The Fear of Martial Law

By Alan Caruba

The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, has generated so much fear that the most common theme of posted comments and private communications is that he will refuse to relinquish power if defeated in November or that, under some pretext, he will declare a state of martial law.

Many, myself included, did not like the Patriot Act that was enacted following 9/11 but there is little evidence that this law has been abused to deprive Americans of their fundamental rights and freedom, though surely some suspected of being terrorists were detained.

An Executive Order posted on the White House website on Friday, March 16, 2012, has generated a wave of fear. It is officially about “National Defense Resources Preparedness” and its stated policy addresses “national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950.”

Its stated policy is that “The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.”  (Emphasis added)

In 1950 the nation was entering a new phase of history following World War II. It would be called the Cold War led by the then-Soviet Union, but 1950 is also important because on October 1, 1949, Mao Zedung had proclaimed the birth of the People’s Republic of China, instituting a Communist regime that continues to this day. With German and Japanese totalitarian threats vanquished, new ones were emerging.

The new EO evokes fear because it is occurring in peacetime and, more specifically, when the United States remains the strongest military power on Earth. There is no indication that an attack by any other nation is anticipated, so the implementation of the EO raises concerns that its purpose is not what it says.

In effect, the EO allows the federal government, directed by the President, to commandeer and control all aspects of the economy and the lives of all Americans. It centralizes control to an astonishing and frightening degree.

As just one example, it parcels out control to “ the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer” and thereafter to:

The Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

The Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

The Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

The Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

The Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

The obvious question is why is this EO necessary in the absence of any threat of an invasion or even an attack?

The obvious question is why should the President of the United States, in the run-up to a national election, feel that this is the time to issue such an EO?

I have frankly been dismissive of widely expressed fears that Obama would or could carry off a coup d’etat to establish himself as an American dictator. The problem, however, is that Obama has surrounded himself with Cabinet Secretaries and a shadow government of “czars” that would likely support him if he were to attempt such an audacious move.

The “legality” of such a move would be rubber-stamped by the Attorney General whose regard for the Constitution and laws of the nation is dubious at best, elastic at worst. The President’s views about the Constitution are well known and he resents the limits it puts on his powers.

Would Congress stand by and allow its powers be usurped? Imagine yourself a Senator or Representative fearful of arrest and detention. Rounding up all 435 members would not be a difficult task.

The nation’s media, with exceptions, has “covered” for this President regarding the legitimacy of his right to hold office, his absurd energy policies, and his takeover of various segments of the nation’s economic base; the auto industry, the insurance industry, and Obamacare’s attempt to takeover the healthcare sector.

That is why this EO has evoked such fear and concern and that is why Congress has to assert its Constitutional powers before this President is permitted to overthrow the legislative branch of government and seize control through an EO that is so broad that it is a breathtaking seizure of power that could only be considered if the nation was, in fact, under attack.

This EO is about “preparedness”, but for whom?

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Strangulation by Regulation

By Alan Caruba

On Tuesday, January 18, I had the opportunity to participate in a conference call initiated by the Office of Management and Budget to roll out President Obama’s executive order regarding the revision of the federal government’s massive regulatory morass.

On the same day, the Wall Street Journal had published President Obama’s commentary “Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System” in which, at one point, noting that the FDA had found saccharin to be safe, he lauded the Environmental Protection Agency for eliminating its ruling that saccharin was a dangerous chemical.

Steven Milloy of Junk Science.com noted that, while the Food and Drug Administration “considers carbon dioxide to be safe for human consumption in soft drinks, yet the EPA is regulating it as a threat to the public welfare under the Clean Air Act. How about rollin’ that one back?” The EPA has, in its short history, generated more regulations than any other comparable government agency. The EPA is not about science. It’s about power over every aspect of our lives.

EPA regulations regarding carbon dioxide will impose crushing financial burdens on any and all use of electricity and is utterly devoid of any scientific justification. The EPA’s justification is that CO2 causes global warming—which it does not—because there is NO global warming.

The conference call featured OMB Director Jack Lew and the president’s regulatory “czar” Cass Sunstein who has been described as a liberal activist judge who believes free speech needs to be limited for the "common good" and has ruled against personal freedoms including private gun ownership.

Both kept repeating the “talking points” for the executive order, emphasizing “opportunities for public participation and public comment" and “to make sure that regulations are driven by real science.”

This latter attribute has been sorely missing among the many Obama appointees such as his science “czar” John Holdren, his environmental “czar” Carol Browner, and his choice to head the Energy Department, is a true believer in global warming. Some of the opinions expressed by these appointees have bordered on lunacy.

The other meme repeated throughout the conference call was that of “jobs.” In the run-up to the 2012 elections, Obama will say “jobs” a million times despite or because of the obvious fact that the nation is at Depression-level rates for unemployment.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute that closely tracks the impact of federal regulations on business and industry in America was not taken in by the executive order or the rhetoric surrounding it. “This executive order is hardly a war on red tape, and no affected businesses or consumers are going to be able to sue anybody to force compliance—it’s just an ‘order’ to agencies to behave.”

The CEI noted that “Both balancing safety against economic growth and requiring a review of existing rules are features of President Clinton’s EO 12866, which Obama reaffirmed while repealing Bush’s EOs 13258 and 13422.”

CEI noted that “The number of rules in the pipeline at agencies has surged in the past year, from 4,041 at the end of 2009 to 4,225 now, as will be detailed in CEI’s upcoming ‘Ten Thousand Commandments’ report. ‘Major’ rules, those expected to cost over $100 million annually, have experienced an even greater surge.”

When one considers that Obamacare constituted a massive expansion of regulation and that the House has just voted to repeal it, Obama’s executive order looks like window-dressing to hide the fact that this administration, thus far, has engaged in piling on regulations that the public has, in poll after poll, rejected.

This executive order is as empty as all of Obama’s other many promises.

© Alan Caruba, 20011