Cross-posted from The CATO Institute
Obama's Plan to Seize Control of Our Economy And Our Lives
by Jim Powell
This article appeared in Forbes on April 29, 2012.
President Obama has made clear that he’s determined to continue pushing his “progressive” agenda, regardless of constitutional limitations on his power. He aims to have his way by issuing more and more executive orders.
The most ominous sign of possible things to come appeared on March 16, 2012, when President Obama signed executive order 13603 about “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” This 10-page document is a blueprint for a federal takeover of the economy that would dwarf the looming Obamacare takeover of the health insurance business. Specifically, Obama’s plan involves seizing control of:
* “All commodities and products that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals”
* “All forms of energy”
* “All forms of civil transportation”
* “All usable water from all sources”
* “Health resources — drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment”
* Forced labor ( or “induction” as the executive order delicately refers to military conscription)Moreover, federal officials would “issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources.”
Each government bureaucracy “shall act as necessary and appropriate.”
To be sure, much of this language has appeared in national security executive orders that previous presidents have issued periodically since the beginning of the Cold War.
But more than previous national security executive orders, Obama’s 13603 seems to describe a potentially totalitarian regime obsessed with control over everything. Obama’s executive order makes no effort to justify the destruction of liberty, no effort to explain how amassing totalitarian control would enable government to deal effectively with cyber sabotage, suicide bombings, chemical warfare, nuclear missiles or other possible threats. It’s quite likely there would be greater difficulty responding to threats, since totalitarian regimes suffer from economic chaos, colossal waste, massive corruption and bureaucratic infighting that are inevitable consequences of extreme centralization. Such problems plagued fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, communist China and other regimes. Totalitarian control would probably trigger resistance movements and underground networks like those that developed in Western Europe during the Nazi occupation. Totalitarian control could provoke more political turmoil than there was in the Vietnam War era of the 1960s. There would probably be a serious brain drain as talented people with critical skills escaped to freedom wherever that might be. Canada?
There’s nothing in executive order 13603 about upholding the Constitution or protecting civil liberties.
Obama’s executive order seems to assume that the next war will be like World War II or World War I, where vast armies of unskilled conscripts went at each other. But current trends suggest that future conflicts are more likely to involve smaller numbers of military personnel — highly-trained professionals, perhaps thousands of miles away from a battlefield, who remotely-control drones, pilotless combat helicopters, unmanned ground vehicles, unmanned ships, mobile security robots and related military technologies.
Even if Obama’s 13603 were no different than previous national security executive orders, it’s more worrisome because it was issued by the president who rammed Obamacare and runaway spending bills through Congress, who racked up $5 trillion of debt and surrounded himself with hardcore “progressives” hostile to the private sector and America as we have known it.
In what circumstances, one might ask, would a president try to carry out this audacious plan?
Executive order 13603 says with ominous ambiguity: during “the full spectrum of emergencies.”
Well, the United States is already in a state of national emergency declared by President George W. Bush on September 14, 2001 and extended last year by President Obama.
To better understand the potentially explosive impact of his plan, let’s take a tour through the dark world of executive orders, a type of presidential power that most people know little, if anything, about.
Many presidents have pushed to expand their power beyond constitutional limits, particularly during crises. Issuing executive orders is the easiest way to do it. A president doesn’t have to propose an executive order, debate the issues, endure hearings or solicit votes. An executive order can be issued in a few minutes — behind closed doors and away from bright lights.
An executive order may be about all sorts of things large and small.
Paul Begala, who was an advisor to President Bill Clinton, reportedly remarked, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool.”
What about the Constitution? It describes presidential power broadly. There isn’t anything in the Constitution that authorizes an executive order or limits what a president can do with it.
Executive orders arise from “implied constitutional and statutory authority,” the Congressional Research Service reported. “If issued under a valid claim of authority and published in the Federal Register, executive orders may have the force and effect of law.”
The Supreme Court tried to establish some limitations. It asserted the principle that an executive order (1) “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself” and (2) “an executive order must not be “incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.”
But many executive orders are in a twilight zone of dubious constitutional legitimacy if not open defiance of the Constitution, especially when they amount to lawmaking without congressional approval.
Very few of the thousands of executive orders have ever been challenged legally.
Members of Congress don’t always seem to know much about them. At one point, for example, they were shocked to discover that there were executive orders providing the president with enormous standby powers that could be implemented on a moment’s notice.
Sometimes a president issued executive orders to bypass Congress when his party didn’t control it. But Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued more executive orders than any other president, starting in his early years when he was most popular. Often executive orders seemed to have been issued because a president was in a hurry — and often there were unfortunate consequences. An executive order isn’t a reliable cure for any serious problem.
Executive orders go back to the beginning of our country, although they weren’t called that. Usually they were referred to as proclamations.
Until the early 20th century, executive orders were generally undocumented. They were addressed to a particular government agency which had the only copy. Nobody seemed to know how many executive orders there were. As late as the 1930s, there was an account, published in the New York Times, claiming that “there are no readily available means of ascertaining the true texts and history of the thousand or more executive orders issued since March 4, 1933.”
In 1907, the State Department began compiling and numbering executive orders going back to one that Abraham Lincoln issued on October 20, 1862. That became known as executive order 1. As I write, the most recent is Obama’s executive order 13603.
President George Washington’s first proclamation was on October 3, 1789. He said, “Both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving.” So, this was authorized by Congress.
Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation wasn’t authorized by Congress. Issued on April 22, 1793, it declared that the United States would be neutral in the war between France and Great Britain, which had begun two months before. Members of Washington’s cabinet, including Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, agreed that the United States was too fragile to become involved in another war.
Abraham Lincoln expanded presidential powers via proclamations and executive orders. He did this in the name of suppressing rebellion rather than waging war, since the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war.
Lincoln famously suspended habeas corpus, the legal action that requires a prisoner to be set free if authorities don’t file charges promptly and proceed to a jury trial, so the accused can have an opportunity to prove innocence.
In April 1861, a Maryland militia officer named John Merryman was arrested and detained at Fort McHenry in Baltimore. He was said to have damaged Union facilities and trained Confederate soldiers. His lawyer obtained a writ of habeas corpus from Chief Justice Roger B. Tawney who directed George Cadwalader, the commander at Fort McHenry, to produce Merryman and explain the facts and the legal basis for detention. Cadwalader refused, saying that Lincoln had suspended habeas corpus. Tawney cited him for contempt, but a marshal couldn’t enter the fort to deliver the contempt citation. Tawney wrote what became known as the Ex Parte Merryman opinion, saying, in part, that “If the authority which the Constitution has confided to the judiciary department may upon any pretext be usurped by the military power, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws.”
Lincoln went to Congress, offered an uncertain defense of his action and expressed the hope that Congress would “ratify” his action. Pulitzer Prize winning historian Mark E. Neely, Jr. noted that “the president seemed to agree that the legislative branch was the proper body to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.” On September 24, 1862, Lincoln issued a proclamation officially suspending habeas corpus, which meant that the government could detain people indefinitely. Lincoln “managed the home front, in part,” Neely wrote, “by means of military arrests of civilians — thousands and thousands of them.”
Lincoln had issued executive orders expanding the amount of Union territory subject to military control, particularly southern Illinois, Indiana and Ohio where “copperheads” were operating. In 1864, the Union army arrested Lambdin Milligan and four others in southern Indiana. They were charged with plotting to free Confederate prisoners-of-war. A military court sentenced the men to death, but they appealed for their constitutional right to habeas corpus. After the Civil War, in 1866, the Supreme Court noted that Indiana wasn’t under attack, and civilian courts were functioning, so Milligan and the others were entitled to a jury trial there. Justice David Davis wrote: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of protection all classes of men, at all times, in all circumstances.”
Historian James G. Randall reflected, “No president has carried the power of presidential edict and executive order — independently of Congress — so far as [Lincoln] did. It would not be easy to state what Lincoln conceived to be the limit of his powers.”
Lincoln’s best-known executive order was the Emancipation Proclamation. He hoped to provoke a slave revolt in the Confederacy and make it easier for the Union to win the Civil War. Accordingly, on September 22, 1862, he issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. It applied to any state that didn’t return to the Union by January 1, 1863. No states returned. At that point, Lincoln issued the historic Emancipation Proclamation. It applied to slaves in the Confederacy — territory that the Union didn’t control. It neither abolished slavery nor extended citizenship to former slaves, but it did make the abolition of slavery a war aim.
The peacetime expansion of federal power began with Theodore Roosevelt who issued 1,006 executive orders, more than any previous president. They performed a wide range of administrative functions, especially the disposition of government-owned land.
TR emphatically rejected the view that “what was necessary for the nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it... it was not only [the president’s] right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws.”
TR also said: “I think [the presidency] should be a very powerful office, and I think the President should be a very strong man who uses without hesitation every power the position yields.” He continued, “I believe in a strong executive. I believe in power.”
According to biographer Henry Pringle, “It seldom occurred to Roosevelt that the duty of the executive was to carry out the mandates of the legislative. In so far as he was able, he reversed the theory. Congress, he felt, must obey the president.” He wanted the Supreme Court to obey him, too. Roosevelt acknowledged, “I did greatly broaden the use of executive power.”
At times, TR seemed drunk with power, as when he remarked: “I don’t think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man’s hands.”
Woodrow Wilson issued 1,791 executive orders. For instance, executive order 1810 (August 7, 1913) prohibited anyone from operating a flying machine or balloon across the Panama Canal Zone. Wilson issued executive order 1860 (November 11, 1913) to dictate interest rates for the Canal Zone — a surprising number of Wilson’s executive orders had to do with administering that little territory.
Most of Wilson’s executive orders were issued during World War I. For instance, on April 14, 1917, he issued executive order 2594 to establish the Committee on Public Information — war propaganda. On April 28th, he issued executive order 2604 for censorship of messages sent via the trans-Atlantic cables. Executive order 2679-A (August 10, 1917) established the Food Administration. Executive order 2697 (September 7, 1917) required that anyone wishing to export coins, bullion or currency must file an application in triplicate with the nearest Federal Reserve bank. Executive order 2736 (October 23, 1917) authorized Food Administrator Herbert Hoover to requisition food. Executive order 2953 (September 12, 1918) authorized the sale of property seized in accordance with the Trading with the Enemy Act.
Franklin D. Roosevelt issued 3,723 executive orders. In his Inaugural Address, he said: “I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the [depression] crisis — broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”
On March 6, 1933, FDR issued Proclamation 2029 that cited Wilson’s Trading with the Enemy Act to justify ordering banks closed for a National Bank Holiday.
FDR sent his Emergency Banking bill to the House of Representatives, and it was passed after only 38 minutes of debate — apparently without members reading it.
In 1933, FDR issued executive order 6102 that made it illegal for Americans to own gold bullion or gold certificates, even though historically gold provided the best protection against inflation and monetary crises. Violators faced the prospect of a fine up to $10,000 or up to 10 years in prison.
Since economic fascism was popular during the early 1930s, FDR issued executive orders to suspend antitrust laws and establish German-style cartels in dozens of industries, restricting total industry output, allocating market shares and fixing above-market wages and prices. Above-market wages discouraged employers from hiring, and above-market prices discouraged consumers from buying. Among these executive orders:
* 6204-A, for the rayon weaving industry
* 6205-C, for the silk manufacturing industry
* 6216, for the ship building and ship repairing industries
* 6242-B, for electrical manufacturing
* 6248, for the corset and brassiere industries
* 6250, for theaters
* 6253, for the fishing tackle industry
* 6254, for the iron and steel industries
* 6255, was for the forest products industry
* 6256, was for the petroleum industry
* 6543-A, for the drapery and upholstery industries
With executive orders, FDR multiplied the number of government bureaucracies. He established the Civilian Conservation Corps by issuing executive order 6101. The Public Works Administration followed with executive order 6174. Then came these executive orders:
* 6225, the Central Statistical Board
* 6340, the Commodity Credit Corporation
* 6420-B, the Civil Works Administration
* 6433-A, the National Emergency Council
* 6470, the Public Works Emergency Housing Corporation
* 6474, the Federal Alcohol Control Administration
* 6514, the Electric Home and Farm Authority
* 6581, the Export-Import Bank of Washington
* 6623, the Federal Employment Stabilization Office
* 6632, the National Recovery Review Board
* 6770, the Industrial Emergency Committee
* 6777, the National Resources Board
* 7027, the Resettlement Administration
* 7034, the Works Progress Administration
As one reflects on FDR’s New Deal executive orders, one thing seems clear: while some of the programs provided relief for desperate people, they failed to achieve a sustained revival of private sector job creation. Indeed, relief spending was the main reason government spending doubled and taxes tripled during the New Deal era (1933-1940). Where did the tax revenue come from? The biggest source of federal revenue was the federal excise tax on cigarettes, beer, soda, chewing gum and other cheap pleasures consumed disproportionately by poor and middle income people. This means the cost of relief programs for poor and middle income people was borne mainly by poor and middle income people. In May 1939, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau lamented, “We are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. After eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when he started.”
New Deal unemployment averaged 17 percent, and it didn’t go down significantly until the government began removing more than 10 million men from the civilian work force via military conscription for World War II.
In 1974, the Senate Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers revealed that “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. There are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency. In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt [during the Great Depression], there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970 and August 15, 1971.
“These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law, delegating to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which effect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners... The President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all Americans.”
As a result of these revelations, in 1976 Congress passed the National Emergencies Act. It limited a president’s declared emergency to two years, which may be extended.
A comment about two of Nixon’s major executive orders.
On August 15, 1971, he announced his New Economic Policy, which happened to be what Bolshevik firebrand Vladimir Lenin called one of his misadventures. Nixon issued executive order 11615 that declared: “to stabilize the economy, reduce inflation, and minimize unemployment, it is necessary to stabilize prices, rents, wages, and salaries.” These controls failed to stop inflation which hit double-digits during the 1970s, and they caused chronic shortages, rationing and business disruption — making it harder to create private sector jobs. By maintaining below-market prices, controls simultaneously encouraged producers to provide less, while encouraging consumers to demand more. Hence, the shortages.
Although this experience with price controls had been a flop, Nixon decided to try again. On June 13, 1973, he signed executive order 11723 that called for a freeze on prices, while he continued to control wages, salaries and rents.
Nixon’s executive orders made a bad situation worse. For instance, his price control administrator C. Jackson Grayson confessed: “lumber controls were beginning to lead to artificial middlemen, black markets and sawmill shutdowns. Companies trapped with low base-period profit margins were beginning to consider selling out those with higher base periods, sending their capital overseas, or reducing their efforts. Instances of false job upgrading — which were actually ‘raises’ in disguise — were reported. To keep away from profit-margin controls, companies were considering dropping products where costs, and thus prices, had increased. And shortages of certain products (like molasses and fertilizer) were appearing because artificially suppressed domestic prices had allowed higher world prices to pull domestic supplies abroad.”
In 1999, Bill Clinton waged war with executive orders. He issued executive order 13088 that declared the governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the Republic of Serbia posed “an extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” Therefore, Clinton proclaimed a “national emergency.” He ordered the seizure of property belonging to the named governments in the United States, and he prohibited Americans from conducting commercial transactions with those governments. Clinton’s executive order 13119 declared that the region was a war zone. Executive order 13120 summoned military reserve units for active duty.
None of this was authorized by Congress. On the contrary, Congress voted down a resolution to declare war. Congress wouldn’t “authorize” the air war. Clinton ignored Congress and kept America in the war. When, on June 10, 1999, NATO announced it was over, Clinton ordered American soldiers to serve in the Kosovo Force. There are still some American soldiers in harm’s way.
Once again, we find ourselves in an open-ended national emergency, declared on September 14, 2001 and extended since then. President Obama notified Congress that he was extending it again. This means the president has still has standby powers from hundreds of statutes.
Okay, how can an executive order be revoked?
First, an executive order can be revoked by another executive order. Probably all presidents revoke some executive orders by their predecessors.
For example, Bill Clinton’s executive order 12919, issued on June 3, 1994, was about national security. It revoked all or part of more than a dozen executive orders issued between 1939 and 1991.
President Obama revoked executive orders 13258 (2002) and 13422 (2007), both of which were issued by George W. Bush and amended executive order 12866 (1993) which had been issued by Bill Clinton. These executive orders had to do with regulatory processes.
While executive orders seem irresistible to presidents because they can be issued quickly, they can be revoked quickly, too.
Second, an executive order can be revoked by legislation. A 1999 congressional hearing on executive orders, before the House Rules Committee, the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, indicated that every president since Grover Cleveland has had some of his executive orders modified or revoked by legislation.
The Congressional Research Service cited a number of recent examples: “in 2006, Congress revoked part of an executive order from November 12, 1838, which reserved certain public land for lighthouse purposes. Congress has also explicitly revoked executive orders in their entirety, such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which revoked a December 13, 1912 executive order that created Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 2.” A executive order by President George H.W. Bush, to establish a human fetal tissue bank for research purposes, was revoked when Congress declared that ‘the provisions of Executive Order 12806 shall not have any legal effect.’”
In addition, Congress has denied funding needed to implement various executive orders.
If a president’s adversaries have a veto-proof majority in Congress, the threat of passing a law can deter a president from issuing a controversial executive order. For instance, Christopher J. Deering and Forrest Maltzman, at Washington University, pointed out: “In 1993 President Clinton swiftly backed away from an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding gays from service once it became clear that Congress was likely to overturn such an order by legislative action.”
In recent decades, however, Congress has acquiesced to the expansion of arbitrary presidential power. For example, Congress hasn’t used its power to declare war since the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor more than seven decades ago, although the United States has been drawn into a number of wars during this period.
Congress adopted the War Powers Resolution (1973) in the aftermath of the undeclared Vietnam War. The law required that the president obtain Congressional authorization before entering a war and that he keep Congress informed about what was going on. Presidents have continued to enter undeclared, unauthorized wars.
Third, an executive order can be revoked by a federal appeals court or the Supreme Court.
However, courts as well as Congress commonly have acquiesced to expanded presidential power.
For instance, during World War II, FDR issued executive order 9102 (1942) that established the War Relocation Authority to forcibly move Japanese-Americans away from the Pacific Coast into “relocation camps” for the duration of World War II. This was upheld by the Supreme Court, 6-3, in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion. He asserted that protecting against potential Japanese espionage was more important than protecting Fred Korematsu’s individual rights.
In recent times, too, the Supreme Court generally has deferred to the president in cases involving executive orders. In 1979, Iranian revolutionaries seized 52 Americans working at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and held them as hostages for more than a year. President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order that declared a national emergency and blocked Iranian assets in the U.S. Dames & Moore, a U.S. contractor owed more than $3 million for work performed in Iran, filed a lawsuit seeking payment. After Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president, he entered into an executive agreement with Iran, bypassing the Senate which had the constitutional power to ratify treaties. The executive agreement provided that hostages would be released if legal proceedings in U.S. courts against Iran were suspended. On February 24, 1981, Reagan signed executive order 12294 to suspend such legal proceedings.
Dames & Moore filed another lawsuit claiming that the president lacked the power to do that. In Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981), the Supreme Court implicitly upheld the president’s authority to negotiate executive agreements and explicitly affirmed his power to issue an executive order that suspended court proceedings. Chief Justice William Rehnquist cited statutes “indicating congressional acceptance of a broad scope for executive action in circumstances such as those presented in this case... we can conclude that Congress acquiesced in the President’s action... [Since] Congress has acquiesced in the President’s action, it cannot be said that the President lacks the power to settle such claims.”
There seem to have been only two cases of an executive order being overturned by a court.
This happened with Harry Truman’s 1952 executive order 10340 that ordered the Secretary of Commerce to stop a steelworkers strike by seizing privately-owned steel mills. Truman insisted that a prolonged strike would impair the government’s ability to fight an undeclared “police action” as the Korean War has been called.
The steel mill seizures were contested in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
The U.S. Solicitor General claimed that Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution “constitutes a grant of all the executive powers of which the Government is capable.”
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was incredulous. He said, “The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by King George III. The description of its evils in the Declaration of Independence leads me to doubt that they were creating their new Executive in his image. Continental European examples were no more appealing. And, if we seek instruction from our own times, we can match it only from the executive powers in those governments we disparagingly describe as totalitarian. I cannot accept the view that the clause is a grant in bulk of all conceivable executive power.”
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rejected every argument made on behalf of Truman’s seizure: “The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it cannot stand... There is no statute which expressly or impliedly authorizes the President to take possession of this property as he did here... In its consideration of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, Congress refused to authorize governmental seizures of property as a method of preventing work stoppages and settling labor disputes... Authority of the President to issue such an order in the circumstances of this case cannot be implied from the aggregate of his powers under Article II of the Constitution... The Order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President’s military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces... Nor can the Order be sustained because of the several provisions of Article II which grant executive power to the President... The power here sought to be exercised is the lawmaking power, which the Constitution vests in the Congress alone, in both good and bad times... the President’s power to see that laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”
President Clinton’s 12954 was the other case of an executive order known to have been revoked by a court. Clinton banned the federal government from hiring contractors who replaced strikers. He argued that strikers can become violent when they’re replaced, so it would be better to appease strikers and support union workplace monopolies by banning replacements. Attorney Charles T. Kimmett, writing in the Yale Law Journal, defended the president’s position while acknowledging union violence. “When striking Greyhound workers were permanently replaced,” he wrote, “replacement bus drivers and bus riders became targets of sniper fire. Similarly, the Hormel Company’s decision to hire permanent striker replacements was accompanied by such violence that Minnesota’s governor called in the National Guard.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit revoked Clinton’s executive order in Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1996). This was an important case, because during the past seven decades, there have been more than a hundred executive orders regulating private employment, and legal challenges have been rare.
Clinton’s executive order 12954 conflicted with a 7-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision in NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company, 304 U.S. 333 (1938),. In part, that court decided “[The employer] is not bound to discharge those hired to fill the places of strikers.”
D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman said, “We think it untenable to conclude that there are no judicially enforceable limitations on presidential actions [enabling] the President to bypass scores of statutory limitations on governmental authority.”
As all this experience suggests, executive orders make it easy for presidents to consolidate more power and difficult for anyone to stop them. People acquiesce with the hope that a president will do good, but if he or she does harm — remember, there’s no reliable way of keeping bad or incompetent people out of power — then Americans will find themselves in a very bad place.
Hopefully, President Obama will never try to implement his executive order 13603 — the plan for seizing control of our economy and our lives. But the plan is ready-to-go, awaiting the right moment. One morning, Americans could wake up to the news that suddenly Obama is activating the plan because of cyber sabotage, a terrorist incident, a crisis in nuclear Pakistan, a war with Iran or some other state of emergency, perhaps the state of emergency he extended last year. Or perhaps the president might simply decide that to win the fall election he needs an “October surprise.”
Why didnt you inform her that her definition for Jihad was based on a weak Hadith, not unanimously accepted in the Muslim world? I wish you would have suggested she read the Qur'an, or any authentic scholarly collection of Hadith, or Reliance of the Traveler, or Milestons...goodness, she scolded you about lexicon while failing to understand the true, historically, scholarly definition of the word.
While others lament and engage in an intellectual debate over the attack on the First Amendment, you have stood to draw the fire. My deepest gratitude Pamela Geller.
http://www.cair.com/AboutUs/MisinformationandConspiracyTheoriesAboutCAIR.aspx
Internet Disinformation #5: CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad publicly declared support for Hamas at Barry University in Florida in 1994, saying: “I’m in support of the Hamas movement.”
"This statement was made in March 1994, before CAIR was formed."
"Hamas did not commit its first suicide bombing until October 1994."
"The United States subsequently identified Hamas as a specially designated terrorist in January 1995."
"Thus, Awad’s remarks came seven months prior to Hamas’ first suicide bombings and nine months before the organization received the specially designated terrorist label from the government. "
******************************
So, consider the background to Awad's statement.
February 16, 1989 Hamas kidnapped, and murdered IDF soldiers Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon.
Three years later, Israeli border policeman Senior Sergeant Nissim Toledano was kidnapped, and murdered.
In 1993, Nihad Awad was a participant in the Hamas summit meeting in Philadelphia.
Then in 1994, Nihad Awad endorsed Hamas never telling us he was part of the inner circle of Hamas leadership in this country.
Even beyond this, the Islamic Association for Palestine published the English translation of the genocidal Hamas charter in 1988. Awad was the Director of Public Relations for the IAP.
How can anyone be expected to believe Awad didn't know these things when he endorsed Hamas?
Today, CAIR excuses this statement by pointing out that Awad said this before Hamas was officially designated as a terrorist group.
It may be fair to characterize CAIR's explanation as:
"So, he said it. So what? Sue me."
CAIR is not only part of Hamas, they are defiant about it.
The point of freedom of speech is not just that you have the right to insult people you don't like, or have the freedom to express yourself, but that you have the right to tell the truth as you see it, even when there are people who don't agree or want the truth known. That's the bigger issue you were alluding to. Political correctness damages the efforts of those who want to reform Islam as much as it does the efforts of counter jihadists.
Thank God for heroes like Pamela Geller and David Horowitz.
I WAS about to scream while watching the interview tonight. I AM going to post this interview everywhere to PROVE to LEFTISTS HOW the MSM is censoring anti-jihadists! IT WAS SO OBVIOUS once the interview suddenly went POOF!!! YOUR arguments were amazing! Erin's strategy is SO biased, SO BIASED I could not even believe it my LYING EARS! She only knows THINGS that seem convenient, and others she is totally oblivious. Regarding the ANTI Israel adds, which she said she never heard...EXACTLY, she never heard because BEING ANTI-ISRAEL is not controversial! She tried and tried and tried to put you on a bad light..she could not manage to do that. CNN’s censoring you is AN INDISPUTABLE proof that THERE is CAIR/Muslim Brotherhood influence in our media! I HOPE THERE’S a WAY you can call them on that! SHAMEFUL.
Love you Pamela
From your Brazilian/Canadian USA lover reader
If any jihadis really are trying to go to war with themselves, that could be why they act so insane that they are killing people over cartoons that aren't even a part of their culture or society. When people are in a mentally unstable state, they are easily controlled by despotic leaders such as the imams, sheiks and clerics who are stirring these people into a frenzied lather.
If jihad is an internal war, then Islam is a religion that promotes insanity. So take your pick, either they are at war with the world, or they are at war with themselves. They are not at war with the spirits of darkness as a Christian is, because when they wage jihad, they are physically raiding embassies. They are a Satanic knock-off of Christianity and I am extremely offended that they compare their struggles in taking over the world to the struggles of a Christian trying to live a holy life.
Erin Burnett
I have to tell you I WAS always very confident and trusted CNN's 'unbiased' reputation until TODAY when I saw your interview with Pamela Geller and the interview was edited and cut off! Fortunately people today have access to alternative media and I was able to find the rest of the interview. HOW shameful. HOW depressing to imagine that CNN would not give voice to alternative views and censor them, as controversial as they may be. Nothing that woman mentioned was hateful. She directs her militancy to EXACTLY those 'extremists' that one time CNN calls them 'fringe' and do not represent the larger community, and ALL of a sudden, a freedom fighter like Pamela, when creating awareness about those 'fringe' elements, they in a twist become the MUSLIMS that are offended and the community is calling her hater and bigot! HOW is that possible? If this fringe is not representative of the LARGE Muslim community, how come the Muslims are taking pain for the comments directed to the 'fringe'?
Erin, there's only one truth, and the truth is the one you are avoiding and fighting against, tarnishing her stance whenever you could during that whole interview, and that became more obvious on the part that was cut off! Pamela left that interview with a message, the message of what is really going on in the battlefield of ideas. Freedom x Sharia-anti-Blasphemy , this is what is coming down to, and you better wake-up! Do us all a favor, read the Koran and follow Jihad Watch for just one week..ONE WEEK, and be exposed to the facts that are happening in the world that CNN dares not to speak. Watch the videos from MEMRI TV that translates with subtitles in English news from Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.., watch the TV networks in the Muslim world calling for the death of Jews and Christians and infidels from the pulpits of their mosques, all with support of Islamic sources and the Koran. WATCH it and find out for yourself that Jihad IS Holy WAR!
Yes, exactly that.
That clip moved me.
The battle is hard ...
... the war is worth winning.
Kudos, Ms. Geller.
Pamela, you were fantastic. In great form: gracious, differentiated, to the point and chrystal clear.
THANK YOU!!
American woman tries to cut off her sleeping husband's head with an electric saw:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/20/washington-woman-convicted-in-saw-attack-on-husband/?test=latestnews
And to see 100s of more examples of savage acts by western women against men:
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/115/scope/threads/Default.aspx
Granted that she was not harsh, rude or even unreasonable. She didn't edit the show, the producers did. It is one thing to differ on the ADL but CAIR?
Seriously. How can any "reporter" take that BS. I learned the bad stuff about Cair on CNN years ago when Hooper was interviewed explaining why and how they want to turn the USA into an Islamic state. I wonder if those tapes are still in their vaults.
Pamela was perfect. She managed to appeal to the reporter in Erin and not ending up in a pissing match. That is important because in this fight enough people will join the good side by just asking the right questions . In other words, this petty censorship will not work. It looked like an edit from Syrian TV. People will ask themselves:
- How come two seemingly nice and reasonable people differ in opinion on this institution which's mention we take for granted in discussions about the conflict.
Google will do the rest.
Good Job Pamela
But back to the issue at hand: It is no surprise that Ms. Burnett and her producers would have taken the stance they have viz Pam's appearance. This last Thursday, author, "New Age" pseudo-"spiritual" adherent and Detroit talk radio host Mitch Albom was on her show, and both sought to blame the latest spate of Islamofascist attacks all around the Middle East on Judaism and Christianity - in short, typical moral equivocation. As if Jews or Christians were rioting and looting around the world the way the Muslims are in many countries, with "that film" as their excuse and pretext. (And the next day, Albom had - surprise, surprise - a mouthpiece named Victor Begg from something called the "Michigan Muslim Community Council" [né the "Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan"] on his radio show.)
Again and again from the middle east we hear intellectuals discuss the problems of Islam created by Imam's, created in the mosques itself by indoctrinating the youth to hatred and extremism. They themselves bear testimony to the fact that after they leave Friday sermons, they leave angry and agitated because of the hate indoctrinated into them. And this indoctrination goes on week after week, year after year, and is openly exposed to children from a small age up. By the time they are grown, they are completely filled to the brim with the ideas of hatred of jews and non-Muslims, to consider them dirty, pigs, dogs and to never integrate with them but to always wage the jihad of war with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran ....
OTOH, it is a mystery to ME and people like me as to how to cure this disease. You can't go on a killing rampage, you can't nuke all these lost souls, you just cant. You can't live with them on the same planet either. What to do? I have one suggestion but would anyone have the courage to carry it out?
PS: I am an agnostic, I believe all religions are bullshit. And I might come across as one but I am definitely not a racist. Believe you me folks, there is this intense darkness, this intense danger as regarding what islam is... Like I said, I can explain... Humanity needs to cure itself of this disease...
What is revealed behind the CNN mask, is not a pretty sight to behold. The mask slipped to reveal that CNN support Cair - therefore CNN are not to be trusted, they too are enemies of the USA. Traitors.
Good job well done Pamela. You were one step ahead of them. Well done you.
REALLY? Pamela Geller, famous American Jew, has been "passionate about" her "CHRISTIAN faith"?
THAT's how lazy that CNN woman is, she could not be bothered to spend five seconds learning anything about our Pammy than what Erin's prog masters fed to her. That alone reveals that Erin Burnett has absolutely no integrity or credibility and completely invalidates anything else that comes out of her lie-hole.
Good job on recording the interview, Pam. I hope CNN is livid you did that.
Watching her snide condescending tone made me cringe, but you handled yourself with a lot of dignity and class. Especially impressive were your quiet yet firm "I didn't say that" replies when she was twisting your words. And calmly "educating" her on the facts that she was so clearly ignorant or dismissive of.
Very smart of you to figure out, that if CNN is inviting you for an interview, something is not going to be kosher. To guess that they just might edit the video is just common sense, so kudos for getting wired and exposing the fraud that they are. But how stupid of them to just blatantly cut you off? Well, actually no more stupid than thinking they could confront you with this amateur, and then manage to edit out the "inconvenient truth".
Admire your work and your courage! Be safe, and all the blessings to you.
Even though you choose not to follow religions, Christianity is at its heart a faith first. It is a love of the truth and devotion to that. Through this you gain power, and opportunities reveal themselves to you on how to fight the good fight. It is a hard walk and many are called but few are chosen. If you choose to embark on this path, the rewards will be evident along the way and the promises of heaven are of no comparison in greatness.
You must learn to protect yourself by cutting the old parts of yourself off that lead you to sin, once you have knowledge of the truth of Christ. This is the shaping of a warrior. From an agnositc angle, I would say stay aware, stay with the good people in the light, and keep your mind filled with edifying and useful things.
People may choose to follow Islam despite our best efforts, but we as individuals can choose to hide our hearts from it and stay pure.
If Erin Burnett of CNN claims that she finds the Metro ads "as offensive" as the anti-Israel ads, then where are her open oppositions to the anti-Israel ads? This hypocrite of a woman talks total bullshit! Where is her interviews with Muslims who spew anti-Muslim hatred? Where is her interviews with the groups that give the public only half truths about the Israel-Palestine issue, when real facts are that Israel is the one that was occupied of their land, stolen by brutality and invasion from Arabs who took everything they had.
See, this is one of those interviews/debates that changes peoples' minds.
Pamela, when you talked about the beheading of Daniel Pearl as savage, that is something that makes people nod and think, "yeah, that was savage". It's moments like that when people use their common sense because it makes perfect sense. People who do things like that are savages!!
And I absolutely love the fact that you taped all of it!!! They're not capable of keeping up with you. Love it!
You frustrated CNN so badly, they knew this Erin chick wasn't a suitable match for you (not too many are against you Pam) that is why they went jihad on you, and cut you off! Even more laughable! They should be embarrassed!
Now Erin said in the earlier part of the interview with you this: "When you say narrative, I see your ad and I see the same narrative that an anti-Israel ad would have. It's a narrative of hate."
Then later in the interview Pam, when you brought up the amount of money spent on the anti-Israel ads, that no one in the media bothered to report about or get upset over, that's when Erin said this: "I have to say I am not familiar with those ads."
She continuted to say, "That is an interesting political conversation on aid to Isreal, on what it is and what it accomplishes, and a topic for a separate thing."
OK, so first she claims she KNOWS about anti-Israel ads, and then she claims she doesn't. I mean, where do they get these people from. Such liars!
Then CNN cuts you off when they can't handle you.
But to say about aid to Israel, that its an "interesting political convo on what it is and what it accompishes" while she's waving her arms and hands and leaning into you frin her high chair. You must've been like, lady, easy on the caffiene!
Considering everything from this interview, collectively, I heard all I needed to hear. I think I know where CNN stands on the topic of Israel. These are frightening times indeed!
Jesus: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Mohammed: Kill unbelievers and pursue them unto death.(perhaps a more direct quote of the Quran would be better)
Who do you want to follow? Who do you think is speaking truth?
Loving your enemies is something that is very difficult and I don't think we Christians are very good at it, but it doesn't mean we have to just lay down and become doormats for the Muslims and allow them to do whatever they want to do. It does mean we should genuinely care for them though and even pray for them.
This highlights a huge difference between Jesus and Mohammed, Christianity and Islam. I think this kind of an ad would be more effective.
Tell me Miss Burnett, what did Ambassador Stevens do to anyone besides his stated job... in Toulouse, what did that beautiful innocent girl and her family do to anyone...tell me...hunted down by hyenas and murdered by--- Savages. I believe that they are countless good Muslims that are trapped in Islam and they must be able to free themselves without fear of retribution... and Pamela is doing exactly that-standing for Freedom and personal Liberty.
Erin Burnett, you are willfully ignorant and they would do to you what they did to Lara Logan...shameful that our soldiers have to sacrifice all for your absolute submission at home.
Truth is something the are not used to having to deal with. You really gave them a whopping dose of it.
"Ads call some Muslims 'savages'
Surprised? Not me!
Many thanks;
Former Dutch MP and brave Apostate, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali), writer and campaigner speaks on BBC Newsnight. Of course, she spoke the truth, but it seems, as per usual, Islamists and Leftists don't think so, so they are now organising people to bombard the inboxes of the BBC with complaints. Nothing much changes does it?
You can go direct to Ayann being interviewed at 18:21, when the discussion starts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mw2l6/Newsnight_20_09_2012/
Great job Pamela!
I don't understand why we should all be so tolerant, sensitive, afraid of Islam. All I see is hatred, intolerance, violence from them.
Re Erin's insistence that "jihad" means "struggle", as though these Islamists are on an introspective journey to "find themselves": didn't Hitler write of his own "struggle" in "Mein Kampf"?
Unless Romney wins in a complete landslide or the Soros owned company who owns the voting machines don't have them rigged before or aft, we're done. IT IS EVERYONE'S JOB FROM NOW UNTIL 11/6 to get the word out!
There are very few people that I truly admire these days, but, you are definitely worthy of our gratitude and appreciation for your courage and dedication to the TRUTH! You are a FEARLESS WARRIOR who stands against not only the external threats to our society, but, also to the spineless media mouthpieces who persist in covering up and defending these radicals who would slit their throats if they had the chance! You are the voice of sanity and I pray that God will protect you from the vicious attacks that you endure. If the 'moderate' Muslims are so moderate, why are THEY not condemning these SAVAGE acts...savage means not only murdering innocent people but sodomizing them and dragging them through the streets, beheading them, mutilating women and children! You have my deepest admiration and respect for what you are doing....I only wish our elected officials would display as much courage as you do every minute of the day. Stay safe!
If you want to start war with Jihad terminate too a big criminal organization - Mossad
whose kill innocent people (eg Iran sciencist)
I wish we could send some instructions to these animals: Make sure your face is close and you're breathing deeply while burning our flag! :-D
Which branch of the IRGC do you work for? Or is it Hizballah? Dearborn?
You can't play the Aayan Hirsi BBC video outside of the UK. I wonder why?
If I may say, don't fall for the false dichotomy fallacy of "all or none" which is a well-worn tactic of muslims and the left. To them if all muslims are not suicide bombing, then there is no problem. In fact, their terrorism is just one of them symptoms of the cancer of Islam.
They need to understand that the ideology of Islam is the problem and muslims who support it's aims, which in my view is about 90% of them. So this is far from being a 'tiny minority of extremists.'
Also regarding the issue of jihad, I think you answered her brainwashing quite well. I would've gone a bit further and spoke about the thousands of jihads waged against humanity over 1400 years to conquer and Islamize many countries resulting in the deaths of 270 million people and that muslims follow the example of their prophet who did the same.
They need to understand that nothing about Islam is redeemable, from top-to-bottom it's a violent, hateful, war-mongering, fascist, totalitarian death cult and much worse than Nazism. They've given you the platform to speak and I'd take it to the hilt.
The best way to short-circuit their thinking is to make the link between Islam and Nazism, because they are very much alike. Islam is Nazism with a (moon) god. If liberals begin to realize the connection, then they will wake up sooner. Anyways, thanks for everything you do-knowledge is the key, we must win the information battle-space, then we'll win the actual war.
thanx for joining the crusade
keep truthing
shalom
It appears this CNN "interview" or the attempted biased entrapment by this self-indulgent/twit/excuse of a "reporter" has failed judging by the amount of new fans commenting here (76 comments). I see your brilliant "amazing" presentation and poise in THIS CNN "interview" (entrapment) as THE possible tipping point for those who have been sitting on the fence out of ignorance/blindness to what these Islamofacists have in store for humanity. It warms the heart of this fan/friend who has been with you here for awhile.
Breitbart News is doubling its reward--to $100,000--for one of the missing pieces of Barack Obama’s past, which may be the key to understanding his collapsing Middle East policy: the “Khalidi tape,” a video kept under wraps by the Los Angeles Times since April 2008.
The Khalidi tape shows Obama at a 2003 farewell party for radical Palestinian academic and activist Rashid Khalidi, and reportedly features vitriolic anti-Israel rhetoric.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/20/Reward-100000-for-Khalidi-Tape
She would probably think that Iran is not planning a hideous attack on Israel and the free world.
Keep up the great work you do.
Interesting!
WGNRadio chats with Jeff Bardin, who infiltrates al Qaeda sites before turning over the info to the government http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/billleff/wgnam-leff-hacktivist-jeff-bardin,0,5827461.mp3file
That's how desperate and drunk on propaganda they are at CNN.
But when she claimed that "jihad" means "a personal spiritual struggle," and not a holy war by Muslims against Jews, Christians and the West... well, that one really took the cake.
I think all it will take for the scales to finally fall from poor Erin's eyes is for her to watch that ridiculous statement she made.
Great job, Pamela!
We Love You Pam.
That is a shame Kufar Dawg. Maybe someone will copy it and upload it onto Youtube at some point.
I can see nothing but good coming from this poster campaign, it's already bringing
the true situation to more and more people, go easy on the post removals here though, especially those modest ones. Anyone critised here should have a right of reply.
She never once listened to what Pamela said.
I never liked this precocious person when she was on CNBC, and I certainly don't like her on CNN, which I never watch anyway.
Keep up the good work.
There are some of us in SF who are with you.. Keep posting those ads..
Rob
I think the tide is finally turning.
Islamic riots are backfiring, as more and more people are understanding what we are up against.
http://normanhooben.blogspot.com/2012/09/have-you-noticed-obamas-flag.html
Norm...
I don't think anyone else noticed the 5 pillars of Islam
Watching Pamela debate is like watchng John Galt debate . . . fill in the blank. And besides, she's sure nice to girl watch.
from Debka:
An Israeli soldier killed, second injured in clash with terrorist bombers from Sinai September 21, 2012
Sgt. Netanel Yahalomi, 20, from Nof Ayalon was killed and a second Israeli soldier was seriously injured in a clash with terrorists from Sinai Friday. The attackers reached the border near Mt. Harif in southern Israel wearing bomb belts and heavily armed with automatic weapons and grenades for a major terrorist attack and opened fire on the troops guarding work on the border fence. In the heavy exchange of fire, all three terrorists were killed. Both Sgt. Yahalomi and his wounded comrade were yeshiva students serving in the Artillery Corps.
The clash occurred on the Israeli side of the Negev border in an area which is still unfenced because of the difficult mountainous terrain. Israeli and Egyptian forces remain on high alert.
http://goo.gl/qz0BF
and
Iran pours more troops into Syria, ready to target Israel from Syria and Lebanon September 20, 2012
Iran continues to fly military personnel and quantities of weapons into Syria by civilian aircraft which cut through Iraqi airspace, American intelligence sources disclosed early Thursday, Sept. 20. UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon also said that, "Unfortunately, both [Syrian] sides, government and opposition forces, seem to be determined to see the end by military means."
Clearly, Iran is augmenting its military involvement in the constantly escalating Syrian civil war, broadening it into a multinational conflict which threatens to drag Lebanon in, by means of the Iranian-Syrian ally, Hizballah.
The UN Secretary General's statement implying that the two Syrian sides are determined to fight to the bitter end is echoed in Iran’s resolve to fight to the bitter end for Assad, on Syrian soil.
Tehran is not hiding its actions. Sunday, Sept. 16, Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Commander Gen. Ali Jafari said openly that Al Qods Brigades units were present and operational in both Syria and Lebanon.
rest here at Debka dot com: http://goo.gl/XSZoq