TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:What does this mean;


"(2)  upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;"

It means they can "regulate" who is in the military and who is not. Generally, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this sounds a lot like something that happened in the 30's somewhere in Europe. Put the people you want in place in controlling positions of the military that think like you and get rid of those that will not do your bidding and not think for themselves.

The office of President carries with it the duties of Commander-in-Chief. So, technically, the President (any President) has the powers to "regulate" who is in the military and who isn't. Obviously, beyond a few top generals, there is no way the President, or even his immediate staff, can pick people for all the hundreds of thousands of positions in the Armed Services. That is delegated to the services themselves via chain-of-command, law, and regulation.

As everyone who reads my posts knows, I have exactly ZERO love in my heart for this administration, neither do I put it past them to do whatever dirty tricks they can to stay in office and run whatever schemes they've got in mind vis-a-vis their ideology. However, because I know there have been other similar executive orders such as this in the past (think Cold War days/nuclear war scenarios...I have seen fragmentary operations plans that dealt with little pieces of big pictures such as this EO does), I will reserve judgement on this one until someone with the proper "legalese" training has dissected it. I'd guess most of it is a rehashing of old stuff, but I'd also bet there are one or two tricks in it to aid supporters of the current administration.

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:What does this mean;


"(2)  upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;"

It means they can "regulate" who is in the military and who is not. Generally, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this sounds a lot like something that happened in the 30's somewhere in Europe. Put the people you want in place in controlling positions of the military that think like you and get rid of those that will not do your bidding and not think for themselves.

A POTUS' appointment of people of like mind and agendas is not a new idea, check this out.

They all do it to one extent or another. That said, I still don't trust the current POTUS, and his fawning, lap dog minions; e.g., Eric Holder.

I don't know why, but for a while I have had this totally irrational fear that "something" is coming that the POTUS will declare Martial law and suspend the November elections.

I only trust & hope that the Armed Forces (and anyone else!) remember that the oath they took was to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"

Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/executive-or ... n-america/

Exactly. As I mentioned, I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, but this nut is different. I still don't think it will amount to much because I don't think he will be in office for another year. However, I dreadfully fear what he could do if he gets four more. I'm also wary of what he might try in the next seven months if he feels like he has to get a much done as possible before the election and then what he could do after loosing before he's evicted in February.

C-dub wrote:he's evicted in February.

I like the sound of that!

Oldgringo wrote:

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:What does this mean;


"(2)  upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;"

It means they can "regulate" who is in the military and who is not. Generally, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this sounds a lot like something that happened in the 30's somewhere in Europe. Put the people you want in place in controlling positions of the military that think like you and get rid of those that will not do your bidding and not think for themselves.

A POTUS' appointment of people of like mind and agendas is not a new idea, check this out.

They all do it to one extent or another. That said, I still don't trust the current POTUS, and his fawning, lap dog minions; e.g., Eric Holder.

Exactly why we are working so hard to shed this POTUS in favor of one with a little more mind, or any at all for that matter.

pbwalker wrote:

Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/executive-or ... n-america/

I was just about to post that link myself. As much as I distrust Obama, the article cited, especially given where it comes from in the ideological perspective, makes me think that the EO is just routine and that there is no reason to be more concerned with it than of any of the others cited.

Another viewpoint --though short on analysis of the EO, and long on conjecture based on Obama's history and known agenda: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.c ... different/

For anyone that cares, the Draft is not being reinstated. It has never lapsed as it is still on the books. It simply is not being used at this time.

pbwalker wrote:

Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush....

Thank you, PB. While I attempted to explain this earlier in general terms, I missed the most convincing argument: If it was OK for W, it must be OK.

Jim

AEA wrote:You would think FOX news would be all over this..........they must be asleep at the wheel!

Well, FOX has woke up and Hannity is on now and will be talking about the EO in a few minutes.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03 ... urces-for/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The drums of war. If you study WW II, the government function a similar system. During Civil War is government function a similar system. Is this bad or good?

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article ... pinion%7Cp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We prepare for the day that a weapon is required for the situation. I do not like idea of force.

57Coastie wrote:

RPB wrote:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

So, he wrote a law prescribing it ...
Just skimmed it, didn't read closely, seems to stop short of quartering but addresses food....

The president does not "write laws," if by that expression is meant "enacts laws." In pertinent part the penultimate paragraph of this Executive Order reads: "(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law...."

I would humbly suggest that this order is a rational preparation for the horrible -- not another one of those nonexistent conspiracies aimed at keepers and bearers of arms, like us. A similar program had to be developed agonizingly slow beginning in 1941. This order replaces similar orders and takes account of changes in the organization of our national government and the duties, as they have developed, of particular elements of that government. This order simply implements duties of the president prescribed by both the congress and the Constitution.

My answer to the question expressed in the subject line of this thread, while I suspect that it is negatively rhetorical, is "No."

Jim

I read the document and it strikes me as simply updating the government's duties and responsibilities as required under the original Act passed in 1950. Things have changed a bit in this country since it was first enacted and I believe that this simply recognizes that change. For instance there are some new Departments of the Federal Government and the roles and responsibilities of those Dept heads under this Act have now been assigned. Sometimes a cigar, is simply a cigar.

rwg3 wrote:Sometimes a cigar, is simply a cigar.