalisms tend to trail the changes, rather than lead them. Things are allowed that are not legal, and then the law is changed to protect the criminals. The repeal of Glass-Steagall, done well after the merger of Travelers and Citicorp to form Citigroup, is a good example--an illegal merger was legalized well after the fact. A lot of the police state surveillance is the same way.
Also, think NDAA, the Stand Your Ground Law, etc. They were BIG changes to what we were familiar with — so can "our" laws be changed when "need be".

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:We have nothing to fear from any other nation. International Law is not threatening us. What is threatening us is international capitalism leaving the US a ghost town.

And that is not a conspiracy - it's carried out in the open every day.

Really?

When American people who are members of the global wealthy elite, are conspiring about how to subdue the US popoulation with laws that will make and keep US citizens powerless and in poverty, and when people within our US government are continuously passing laws that systematically take civil rights away from US citizens—what would you call that? A funny coincidence?

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Endgame

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&q=Endgame+&ei=1t4QSPaoB5q2rAKJzaywBA

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm
Quote Karolina:
Quote Dr. Econ:We have nothing to fear from any other nation. International Law is not threatening us. What is threatening us is international capitalism leaving the US a ghost town.

And that is not a conspiracy - it's carried out in the open every day.

Really?

When American people who are members of the global wealthy elite, are conspiring about how to subdue the US popoulation with laws that will make and keep US citizens powerless and in poverty, and when people within our US government are continuously passing laws that systematically take civil rights away from US citizens—what would you call that? A funny coincidence?

Are you serious? We were talking about the executive order Obama wrote. I extensively quoted from it and proved you were wrong. You have never quoted any part of it to prove your case, even though I have asked you twice now. Further, you did respond to my points. My second post makes a very simple point, which is that international law is not a concern to us, and that outsourcing our jobs is. There is no conspiracy to that. It happens every day. It is no secret. It is not a bunch of wealthy people meeting together to decide to outsource and turn us into a ghost town. They don't have to meet.

Now, as to your second point, you are talking about civil rights being taken away. Yes, that is a problem. However, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Nor is it necessary for wealthy people to do this. You have a completely mixed up idea of what governments and economics in the modern period. The problem with modern society is not that some big bad government is taking away your civil rights. This is not fuedalism or the Age of Kings. The main problem is that the government is not protecting the people from the worst of international capitalism. You are perfectly free to say whatever you want in the public square, practice whatever religon you want. It makes no difference to wealthy person. They want to own everything, charge high prices and offer lower wages - and not pay for the mess they make. Your 'civil rights' are really irrelevent compared to the real problems in this day and age. There is simply no 'conspiracy' - there doesn't need to be one.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Econ,

The mainstream media is the public square or should be, remember the Fourth Estate? Yet the MSM is tightly controlled and only certain people are allowed to voice their opinions. It is not free and the corporations have control over Congress, the Whitehouse, Supreme Court and Media.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Damned internet trolls. Somebody call pest control!

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm
Quote Choco: ...The mainstream media is the public square or should be, remember the Fourth Estate? Yet the MSM is tightly controlled and only certain people are allowed to voice their opinions. It is not free and the corporations have control over Congress, the Whitehouse, Supreme Court and Media.

I was speaking literally. Individual liberties are not the problem. This is not the middle ages. The wealthy don't have to conspire to do anything because people are voluntarily creating the disaster we find ourselves in. We have a problem of weak government not protecting the people from corporate abuse, not strong government preventing people from practiving their religon or voting for whoever they like.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mdhess:

Damned internet trolls. Somebody call pest control!

Trolls where ?

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm

Actually the Middle or DARK Ages of feudalism very well may be where those of us still living may soon be. But I refuse to give up hope for an immediate Renaissance.

Quote Econ:We were talking about the executive order Obama wrote. I extensively quoted from it and proved you were wrong.

And I answered your quote to prove that you are wrong. You used this sentence as your proving argument:

"Notice the phrase "consistent with domestic law". This refutes your hypothesis that the order is inconsistent with our laws and constitution."

I said that "domestic law" can easily be changed these days, without anyone even noticing. I gave you the example of the criminal merger of Traveler's and Citicorp to form Citigroup well before the repeal of Glass-Steagal which only later-on, well after the fact, made it legal. I also suggested two US laws, NDAA & Stand Your Ground, among many (Citizens United, Patriot Act, etc.) which no one would ever have believed could be passed and would be tolerated in America—have relatively recently become a part of our national reality.

Think Animal Farm — influenced by media creating popular opinion, people forget what their actual rights are according to the Constitution. For example, a president having to get the approval of Congress to create war, or that a court of law and not a "Leader" decides to incarcerate US citizens or to kill US citizens.

If the aforementioned laws have been passed in the full light of day, and without active opposition, do you honestly think that there would be any hesitation to change US laws, or even to finally just throw out the US Constitution, in order to create whatever is needed for whoever has the power and money to control the government—now or in the future?

Quote Econ:My second post makes a very simple point, which is that international law is not a concern to us, and that outsourcing our jobs is. There is no conspiracy to that. It happens every day. It is no secret. It is not a bunch of wealthy people meeting together to decide to outsource and turn us into a ghost town. They don't have to meet.

And my answer was:

"When American people who are members of the global wealthy elite, are conspiring about how to subdue the US population with laws that will make and keep US citizens powerless and in poverty, and then people within our US government are continuously passing laws that systematically take civil liberties away from US citizens—what would you call that? "

I have a strong suspicion that you are bright enough to know that I was talking about ALEC and their international corporations and oligarchs. I think there is no reason for me to explain myself about this—we’ve spoken about them extensively on this website in the past few months.

I would just like to add here that they are not US human patriots. They are oligarchs and corporations—the predators, the scavengers, the self-serving, ruthless beasts. They are not interested in preserving the US Constitution, and actually don’t want all of the rest of us to be—forming a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring Domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. All that stuff gets in their way.

Quote Econ:Now, as to your second point, you are talking about civil rights being taken away. Yes, that is a problem. However, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what we are talking about here. I refer you to my last answer.

But most importantly, what made the US different from all the other countries in the 18th century was that everybody else was still living under monarchist systems, where the population was there to serve the monarch, his/her government and his/her economy. Our United States Constitution made our US Government and our US Economy infrastructure for our US citizens.

Systematically taking away our civil liberties brings the US citizens back to the status that the Founders escaped in England, when they wrote the Constitution and declared themselves to be an independent sovereign state— we are increasingly becoming subjects of the plutocratic, global, corporatocracy.

Quote Econ:Nor is it necessary for wealthy people to do this. You have a completely mixed up idea of what governments and economics in the modern period.

Obviously it was necessary for the wealthy to do this, otherwise there would be no ALEC, et al, and they would not be writing the laws, and paying the lobbyists. But it probably won't necessary much longer, because it looks like they are almost done.

Quote Econ:The problem with modern society is not that some big bad government is taking away your civil rights. This is not fuedalism or the Age of Kings.
Actually, it is, because the ALECs and other oligarchys have been running the US Government show behind the scenes for decades now.

Quote Econ:The main problem is that the government is not protecting the people from the worst of international capitalism.
Are you familiar with the US Federal Reserve?

We are not technically a completely sovereign nation right now, because for 99 years, a foreign entity owning this private US chartered bank has had control on our economy, and consequently on our government—except for a few times when there were strong patriotiic leaders that had been voted into office. Usually in times of crisis.

It is not a surprise that there is much “corruption” in our government—no one can serve two masters, right? Well, at the moment the US population is the Master of the US Government who is no longer being served.

But the main stream media is making every effort to make it look like everything is just as it should be—for anyone who is uncomfortable looking at the big picture!

Quote Econ:You are perfectly free to say whatever you want in the public square, practice whatever religon you want. It makes no difference to wealthy person. They want to own everything, charge high prices and offer lower wages - and not pay for the mess they make. Your 'civil rights' are really irrelevent compared to the real problems in this day and age. There is simply no 'conspiracy' - there doesn't need to be one.

It is not enough to have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so please don’t patronize me.

No one, no bullies should be able to own everything, charge high prices, offer low wages, and not pay for the mess they make.

Clearly—we have a very big problem, that needs to be solved.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote Karolina: You used this sentence as your proving argument:

"Notice the phrase "consistent with domestic law". This refutes your hypothesis that the order is inconsistent with our laws and constitution."

I said that "domestic law" can easily be changed these days, without anyone even noticing.

If the law needs to be changed to make your point, then it is not the law that is unconstitutional. We were arguing about our laws and constitution.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Karolina: I have a strong suspicion that you are bright enough to know that I was talking about ALEC and their international corporations and oligarchs.

I thought we were talking about Obama's executive order. But, I think ALEC wants to reduce tarriffs, regulations, free the market and elliminate welfare. Again, I see no need to worry about "international law" conspiracies.

Quote Econ:Nor is it necessary for wealthy people to do this. You have a completely mixed up idea of what governments and economics in the modern period.
Quote Carolina:..Obviously it was necessary for the wealthy to do this, otherwise there would be no ALEC, et al, and they would not be writing the laws, and paying the lobbyists. But it probably won't necessary much longer, because it looks like they are almost done.

Well, sure, it is a problem. But it is not the problem. The reason why our cities and middle class are decaying is because of free trade and market policies - which has nothing to do with conspiracies that you think Obama has signed into law.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Karolina:
Quote Econ:Now, as to your second point, you are talking about civil rights being taken away. Yes, that is a problem. However, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what we are talking about here. I refer you to my last answer.

You spoke in vague generalities. The government is not forcing us to buy Chinese crap at Wal-Mart. The government is taking away our 'civil liberties' because it is ineptly trying to stop real terrorism activity that threatens us. It is not taking away our civil liberties so it can force us to destory our manufacturing. Do you see what I mean?

Quote carolina:..Systematically taking away our civil liberties brings the US citizens back to the status that the Founders escaped in England, when they wrote the Constitution and declared themselves to be an independent sovereign state— we are increasingly becoming subjects of the plutocratic, global, corporatocracy.

That's ridiculous. Look at Canada. They were just as 'free' as the US even though they kept on with Britain until the 20th century! Civil liberties are irrevelent to our problems today. Look at you now - going on about all kinds of things. You have the right to do that. Big deal. Doesn't really change anything, does it?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Let me ad something here that I forgot:

Quote Karolina: ...I said that "domestic law" can easily be changed these days, without anyone even noticing. I gave you the example of the criminal merger of Traveler's and Citicorp to form Citigroup well before the repeal of Glass-Steagal which only later-on, well after the fact, made it legal. I also suggested two US laws, NDAA & Stand Your Ground, among many (Citizens United, Patriot Act, etc.) which no one would ever have believed could be passed and would be tolerated in America—have relatively recently become a part of our national reality.

Think Animal Farm — influenced by media creating popular opinion, people forget what their actual rights are according to the Constitution. For example, a president having to get the approval of Congress to create war, or that a court of law and not a "Leader" decides to incarcerate US citizens or to kill US citizens.

These are all interesting, but don't have anything to do with Obama's executive order or our rights - execpt possibly for Congress to Declare war clause of the constitution - but I don't think that is really a 'right'. Our civil rights have nothing to do with trying to regulate banks, or a media that is corrupt that people are choosing to listen to. In fact, if anything, it is exaclty the opposite - these regulations interfere with the market and something the founders would have no idea about.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Econ:...You are perfectly free to say whatever you want in the public square, practice whatever religon you want. It makes no difference to wealthy person. They want to own everything, charge high prices and offer lower wages - and not pay for the mess they make. Your 'civil rights' are really irrelevent compared to the real problems in this day and age. There is simply no 'conspiracy' - there doesn't need to be one.
Quote Carolina: It is not enough to have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so please don’t patronize me.

That's my point. Your 'civil rights' are really irrelevent compared to the real problems in this day and age.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sorry econ, but you are making no sense to me. No laws need to be changed to make my point.

My first point was that laws have continuously been changed over the recent past, and NEVER to benefit the formerly middle class, or our cities, or our infrastructure, or the 99%, or even just the USA economically. Most laws that have been repealed or added have been done so to benefit the 1%, the banksters, the oligarchs and the people prospering from free trade and market policies—often after these corporations and wealthy elite have already quietly done whatever they wanted to do illegally, and then it was made legal with a new law.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

My final point is that this will continue to happen, unless somehow there is some sort of major change in all of these systems.

It will continue happening more and more in a way that will be turning the USA and its citizens into global citizens, because it is not only the US global wealthy elite (like the ALECs) that plan on continuing to prosper at the expense and dehumanization of the USA, as well as of all of the other nations, continents and people on the globe. It's an international global wealthy elite plan that is full-steam ahead in progress now.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Unless something changes, of course — and that's sort of comforting, because something always changes.

But it might not change for the better of humanity, if people are not aware of what is being done.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote Karolina:

Sorry econ, but you are making no sense to me. No laws need to be changed to make my point.

My first point was that laws have continuously been changed over the recent past, and NEVER to benefit the formerly middle class, or our cities, or our infrastructure, or the 99%, or even just the USA economically. Most laws that have been repealed or added have been done so to benefit the 1%, the banksters, the oligarchs and the people prospering from free trade and market policies—often after these corporations and wealthy elite have already quietly done whatever they wanted to do illegally, and then it was made legal with a new law.

You are completely confused by the train of the arguement - which I fear has been made worse by editing. I thought you said that the Exec. Order would be bad because it could be changed. But to me to maintain that a law is bad because it can be changed is really a weak and worthless arguement. I would agree with your point above for the sake of arguement - but on this point alone is does not justify any criticism of Obama's Exec. Order.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Karolina:

My final point is that this will continue to happen, unless somehow there is some sort of major change in all of these systems.

It will continue happening more and more in a way that will be turning the USA and its citizens into global citizens, because it is not only the US global wealthy elite (like the ALECs) that plan on continuing to prosper at the expense and dehumanization of the USA, as well as of all of the other nations, continents and people on the globe. It's an international global wealthy elite plan that is full-steam ahead in progress now.

Since you didn't quote anything I wrote, I have no idea why you think what you said above is in response to anything I said.

If I were to respond, I would repeat that what ALEC and 'gloabl' corporations are mainly doing is instituting free trade, which is not a conspiracy, requires no real plan, and has little to do with your civil rights and even less to do with some imagined conspiracy by Obama. In fact, Obama - by bringing claims against China - has actually done a bit against international corporations.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Check my post #6 at NDAA thread.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system