Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (in photo) has taken his country sharply to the left during his socialist tenure, with the clear aim of emulating Fidel Castro of Cuba. But Venezuelan voters Sunday denied the blustery leader’s bid to continue power indefinitely, rejecting constitutional changes that would have ended presidential term limits and made other sweeping power grabs. The results must have surprised Chavez, who has never lost an election.
“Venezuelan democracy is maturing,†the humbled leader said.
That’s good news for the United States.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin is forbidden by the constitution from running for a third term, but he seems to have engineered a parliamentary victory for his party that could allow him to remain as the country’s de facto leader.
European observers said the election was neither free nor fair — proving again that elections alone don’t make a democracy.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
115 Comments
Good news for two reasons: (1) is sets Chavez back and (2) it appears it was a clean vote and count.
Hillary has a lot in common with the elected President in Venezuelan. In fact, most democrats should be sympathetic to his socialist cause.
It wouldn’t be surprising to see Putin trying to pull a Chavez in order to maintain his position in Russia. Putin is horribly corrupt and it’s difficult to believe that the election was fair in a country that’s essentially run by a dictator.
“Hillary has a lot in common with the elected President in Venezuelan.”
??? I guess they are both mammals but apart from that they have little in common. Perhaps you could enlighten us about what policies they share.
But remember Doug – Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul mate. Bush definitely has a lot in commong with Putin.
Hillary is a socialist. Look up her past. She is adamant to socialize medicine – even tried to as first lady.
And BIG OIL = BUSH. So the evil oil industry will be nationalized under Hillary too.
But why am I trying to explain the obvious to the socialist party members?
Actually, Hugo Chavez is more democratic than George WMD Bush. The Venezuelans were given the opportunity to vote on the attempted power-grab.
But Shrub singlehandedly adopted
NSPD-51. Goggle it, “American Way.” You’re learn something.
NSPD-51 rants Bush authority to decide when an emergency has occurred and to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure continuity of government, whether it is to cancel upcoming elections, suspend the constitution, or launch a nuclear attack. It has two secret clauses that the administration won’t disclose to anyone, including congressional oversight committees.
Scary. Do you see a fake terrorist attack coming shortly before the elections?
“Hillary is a socialist. Look up her past. She is adamant to socialize medicine – even tried to as first lady.”
That’s it? That doesn’t seem like a lot in common especially since Clinton’s health care plan doesn’t involve socialized medicine anymore than what we currently have.
It’s clear you don’t know what you are talking about so you are a waste of time.
Scary. Do you see a fake terrorist attack coming shortly before the elections?
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | December 03, 2007 at 01:17 PM
I see mass paranoia amongst the Libs.
In AmWay’s eyes anyone who doesn’t follow him in lockstep is a socialist.
Funny guys. Hillary is pure socialism. Take from the rich, and give to the poor. 15 million don’t have healthcare – socialize it for all 300 million.
You guys bad mouth big oil all day long on the blogs. Bush and Cheney, war, make oil money, blah, blah, blah.
You know once we have the socialist control of both houses of congress and the executive branch, if it’s not queen hillary, it will be another democrat socialist to steal more of MY MONEY,
to give to the social programs of YOUR choice!
Let’s just be honest. You know the truth. Why can’t you just accept them.
Chavez and Hillary sitting in a tree, k.iss.ing!!
Don’t give up hope AmWay. Maybe the Bushies can count votes the way your hero Putin does.
This small vote for term limits has little to do with Chavez’s reforms in South America.
For years, any leader who stood up to Coca-Cola capitalism got an offer they couldn’t refuse.
Chavez has changed that. South America is rapidly developing a third economic path that no longer involves open borders for industrial exploitation, with the result that prosperity for all finally has a glimer of hope south of the border . . .
Ah the American Socialistic Spokesman for Kansas has spoken his Communistic spew at 01:35
Hillary and her party is not advcating socialism. Socialism is when the means of production and distribution is owned by the majority and all benefit from this production/distribution equally (in theory). Hillary is advocating production and distribution controlled by the government and dividing the benefit to those who are in need. That is called COMMUNISM.
Actually if you look into Hillary’s past you would find she supported Goldwater. Arm failing and calling democrats socialist is as silly when conservatives are called fascists
You’ve got to be leftist radical to support a dictator like Chavez.
Another one of the regular Libs trolls at 1:43 who claim they don’t use other nics.
American Way,
The rest of us–that is, the MIDDLE CLAS–are sick of the plutocratic Bush Administration stealing OUR money and government services through “piratization,” thanks. If that’s “socialism,” well, no surprise to hear that particular name thrown around by this particular fascist apologist.
As for Hugo Chavez, it testifies to his respect for democracy that he didn’t try to ratf*ck an election he was going to lose, in the way that Bushco stole the Florida election of 2000.
That’s right: STOLE. Now is DEFINITELY the time for us to have that fight, Wingnuts. Bring it.
Kind of sad, isn’t it, when a would-be socialist demagogue from South America reveres democracy more than the President of the United States.
Uhm, “Max” –
The so-called “dictator” Chavez was just defeated at the polls. That’s not the definition of a dictator.
On the other hand, George WMD Bush’s unilateral declaration of NSPD-51 grants him authority to declare an emergency at any time he deems fit and to cancel elections, suspend the constitution, or launch a nuclear attack. It has two secret clauses that the administration won’t disclose to anyone, including congressional oversight committees.
*That’s* what a dictator does.
Don’t think Hillary is SOCIALIST or SECRETIVE and CONNIVING? In fact, I wonder how she managed to get the crazy dude to show up at her campaign office last week.
Check out this link and see what you think. Its a story that wasn’t carried long by the regular media (EAGLE included) http://tinyurl.com/35dnoh
Just wondering Monkeyhawk, how you know how NSPD-51 compares to the Continuity of Operations Plans of previous administrations, since the Bush administration was the first to release their plan to the public? The text of the other plans, including the Clinton administrations, is not available, is it?
Kind of sad, isn’t it, when a would-be socialist demagogue from South America reveres democracy more than the President of the United States.
CF2K
The so-called “dictator” Chavez was just defeated at the polls. That’s not the definition of a dictator. Monkeyhawk
Reveres democracy? HAHA! He has taken over the media in his country. NO, not like here where the libs just control most of it, HE TOOK IT OVER AND CLOSED STATIONS. There goes the radio AM dial for conservatives. But it is definately NOT a democratic move. He also nationalized the oil industry. Democracy NOT.
More like Max says: Dictator. He is a dictator of a socialist nation.
And Chavez has until 2012 to change it again.
Interesting, Hillary comes to power in 2009 until 2012…..
CF and Monkey
Chavez is a thug.
That you would even give mild support to the man shows that you have little integrity, if you really admire Chavez —Or that you are totally uninformed!
Folks:
Do indeed Google NSPD-51. What you’ll learn is that MH is a paranoid lunatic. It simply does not do what MH claims it does.
The directive (cue scaaaary music) states that:
“It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.”
Scary, huh? Gosh, the president thinks it’s a good idea to be able to preserve our form of Gov’t under the Constitution. How dare he!
There’s more! The directive defines “enduring constitutional government” to include, among other things,
” . . . execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;”
Get that? “orderly succession and appropriate transition of leadership.” Sure sounds like a coup to me, yes?
Uh, actually, no.
Not a word about nuclear weapons, suspending any constitution, cancelling elections, etc. On the contrary, the directive deals with carrying out constitutional gov’t, including succession and transition of leadership, in the FACE of disaster or emergency.
MH’s meanderanings are silly, tinfoil hat stuff. Read it for yourself. Read about the deep, dark secrets. Then look out for those ‘black helicopters.’ Or not.
There are lots of things to worry about, and real issues to be discussed. But this isn’t one of them; it’s drivel.
Read and learn, indeed. And remember MH’s credibility accordingly.
Yes, Chavez is a dictator. He can make his own laws, without his National Assembly passing anything:
First the good news: Venezuelans rejected a constitutional reform that would further radicalize the country’s economy. Then the bad news: It really won’t make much of a difference. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez can bypass the results through decrees, local business leaders say.
“He has the enabling law [so] he can do whatever he feels like,” says Ian Stein, general manager of the British-Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce. In February, the Chavez-controlled national assembly passed the Enabling Law, which gives the president the authority to issue decrees in economic and other matters. The law gave Chavez an initial period of 18 months. “After the 18 months, it’s anybody’s guess, but judging from [past] results, he will perhaps extend it for another year,” Stein says.
http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=1846
Lotsa fear and hysteria here when you use the S word Amway.
The Dems don’t like that label, because it betrays their true colors.
Hardly any of em wear that label proudly.
American Way,
And a “dictator” who just lost an election limiting his powers. Seriously, American Way: you really ought to quit while you’re ahead.
As for “liberals own most of the media in this country,” HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Democracy isn’t capitalism, American Way; another small fact that seems to have eluded you.
Oh, and I didn’t say Chavez “reveres” democracy: I said that his observation of election results that conflict with his interest shows that he reveres it more than does George W. Bush.
Econ101,
Don’t try to play guilt by association: Monkeyhawk and I made very limited, narrow claims. Did Chavez acknowledge the results of the election, or didn’t he? Did he manipulate the results, or didn’t he?
The fact that one can answer “yes” to the first and “no” to the second shows that he respects democracy more than George W. Bush–a lot more.
Guess you didn’t read as far as the part where I called Chavez a “would-be demagogue from South America.” I’d call you an idiot, Econ101, but many idiots show the ability to get to the end of a sentence–which is more than you can say.
Look guys, I’m not making this up. There are literally hundreds of links to Hillary’s socialist agenda. I think you guys are having a real hard time with this.It’s like, well maybe discovering your sexual orientation for the first time. Just face yourself in the mirror and repeat after me, “I’m a socialist”.
Hillary Lays Out Socialist Dream for American Companies
In a recent speech, Hillary Clinton showed her socialist stripes by declaring:The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives and technologies….That’s right. She wants to take the money from a legitimate private business and give it to the government.
As if the government can even compete with the private sector when it comes to research and development…
As if the government has any rights to somone else’s profits! The oil companies, like any other company, is in business to make money. They take those “record” profits (record by dollar amount, not counting inflation) and do a multitude of things with it. Most of it goes back into the company for R&D. A lot of it goes to shareholders (that would be you and your 401k). And the remaining goes to employees.
http://thatsrich.blogspot.com/2007/02/hillary-lays-out-socialist-dream-for.html
Consider her Sept. 28 pitch to a Congressional Black Caucus symposium:
“I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18, if they (sic) have finished high school, they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that down payment on their first home.”
Given roughly 4 million annual births, Clinton’s proposal would cost taxpayers some $20 billion each year.
Now, Clinton has resurrected McGovern’s Vietnam-era brainstorm and retooled it for the ’00s. Today, it’s for — all together now — “the children.” She also inflated McGovern’s concept, almost perfectly. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ online inflation calculator indicates that $1,000 in 1972 now equals $4,974.09. At least concerning “the children,” Clinton is 100.52 percent for McGovern’s promise.
Clinton’s Swedish-style idea lacks affluence testing. Every infant would score a $5,000 baby bond — from East L.A. to East Hampton. Fittingly, Clinton has said: “I am a fan of a lot of the social policies that you find in Europe.”
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/27353
Hillary made a comment in 1995″ It is time we forget about individual rights and start focusing on groups” That is called being a socialist.
http://anamericanwarning.com/community/blogs/hillary/archive/2007/06/01/this-is-a-test-post.aspx
You know I’m not making this up
;-)
And you don’t have to be ashamed of it. Flaunt it!
But just be honest about it. That’s all I’m asking.
GMC70,
Still think the rule of law applies under Kommandant Bush? Here’s a section from the Military Commissions law of 2006, which prima facie seems to strip Habeus Corpus from US ALL by allowing the following definition of ‘enemy combatant’:
`(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”
Look it up: HR6166, Section 950v, 4b (26).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109Sasrc3::
And Econ101 calls CHAVEZ a thug.
I can hear Nathan already: “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you won’t have anything to worry about.”
American Way,
Socialist fantasy detector working overtime, I see. But it’s another artifact of your fantasy to assert that private industry is anywhere NEAR the R & D abilities of the Federal government.
Well, we all know what high esteem George WMD Bush holds for the Constitution, don’t we?
“It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” he said.
Buried under platitudes such as, “…to ensure the preservation of our form of government…” NSPD-51 gives Shrub unilateral and total control over the government; a far different and more expansive policy than any previous president has claimed.
Did you vote for NSPD-51? Was it subject to congressional review? Nope and no. Although I’m no great fan of Hugo Chavez, I’m unconvinced he’s the new Castro. That he submitted his “president for life” amendment to a vote of the people and, for the time being anyway, will abide by that plebicite indicates to me Chavez repects the Venezuelan constitition far more than George WMD Bush respects ours. We’ll see.
Remember when Shrub waxed about how much easier his job would be if he were a dictator? A couple of days later, he signed NSPD-51.
Here’s the irony: If George WMD Bush does *not* invoke NSPD-51 and cancel the 2008 election, the Democrat — and it most certainly will be a Democrat — who is sworn into office on January 20, 2009 could declare her/himself President for Life and it would be the law of the land.
state sanctioned control over peoples life’s = FascismRev Jim, speaking of which:
The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming HysteriaMan-made orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science
The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power.
In an interview with a Czech newspaper, Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic blamed the “whip of political correctness” for preventing more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a bizarre vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash reasoned two-sided debate about global warming by coating their argument with the nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is somehow bigoted, backward and even racist.
The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a far distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate change makes it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak and vulnerable.
In an article we published in November about global warming being primarily caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who express doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust deniers by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand total adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change.
It’s not longer a joke.
The Boston Globe’s Ellen Goodman wrote an op-ed last week denouncing anyone who dares dissent against the God-like authoritative status of the IPCC UN report on climate change.
I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.This assault betrays what’s at the heart of the global warming agenda – a cadre of control freaks who can’t respond to the overwhelming evidence that the Sun and other long term natural cycles are responsible for climate change and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks to sway the court of public opinion.
Fearmongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news coverage and important environmental issues like GM food, mad scientist chimera cloning and the usurpation and abuse of corporations like Monsanto flies under the radar.
Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite tracking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump.
The world is laboring under enforced adherence to a program of mass deception while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the fraud are silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The biased control freaks at the United Nations and their intellectually spayed cheerleaders, whose goal it is to use the hysteria of climate change to impose draconian control measures on society and centralize world power, have declared “case closed” on the man-made origins of global warming. However, their foolish attempts to zealously mute mere expression of an opposing view betray the inherent flaws of their own mantra and will ultimately lead to its downfall.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207globalwarming.htm
I can’t speak to life under Chavez.
Life under bush has been damned miserable though.
Give me some socialism over toady capitalism any day.
CF:
I’ve read the MCA. Thoroughly. And while there are some sections that are somewhat ambiguous (as is inevitable, it seems), the MCA, in my opinion, does NOT do what you claim. The operative phrase is in your quite selective quote: “person subject to this chapter.” Those those persons do not include US citizens.
I suppose reasonable people could disagree; VT and I disagreed about part of the language and what it means. But in my opinion, the statute does not do what you claim.
Further, it is indeed law; operating under it would be rule of law (perhaps unwise law, probably unconstitutional law, if it did what you claim, which it doesn’t, but law nonetheless).
There are good reasons to oppose Bush’s policies. But the idea that the constitution is on the verge of collapse, that there is an imminent coup is tinfoil fantasy, stirred up by the DU/DailyKos nutroots. It’s the liberal equivalent of the “black helicopters” some nuts on the right used to worry about.
If, indeed, same were the case, we’d be in the streets. You’re not there, I notice, so apparantly you don’t even believe it.
And it undercuts your credibility to argue for this kind of silliness, CF.
MH -
Please quote – with citation – the language you claim gives the president the powers you claim. Go ahead, I dare you. I’ve read it. All of it.
Provide a link, too. Go ahead.
It simply does not do what you claim.
Still have that tin hat on, MH?
is anywhere NEAR the R & D abilities of the Federal government.
Posted by: CF2K
Most of the governments R&D is in fact outsourced, to private industry.
“As if the government has any rights to somone else’s profits!”
Posted by amway.
Hahahahaha . . . it’s called, get this, amway, TAXES. Yes, the way government takes profits, and uses them for whatever they want. In bush’s case, a stupid war with some tinpot dictator.
Sorry to waste bandwidth here, but “GMC70″ asked for it.
Those with shorter attention spans can simply Google “NSPD-51 dictator” and get about 3,500 sites that discuss the following, direct from http://www.whitehouse.gov.
Think any of you know a lawyer that might be able to pare NSPD-51 into a dicatorship?
Read for yourself:
May 9, 2007
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
White House News
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
Subject: National Continuity Policy
Purpose
(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes “National Essential Functions,” prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.
Definitions
(2) In this directive:
(a) “Category” refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;
(b) “Catastrophic Emergency” means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
(c) “Continuity of Government,” or “COG,” means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government’s executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;
(d) “Continuity of Operations,” or “COOP,” means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;
(e) “Enduring Constitutional Government,” or “ECG,” means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
(f) “Executive Departments and Agencies” means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;
(g) “Government Functions” means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;
(h) “National Essential Functions,” or “NEFs,” means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and
(i) “Primary Mission Essential Functions,” or “PMEFs,” means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.
Policy
(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.
Implementation Actions
(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.
(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:
(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;
(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;
(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;
(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation’s economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and
(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.
(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.
(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government’s ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President’s lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.
(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.
(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch’s COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.
(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.
(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:
(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;
(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;
(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;
(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;
(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;
(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and
(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.
(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary’s designee.
(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:
(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;
(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and
(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.
(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:
(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;
(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and
(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.
(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:
(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and
(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.
(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;
(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;
(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;
(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 (”National Preparedness”), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;
(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and
(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.
(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation’s continuity of government.
(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.
(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:
(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;
(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;
(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;
(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and
(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities
General Provisions
(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.
(21) This directive:
(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;
(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and
(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 (”Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations”), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.
(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.
(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.
GEORGE W. BUSH
# # #
My good buddy Putin helped me write it!
Monkeyhawk is fear-mongering. He pastes the whole NSPD-51 Act, while ignoring GMC70’s challenge in regard to specific language to back up his earlier inflammatory comments.
Also worthy of note is that he didn’t post any of previous administration’s Continuity of Operations Plans of previous administrations. Why? Because the Bush administration was the first to release their plan language to the public. The text of the other plans, including the Clinton administration’s, is not available. So we don’t know what they contain.
As demonstrated here, innuendo, half-truths, and rumor are the stock debate points of the left.
The specific language is in there, “outlander,” as well as the fuzzy logic (and not-revealed to Congress or anybody.)
“GMC70″ is, apparently, an attorney and capable of reading the specific language even if you’re not, “outlander.”
George WMD Bush came to power in December 2000 on the basis of a 5-4 Supreme Court vote, and we Democrats lived with that decision, even as the SCOTUS specified that decision should not be considered a precident. We Democrats expected even George WMD Bush would preside with an awareness that he was not given a mandate. Silly us.
When Shrub unilaterally dispatched NSPD-51, just what are the American people likely to suspect?
Go back and read NSPD-51. The word “Congress” is nowhere to be seen. Doesn’t that bother you just a little bit?
Thanks to NSPD-51, George WMD Bush and only George WMD Bush has given himself the right to sieze all the power of the government of the United States of America.
Doesn’t that bother you just a little bit?
The “disaster” that would spur envoking NSPD-51 could be another 9/11, or a stock market crash, or a hurricane, or wildfires in California, or the NFC winning the Super Bowl. It’d all be up to Shrub.
Doesn’t that bother you just a little bit, “Nathan?”
Monkey
The 2000 election would have never made it to the Supreme court if the Florida supremes had done their job.The ignored Florida law, mind you they didnt say Florida law was unconstitutional, they just said to hell with it.
MOVE ON.
Monkey
Watching you CF and Capn somehow try to compare the actions of Bush and Chavez is hilarious. Shows everyone just what a bunch of Liberty hating flakes you really are.
GMC70,
My quote was in no way selective. Period. I left nothing out of the passage in question. So I would ask you either to say in what way it was ’selective,’ or to retract your criticism.
Second point: who, GMC70, does this statute apply to, if NOT to U.S. citizens–given the clause regarding the punishability of a “breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States?”
Who has allegiances to the United States, GMC70, other than citizens or naturalized aliens?
Third point: given this Administration’s assertion, in the words of Alberto Gonzales, that the Constitution contains NO right of Habeus Corpus, I think that democracy-loving people are right to be suspicious.
Finally, GMC70, I always find your minimizing of real threats to be puzzling. You talk a good game–’I'll be there in the streets with you if Bush refuses to leave office’–but when it comes to the architecture by which the loss of rights is brought about, you seem curiously unable or unwilling to see it.
Call it a failure of imagination, I suppose. But the fact that the Administration has made no secret of its efforts to surveil Americans, to expand its police powers, and to regularize the use of torture, it seems that we’re well beyond the point where GMC70 could say “show us the money” and no one would be able to do so. Well, when an Attorney General says that there’s no right of Habeus Corpus in the Constitution, and when the CIA has a program of rendition and torture, it’s well past time to cast a jaundiced eye over what appear to be ‘ambiguous’ and ‘innocuous’ laws.
American Way,
Hogwash. Ever heard of this National Science Foundation? Most of its grantees are–wait for it!–public entities: universities. Here’s a sampling:
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/
How’s that “free market” dogma holding up in the face of evidence, AmWay?
Heckler,
Your apologies for Bush show just what a democracy-hating suck-up you are.
Why are Repukes like you, Heckler, so opposed to counting all the votes? And so cool with throwing thousands of elibible black voters off the rolls? Why is that, precisely?
CF
“so opposed to counting all the votes? ”
That statement illustrates a lot of ideological stupidity CF. You can do better.
“Re-count” ALL of the votes is what Florida law called for. The Florida Supremes said to hell with that.
MOVE ON!!!
Hugo Chavez is seen as an authoritarian or a totalitarian communist, militarist and demagogue who has failed to deliver on his promises, violated fundamental rights, meddled in the affairs of other Latin American countries, threatened Venezuela’s economy and democracy, illegally silenced opponents, and destabilized global oil prices.
You’ve got to be kidding me if you agree with his propositions, you do have to be a leftist to support Chavez. And I do agree there is very little to nothing in common with Hilary Clinton… one being their initials.
The irony is that Chavez’s best friend is George Bush. That gives him a nice bogeyman to blame everything on.
Don’t count Chavez out yet. Are you naive to think he won’t do what he has done already to the local media outlets, the oil companies as well as other businesses. Milk, food, work, and other needs have faltered under his socialist rule. Education is non-existent. To think he will walk away is foolish. I suspect he is already looking to see what he needs to do to take over the banks, other businesses, as well as the government.
But if those of you like what Chavez (or even Castro and others) has done in his country so well and don’t like what you believe Bush has done here, why don’t you take your happy whiny butt down that way. I’m sure you can get all the great medical care from Cuban doctors you need as well as everything else you find is good there and wrong with the USA. Don’t let your passport hit you in the backside on your way out.
The Bush administration, like crony capitalists before it, cannot permit socialism to succeed.
That’s why it replaces Allende with a Pinochet in Chile, replaces Moshegedah for the Shah in Iran, declares a secret an illegal war against the Sandinistas, and imposes a ridiculous embargo against Cuba while giving China MFN status.
Chavez, who is showing that natural resources should benefit all the people of the country and not just enriching the already rich, has become a real threat to Coca-Cola capitalism.
So much so that Bush was willing to KILL HIM with a CIA backed coup.
What would we do if Chavez laid plans to have Bush executed?
But when our president wants to do it to a democratically-elected leader of Venezula, uh . . . the patriots of democracy have no problem with that . . .
OK, MH – Let’s see that “scary” language. Point it out. Specifically. What you’ve done is paste the entirity, knowing most will scroll through it, and saying – “it’s in there.”
Where?
I’ve read it. Twice, now (Ok, I scanned VERY quickly the second time). Still don’t see anything which give the president the powers you’ve claimed, to “suspend elections,” etc.
While I don’t remember, and I have no intention of parsing to see if the word “Congress” is in there specifically, in several places the directive specifically speaks to all three branches of gov’t, and policies to ensure their continuity and operation under the constitution. Yea, that’s scary.
You’ll have to be better, MH. MUCH better. At this point, you’re still in nutroot land. Need reinforcements for that tinhat yet? Perhaps stapled to the skull?
CF – we’ve been though this language before, some year or so ago. I’ll stand by what I wrote; the MCA does not, in my opinion, do what you claim. The definition of who applies is “unlawful enemy combatants,” and said definition, in my opinion, excludes the US living here. It MIGHT apply to US citizens participating with AQ; I’d have to read it again to be sure. But I’m confident that the language, as I read it, does not apply as you claim. If you can show me otherwise, go for it.
You’re better than that, CF.
Socialism… What great Socialist Country has there been? What country has done more in less time as a country than the USA? FDR began some of the socialist programs we have now. Johnson created a few more. Has any of them helped eliminate the homeless? The poor? How many different programs does the government run now?
How about Medical Care? How many dozens of different medical programs does the government run now? Do they work?
Do any of them fix the issues you have about our current system? Why does the British and Canadian systems have so many problems finding good doctors? Providing prompt medical care?
The Canadian and British Medical systems are falling apart right now. They can’t find good doctors to take care of patients. They don’t have beds for patients. They change beds every other day and just turn the sheets over to do that.
More often than not, birthing is pushed to be done at home, not in a hospital. Midwives instead of doctors is the norm. Basically medical care is moving back towards the 19th Century, not into the 21st.
We have plenty of oil available in our own country. The only problem the crazy treehug’n econut liberals won’t let us get to any of it. Of course these people would rather the human race be wiped out so the Earth can return to its natural state. Hey, wait, aren’t we part of nature?
And you talk about the Bush Administration being secretive and controlling, you should be happy you weren’t around saying things like this about the government during the FDR days or you would have been picked up in the middle of the night and locked up in a mental institution, never to be seen again. You thought only Stalin did that back then? Wrongo Bucko…
If you were Japanese, you would be shipped to a big camp, after having all of your personal property taken from you. In these camps, the Japanese had less privileges than the Germans being held in camps across the USA as POW’s. Some were allowed to work at farms here in Kansas
Yep, Bush is really such a bad guy… You guys better go get your glass of Kool-aide refilled so you can keep believing in your BS.
FDR began some of the socialist programs we have now. Johnson created a few more. Has any of them helped eliminate the homeless? The poor?
Why, yes, yes, they have, shitsme.
Before Social Security, about 40 percent of the elderly lived below the poverty line. Thanks to SS, it is now less than ten percent. If SS were eliminated, 40 percent of our nation’s elderly would live below the poverty line, same as before.
Also, shitsme, check your facts. The British and Canadian systems aren’t having any more problems finding doctors than we are.
So many Americans believe they live in the “greatest country in the world” simply because they’ve never gone anywhere else.
Also, which one of the CONs will step forward and condemn Bush for plotting to KILL Chavez?
. . . crickets . . .
Capn
I need a little help here. What’s the difference between “crony Capitalism” and just plain Capitalism?
I wish JR was here, he could set me straight.
Capn
And who’s word do we have that Bush tried to have Chavez assasinated?
Chavez’?
Crony capitalism is what keeps happy little serfs like you under the boss’s desk there Heckler. Toady.
Let’s get yitsme busy.
Go find some source for:
“We have plenty of oil available in our own country.”
I mean besides something you pull outta your butt.
J R judges the world leaders?
WELL Chavez aint never done nothing to me. I’ll given what bush has done, an election HERE between bush and Chavez is a toss up.
JR
The boss gets under MY desk, trying to get me to work more overtime. Is that Crony Capitalism as well?
JR
“We have plenty of oil available in our own country.”
Don’t know who that’s directed at but….
You ever seen the estimates of how much oil is locked up in shale in the western states?
JR
You ever seen how much coal we have?
You do know that that can be converted directly to natural gas or diesel fuel don’t you?
Heckler
I doubt your boss sees it that way. Him being the boss.
Shale is not economically viable. What I saw of the western states I’d hate to see them tore up and polluted to save a dying, antiquated technology.
If shale were an answer, you may rest assured the oil barons would be doing it, ESPECIALLY with oil bush and oil cheney in office.
Coal gasification. Even WICHITAN’S were smart enough not to go for that. They wanted to build a plant for it here in the 70’s. People wisely said no.
For all the jokes, etc., about Chavez, it would be a good thing to remember he wanted to become dictator of his country, executions to follow. He’s nothing but another in a long line of power freaks who want nothing less than total control. I doubt it’s over in his country.
There’s nothing good to say about him. He would have destroyed the infrastructure of the country and turned it into a little Cuba. To tag along with that is ludicrous.
The Bush Administration shocked lawmakers and analysts two months ago when it denied a member of the House Homeland Security Committee permission to examine classified plans for maintaining the functioning of the government in the event of a major natural disaster or terrorist attack.http://www.newstarget.com/022170.html
So we’ve seen the part of NSPD-51 they want us to see. What about the rest?
Oh My cap’n america. You have resulted in the typical liberal name calling mode because I dared to point something out to you.
Have you been to England or Canada? Do you have relatives or friends there telling you about their systems? Why is it people come to America for their medical care vs going to Cuba or Venezuela or to Canada or England?
Maybe you should take time to read something other than the postings you make in the BLOG and learn something. Pull up some Brit and Canadian newspapers and read about their NHS, but of course, you will blame George W. Bush for those problems too, right?
Oh well, just like a little boy in grade school, someone points out something to you and you don’t like it so you must play a bully and call people names while you rant and rave since you are not capable of carrying on an adult conversation.
BTW, I think I hear your mommy calling you… Better get home, its past your supper time.
GMC70,
You seen this? The U.S. government is claiming the right to KIDNAP British citizens who are wanted for crimes committed in the United States; yes, kidnap.
“AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.
A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.
The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.
Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.
The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982640.ece
Given this precedent, GMC70, you’ll understand why I’m skeptical that the law that I referenced above is limited to “alien enemy combatants.” Considering that this Administration always errs on the side of expanding its powers, it seems silly, to me, to insist on the most narrow and limited reading of what the above statute says.
Not that it really matters all that much what the law says: the Administration will just ignore it, append a signing statement, or develop some secret rule to legitimate its conduct that will be hidden from Congressional or public view.
Heckler,
Get your history right: it was the SUPREME COURT that stopped the Florida recount. By doing so, they de facto refused to allow the disputed ballots to be counted.
I like Chavez. I think he is one of the best leaders in that part of the world. He cares about all people and not just the rich (which of course is bad news for the USA always). But I also agree that he should not be President for life. Neither should Bushs or Clintons.
Kev:
Don’t kid yourself. Chavez cares about Chavez. Period. Caring about his ‘people’ is a means to and end.
So, CF, what you are saying is that your claimed powers are not in the law, but you don’t believe it, and think the Administration will act anyway.
I suspect your fears are overblown (more BDS than anything else), but at least that’s a start.
GMC’s cynicism about all leaders continues unabated. “There are no principles. The political parties only care about winning. It doesn’t matter who the president is because he only cares about himself.”
Should we assume, GMC, that you only care about yourself?
Bush and Putin and Castro should all just trade countries every four years: one’s as bad as the next!
Capn:
1) You put quotes (” “) around my ’statements;’ I assume you can find actual quotes to support same???
2) Has Chavez done anything to indicate otherwise?
3) Am I cynical? Perhaps, but I prefer the term “realistic.”
Chavez only cares about himself?
Funny, he doesn’t govern like a Republican. That IS the hallmark of American conservatives, self interest and to hell with everyone else.
JR – That’s that hallmark of politicians, of every stripe. What matters is getting elected. Period. Policy is a means to an end.
As long as they serve their constituents GMC, that does not trouble me.
Deal is? I aint a Republican constituent.
Funny how the neo-cons hate Chavez but they are the ones propping up Chavez. The failed coup by the Bush regime and the oil industry made Chavez more popular. Also, with the Bush regime helping jack up the oil prices Chavez is able to finance his populist spending. Because the world hates Bush so much Chavez just has to advertise how much he hates Bush and stood up to him and he gets another re-election.
Clap yourselves on the back neo-cons, Chavez couldn’t be here without your support.
Hehehe, good one, Doug.
Yitspee says
Have you been to England or Canada? Do you have relatives or friends there telling you about their systems? Why is it people come to America for their medical care vs going to Cuba or Venezuela or to Canada or England?
Why yes, I have been to England, twice, and Canada many times.
My relative in British Columbia says that the Canada system has its problems but compared to the US, “Canada is better, of course.”
Ditto in England.
As for the doctor shortage, there’re actually MORE doctors per 1000 of population THERE than here.
Also, friedmee, you ask why so many people come here for medical care?
Apparently you haven’t been paying attention to the phenomenon called “medical tourism.”
This realization is now hitting the general public as well, and they are increasingly leaving this country to find offshore locations and assess quality medical care and surgical procedures elsewhere. This phenomenon is called “medical tourism.”
In medical tourism, patients who might normally undergo some sort of medical procedure in the United States, usually a costly surgical procedure, instead fly to the Philippines, Thailand or other countries to have the procedures done there.
As a result, they save an enormous amount of money. Offshore medical procedures can be performed for as little as one-tenth the cost of what would normally be charged here in the United States. And yet the facilities offshore are state of the art. These are modern hospitals that often are newer and have much better technology and equipment than hospitals in the United States. They are typically staffed by Western doctors and surgeons trained in Western medicine, and they provide equal or greater quality surgical care than U.S. hospitals. These surgical procedures are performed with the same technology and expertise, yet cost a fraction of the price.
For example, a knee replacement surgery in a high-tech hospital in the Philippines performed by Western trained surgeons might only cost you $6,000. Here in the United States you’re probably looking at $50,000. Heart bypass surgery in Asia costs around $10,000. In the US, it’s $60,000 to $80,000. Gastric bypass surgery in the U.S. can cost $10,000 to $20,000. Overseas it can be done for well under $5,000.
http://www.newstarget.com/007097.html
Oh, yeah.
Argentina and Costa Rica are two popular destinations for Americans who don’t want to fight the jet lag.
All the cons were bashing Chavez last week saying he was going to steal the election. And, as close as it was, he could have stole it but he respected democracy and accepted the results.
MH -
Still waiting. Specific language that authorizes what you say? Cited to a specific section?
Hurry – the scary music guy is getting tired . . .
Anyone supporting Chavez happen to look up his specific accomplishments as President?
Say the murder rate maybe?
Or the employment rate?
Or the inflation rate?
How about Civil Rights and Freedom, what’s been the impact on that?
Or maybe individual rights and freedom are not important.
kev
“but he respected democracy”.
Was he “respecting democracy” when he took over all the radio and tv stations?
Was he “respecting democracy” when he stole all of the oil field infrastructure from the people who built it and “nationalized” it?
Was he “respecting democracy” when he tried to take over all of the banks?
Skrog!!
“GMC70″ –
Consider provision 2E of the directive:
“Enduring Constitutional Government,” or “ECG,” means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency. (Italics mine.)
Do you see those five weasel words “as a matter of comity”? Just what elements of the legislative and judicial branches will be allowed to participate in “executing constitutional responsibilities” and “providing for orderly succession [and] appropriate transfer of leadership”?
In other words, who gets to call the shots? What does comity mean in this context? Informally, it means good-natured, good-faith camaraderie. In its jurisprudential sense, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “the principle by which the courts of one jurisdiction may accede or give effect to the laws or decisions of another.”
In other words, in the weasel-speak of NSPD-51, it implies that one or more branches of the government will have to cede power to another. And since everything is to be “coordinated by the president,” I’m guessing that the members of the Supreme Court left alive and some congressional leaders left alive (How chosen? What party balance?) will in effect have to sit around a big conference table and do a lot of “ceding” to the executive.
And given the current state of relations between Congress and the executive, such comity will not necessarily translate into camaraderie.
If it comes down to whether to pull the nuclear trigger, who will get to vote, and how large a majority will be required to launch?
Comity—that innocent-sounding word—could well turn out to be the excuse for junking those pesky checks and balances the Founding Fathers seemed so obsessed with. For an indeterminate period of time.
The document is also hazy on when our new continuity policies will be set in motion. The directive tells us that they’ll kick in whenever the nation faces a “catastrophic emergency.” But look how vaguely “catastrophic emergency” is first defined:
“Catastrophic Emergency” means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.
These are profoundly, potentially calamitously, broad terms. Who defines what is extraordinary? Who defines how severe severely is? Is there any procedure to challenge the junking of constitutional government?
Worse, “catastrophic emergency”—woefully vague to start out with—is later expanded to include even “localized acts of nature and accidents” as well as “technological or attack-related” emergencies.
In other words, even if you don’t believe the most sinister paranoid coup theories, the document does nothing to allay one’s fears that it could be used in a sinister way.
“Catastrophic Emergency” means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.
These are profoundly, potentially calamitously, broad terms. Who defines what is extraordinary? Who defines how severe severely is? Is there any procedure to challenge the junking of constitutional government?Posted by: MonkeyHawk | December 04, 2007 at 10:16 AM
You can’t list every possible scenario and give a detailed definition of every situation that would be a “Catastrophic Emergency”.
If Washington DC was nuked, or hit by poison gas, or chemical weapons by terrorists while Congress was in session, the President and VP were in DC, and the Supreme Court was in session, there might be a limited number of survivors to continue government.
Whether it is GW Bush or HR Clinton in office, we need a plan to continue the government if there is such an attack on America.
If Bush had evil intentions, why would he make such a directive public?
Any President in the event of a national emergency could go out of control, whether there is a Presidential Directive beforehand or not.
As long as we have a 2nd Amendment, we have at least one check on some Mad President who is attempting to follow the example of Chavez.
GMC had it right before, if you really think Bush is trying to become a permanent Dictator of America, you should be DOING something (Other then blogging)about it now.
Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke and crying the sky is falling.
That’s interesting, MH -
You single out the word “comity,” which you acknowledge means “good-natured, good-faith camaraderie. In its jurisprudential sense, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “the principle by which the courts of one jurisdiction may accede or give effect to the laws or decisions of another.”" -Your words.
You proceed to ignore the substance, however. This is from the quote you chose:
“. . . as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency.”
To paraphrase, you left out that, as a matter of good-natured camaraderie, and with due respect to the jurisdictions and respective powers of the three separate brances, it will be the policy of the executive to make sure the constitutional framework is maintained, with all three branches intact in their respective spheres, and to ensure orderly succession and transition of power.
Yea, that’s scary stuff, MH. We wouldn’t want to, like, try to preserve constitutional government or anything, huh?
You in fact indicated exactly what you are doing: in your own words, you’re “guessing.” (your 4th para. – see, I can cite to you, too). Guessing, AKA ‘making sh** up.’ Well, that makes me feel better. I wouldn’t want you to stay up late actually thinking or anything.
You also seem upset by the broad definition of “catastrophic emergency.” I suppose you expect policymakers to be, like apparantly you are, clairvoyant, and specify exactly which emergencies qualify. If there’s a genuine catastrophic emergency, and it isn’t on your clairvoyantly supplied list, would it count?
Moreover, it seems you claim that in this declaration of catastrophic emergency, if it fits your precise definition, there should be procedures to “challenge the junking of constitutional government?
Huh? Didn’t what you just quoted indicate the policy was to “. . . preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities . . .” ?Where is this “junking of constitutional government” of which you speak?
You specifically wrote that the policy gives the president the authority to “declare an emergency at any time he deems fit and to cancel elections, suspend the constitution, or launch a nuclear attack.” – your 2:09 post. Funny, I don’t see a thing about suspending any elections, suspending any constitution, or using any nukes in your quote. Nor are they in the entire directive you so thoughtfully posted previously (links work too, ya know).
Further, you wrote that the declaration was, in effect, at the whim of the president. Uh well, not really, just in case of a “catastrophic emergency,” as defined in the policy. You even thoughfully provided the definition: “. . . any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t sound to me like that qualifies as “anytime the president deems fit.” Again, your words. While we might quibble a bit over whether particular scenario X or Y fits the definition, it seems to me that same would be in the case of a truly calamatous event, substantially more than Katrina, or even a half-dozen Katrinas. Hardly whenever the president, on a whim, decides to just give it a go.
Scaaaary music boys, you can rest now. False alarm.Utimately, MH, it boils down to this:Either you’re talking out of your ass, making it up, or you’re deeply paranoid. If the latter, trust me: The nice man in the white coat just wants to help you, MH, I promise. We have shiny new tin for you to wear too; just go peacefully.
Perhaps while you are in treatment, you can actually learn to read and understand English. Because it’s apparant that you don’t understand it now.
“”"kev
“but he respected democracy”.
Was he “respecting democracy” when he took over all the radio and tv stations?
Was he “respecting democracy” when he stole all of the oil field infrastructure from the people who built it and “nationalized” it?
Was he “respecting democracy” when he tried to take over all of the banks?”"”
Absolutely he was. He was elected to reform the class system in that country. The TV and radio stations were all owned and controlled by right wing moguls (much like ours are) who constantly lied and refused to air both sides of issues. The oil in most countries is natioanlaized. The Saudis and others nationalized oil decades ago. Chavez is just catching up. Oil should benefit everybody- not just Exxon.
Kev -
Riiiiight. Any means to a “justified” end, I guess.
Remember, Chavez cares about one thing – Chavez.
Why some of you have such a fascination with socialism, I don’t understand. It has failed, everywhere it has been tried. And in every case, the more socialism, the more totalitarianistic tendancies. But that would fit many on the left, who know better than anyone else (or so they believe).
Scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian. Never fails.
Scratch a conservative apologist.
Find a feudalist.
I don’t like that lawyers write our laws so that only lawyers can keep gainful employment interpreting them.
In YOU GMC? When I see a lawyer telling me “Don’t worry!”
I worry more. The fact that you are a prosecutor only adds to that.
Hitler came to power totally within the law. While folks like GMC said, don’t worry.
ROFLMAO X2!!! Actually, I truly chuckled when I read that.
That’s a Godwin tally, JR. Credibility ended.
I frankly doubt if you understand feudalism, let alone Hitler’s unique brand of fascism; you’ve demonstrated you actually understand little here.
Do you have anything of substance to add, or are you going to just recite the approved slogan?
As usual.
I don’t seek reflection in your eyes GMC.
I wouldn’t want to get in the way of your mirror.
I’m not credible to a self important windbag who when confronted takes his marbles and goes home?
WOE is me.
Oh look
He took his marbles and went home
Again.
Goes home? Haven’t gone anywhere. Still here, in case you haven’t noticed.
But you don’t notice much, do you. Substance is not your strong suit.
Maybe I’m too harsh. I gave MH a point by point beating above. (2:00) Care to respond, point by point? Or is that something only those dreaded “lawyers” can do? (I’ll tell you a secret, JR. Lawyers ain’t so special, when it comes down to it – right, VT? It’s just the King’s English.)
As to self-importance, you are the king in that arena. Remember? How you told us all to watch out, that you were “baaack?” How you reminded us that you were here in the beginning, with loyal readers? So you’re right in that respect; you don’t need me to puff you up.
You’ve got yourself for that. You and Stuart Smally.
March on little tin soldier.
I note for our readers how you’ve evolved. It aint your
law books or your fellow knuckle draggers did that.
LMAO X2
kansasfarmgrrl taught you
well.
Play at the language GMC. You don’t really understand or want to understand anything bigger than yourself.
Because to you nothing is bigger than yourself.
What’sa matter, JR?
Long on whining, short on substance? Or just peaved that a darn old conservative can beat you at your own snarky game?
I’d much rather discuss substance, but you don’t deal in that. So snark will have to do.
Still want to take on that point by point refutation? MH “took his marbles,” as you put it – he knows when to quit digging.
You don’t.
Kansas mentioned something earlier today about JR having dug his hole and eating his shovel.
I think he’s stuck.
Aint me whining GMC.
“That’s a Godwin tally, JR. Credibility ended.”
YOU said it.
So? Why are you plaintively begging my attention? Since I’ve no credibility and all.
I should think my posts unworthy of your pompousity.
Yeah max.
“kansas” also threatened to shoot me and people on Kellogg whose driving he does not like.
Lay down with “kansas” Max?
Sheeesh you don’t know what you might wake up with.
“GMC70″ –
No wonder criminals in Butler County think they can murder an 18-year-old internet porn star with impunity. Look who’s gonna prosecute them.
I didn’t see any reason to respond to your earlier post because it was so obviously lame. “Shrub didn’t *say* he’d trash the Constitution, so of course he won’t!” was the gist of your response.
Other posterss handed you your lunch effectively. Even has George WMD Bush was claiming that his lies regarding the so-called nuclear threat of Iran, having been revealed, won’t change his aggressive NeoCon Middle East policies.
Someone asked what you, “GMC70,” will do after Shrub leaves office. I figure you’ll spend your time in a public restroom in Crawford, Texas, tapping your foot in hopes of gratification.
The last thing George WMD Bush got right was pardoning the turkeys…in 2002. (All those other turkeys since then looked guilty to me.)
Tuesday’s NIE was a desperate — perhaps last ditch — effort to prevent Cheney/Bush from digging themselves deeper into their Middle East quagmire. America has been watching these rats for seven years and we know what’s likely if they’re forced into the corner they’ve painted themselves into.
If you can’t read (and apparently you can’t) NSPD-51 and understand how the legalese (not counting the unreleased, even to Congress, paragraphs) allows a crafty lawyer to rationalize and justify a concentration of governmental power into the Oval Office, you’re not much of a lawyer, “GMC70.”
You’re qualified to be Alberto Gonzalez’ successor.
And not much more.
Shrub got his first term in office by a 5-4 judicial coup in December, 2000. NSPD-51 establishes the legalese to get him a third term.
You know that. You went to law school. If you don’t know that, you’re either an incompetent lawyer or simply a partisan fool.
I’d like to think you’re not a fool.
But that’s not all due to the evidence at hand.
“Why some of you have such a fascination with socialism, I don’t understand. It has failed, everywhere it has been tried.”
Well, I guess it depends on how one defines socialism.
Social security was a magnificent success, reducing poverty among the elderly from 40 percent to less than 10.
Western Europe continually out-scores the US in standard of living measures, and it’s much more socialistic.
And not only that, currency valuations are showing that their well-mixed economy seems stronger than our welfare-for-the-rich capitalism we “enjoy” here.
Well I was late to this fight GMC.
I’m sorry my late arrival could not afford you redeem.
Well no actually, I’m not.
Ya got your balls handed to ya GMC.
Take ‘em and live to whine another day.
NH -
Wow. That’s what you’ve got? A confused diatribe of mishmash, the same tired accusations, the same usual suspects? All because I’ve demonstrated, point by point, that the directive didn’t say what you say it said?
BTW – would you like to name those other posters who’ve “handed me my ass?” (chuckle) On this thread?(chuckle) I want to thank them (chuckle) for a job well, oh, well, gosh, not done at all. In fact, when it comes to the subject, they’ve abandoned the field.
You’re all there is.
C’mon, MH, you can do better. You say it’s easy for a “crafty lawyer” to get a 3rd term for Bush, let’s see you do it. Give it your best shot.
You can’t, of course.
You’re talking out of your ass, tin firmly stapled over your skull. You’ve been exposed, point by pathetic point, so you rant on about disconnected irrelevencies to the subject at hand.
When you’ve been handed YOUR ass, MH, it’s polite to just say thank you sir, and move on.
You’re welcome.
Now run along. Come back and bother me when you’ve got substance to offer.
Next!!! Now serving number – oh, I forget which number, let’s call it 42.
Oh, go away, JR. You picked this fight. You lost. Go away.
There’s always tomorrow to try again. I’m gonna be busy tomorrow, so you may have a chance. Good luck.
and nighty-nite.
;-)
Melt down some more GMC.
VOW to leave this “liberal circle jerk” as you have called this forum many times before.
Monkeyhawk stuck a pin in you and you popped like the balloon of goo you are.
GMC never loses.
He’s like Bush that way.
When everything he says is proven wrong, he just moves the goal posts.
“No WMD’s . . . well, they could have had WMD’s . . . and why do you love Saddam?”
So far, we haven’t seen anything that BushCo had the shame NOT TO DO.
But rest assured, GMC has read a document that gives the executive vast powers that we haven’t needed in 231 years, but he wouldn’t DARE use them . . .
Yeah, right.
Oh, go away, JR. You picked this fight. You lost. Go away.
Is this your tactic in court?
Damn I shoulda been a defense attorney.
Apparently MonkeyHawk and his loyal follower of arm flailing chimps think that far left cheese-eating masticating is the same as intellectual discourse.
Nothing left but the stains on their teeth.
GMC 1MH and Followers 0
“The Constitution is just a GD piece of paper..”
Worse president and administration ever –
Capn-
I’ve taken MH apart, I guess you’re stepping up to be number 43.There’s the language, MH thoughtfully wasted bandwidth at 3:50. You’ve cited to the document, I presume you mean the directive MH is referring to. So go for it. Use the language of the directive and show us your dazzling skills at teasing from the language what you assert gives the executive “vast powers.”
So prove me wrong. Go ahead.
You’ll excuse me, however, if I sleep comfortably tonight . . .
Nighty-nite. And good luck, Capn. You’ll need it.
Wow.
GMC has Kansas keeping score for him and cheering him on.
That must make you so proud . . .
Hehehe, you know what’s really funny?
Whatever special powers Bush signs into law, President Hillary is going to be able to use . . .
GMC has gone to bed twice now.
He does that. Goes away and then comes back.
Today GMC earned himself a fan in “kansas”
Now? GMC will be seen in the same camp as “kansas” and also econ.
The stooges three.
Ah, geez, “GMC70″ –
You really ought to skulk away from this particular thread. Really. It’s doing nothing for you and you’re getting you ass handed to you by a bunch of anonymous blog-contributors.
Run away. Come back some day. Change your nym. Or just give up.
Nothing’s gonna help ya. Just try to cut your losses.
You’ve been reduced — with several posters in this forum — to desperately declare victory and attempt to tell peopoe to run away.
And most of us probably will retire from the field for no other reason than you’re a pathetic advocate of your political agenda and not worth bothering; or you’re a political lackey and can aspire to nothing more; or you’re simply not worth the bother.
You’ll continue to be defeated, refuted, and topped and you’ll assume there’s a pony in there somewhere and keep swimming in horses#it of your own creation.
From your first “tin hat” reference, you established you have nothing unless you can throw out ad hominems.
As you have — literally — counted the hours ’til I responded to you, you’ve demonstarted your political priorities. Isn’t there, you know, a *murder* case in your jurisdiction right now that might be a tad more important just now?
Or are you such a Republic Party partisan you’re less than eager to step up and represent the interests of a slain slutty 18-year-old?
MonkeyHawk writes paragraphs saying absolutely nothing more than anyone I’ve ever seen.
But you read ‘em, “Kansas” –
And never have anything to refute them, do you?
Mostly you complain, “Kansas,” that I post thread too long for you to read.
I guess, as you attempt to read them, your lips get tired.
This’ll be short; I’ve got other demands today. But . . .
This is it?
MH cited a specific document, and made specific claims about. He’s been proven wrong, point by point. So apparantly the e-mail went out to his buddies, JR and the Capn, to bail his butt out. The calvary arrived, and brought . . . nothing.
In fact, they’ve raised just about every little subject, every petty ad hominem EXCEPT NSPD-51, the document at issue. Don’t believe me? Look for yourself.
The refutation of MH’s tinhat nonsense, complete with specific quotations, is at 2:00 yesterday. Since then, the response has been -
‘yea, but Bush is the worst president ever.” Yea, I’ve heard that. Over and over again. But where’s the response to the subject, NSPD-51? Oh, there’s none.
‘Yea, but now you’re in with Kansas and Econ.’ OK, while they’ve weighed in, I’m responsible for my writing, not anyone else. Where’s the response about NSPD-51?
Zero. Zilch. Nada. Empty space.
The noise is pointless.That relevent silence says it all.
Once again – you’re welcome. Now I’ve got things to do.