' In response to the power of FEMA thread....
From:
jddawson@aol.com (JDDawson)
zo 0:57
Subject:
In response to the power of FEMA thread....
Thought I'd save everyone the trouble of going to the referenced site....
FEMA doth protest
Most Americans pooh-pooh the concept of a non-elected government agency
controlling our lives as so much right wing paranoid fantasy. Such a shadow
alliance belongs to the venue of movies like "The X-Files", "Conspiracy
Theory", or adult comic books. Most Americans are wrong.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is, and has been a non-elected
government entity designed, structured, and positioned to become the government
if, or when the sufficient "national emergency" flicks the switch.
"FEMA allows the White House to suspend constitutional government upon
declaration of a national emergency. It allows creation of a non-elected
government. Think about that, Agent Mulder, "someone says in the movie
"X-Files". In response to the movie fiction, FEMA officials replied "FEMA does
not have, never has had, nor will ever seek, the authority to suspend the
Constitution." Big fibber! Some people just hate to be confused with facts
which contradict their preconceived opinion ... or facts which dramatically
contradict their disingenuous, duplicitous lies. Before, I list a chronology of
facts, please note that the recent Presidential Decision Directive #63 (which
addresses critical infrastructure protection) very clearly and specifically
assigns FEMA the task of "continuity of government" services. Legislative,
judicial branches, state and local governments are conspicuous by their absence
in PDD #63. Trick or Treat!
FEMA has been quoted in the Washington Post this year as saying "FEMA does not
have, never has had, nor will ever seek, the authority to suspend the
Constitution." Louis Giuffrida, before he became Director of FEMA in the early
80s wrote a paper for the Army War College in which he proposed "assembly
centers or relocation camps" for at least 21 million black Americans.
In 1968 and 1972, then Governor Ronald Reagan conducted a series of war games
in California called "Cable Splicer". It was a field training exercise that was
supposed to model civil disturbance scenario to deal with anti-war protesters
or racial dissenters. In fact, it was a rehearsal for marital law.
Frank Carlucci wrote in a 1981 NSC directive, "Normally a state of martial law
will be proclaimed by the President. However, in the absence of such action by
the President, a senior military commander may impose martial law in an area of
his command where there had been a complete breakdown in the exercise of
government functions by local civilian authorities." FEMA director Giuffrida
received a memo which basically suggested Americans would rather be taken over
by FEMA than by the military. "Over the long term, the peacetime action
programs of FEMA and other departments and agencies have the effect of making
the conceivable need for military takeover less and less as times goes by. A
fully implemented civil defense program may not now be regarded as a substitute
for martial law, nor could it be so marketed, but if successful in its
execution it could have that effect."
July 1983 The San Francisco Examiner's Knut Royce reported about a presidential
directive that had been drafted by folks in the Carter administration to allow
the military to take control of the government for 90 days in the event of an
emergency. The page one caveat noted "Keeping the government functioning after
a nuclear war is a secret, costly project that detractors claim jeopardizes US
traditions and saves a privileged few." Even then, there was reportedly heated
debate within the Carter administration as to exactly what did or didn't
constitute an "emergency".
August 1984 Attorney General William French sent a reality check letter to NSC
Chairman Robert McFarlane in which he wrote: "I believe that the role assigned
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the revised Executive Order
exceeds its proper function as a coordinating agency for emergency preparedness
... This department and others have repeatedly raised serious policy and legal
objections to the creation of an 'emergency' czar' role for FEMA."
July 1987 The Miami Herald ran a story by Alfonzo Chardy which revealed Oliver
North's involvement in plans for FEMA to take over federal, state and local
functions during an ill-defined national emergency. The plan reportedly called
for suspending the Constitution, turning control of government over to FEMA,
emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments
and a declaration of martial law.
Last time I checked, the Constitution enumerates powers to the federal
government, and anything not clearly delineated, (see the 10th Amendment)
reverts to the states and "we the people". In fact, if or when Washington D.C.
vanished into the ether, the 50 state governors would function in concert as a
confederation unless or until some federal mechanism were to be established.
Eight years ago in a November 18, 1991 story the New York Times peeled more
leaves off the onion. "Acting outside the Constitution in the early 1980's, a
secret federal agency established a line of succession tot the presidency to
assure continued government in the event of a devastating nuclear attack." The
program was called "Continuity of Government" and its authors apparently never
got around to reading the Constitution. The Fund for Constitutional Government
wrote in a report "succession or succession-by-designation would be implemented
by unknown and perhaps unelected persons who would pick three potential
successor presidents in advance of an emergency. These potential successors to
the Oval Office may not be elected, and they are not confirmed by Congress."
Gosh, I thought the Constitution in Article Two, section 6 covered succession,
and that United States Code Annotated, Title 3, Section 19 filled in any gaps.
The nebulous "national emergency" was not limited to nuclear attack: "Any
occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other
emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security
of the United States." Included in the arbitrary, and potentially capricious
justifications for martial law were "national opposition to a US military
invasion abroad" and widespread internal dissent (think about Y2K).
Clif Droke wrote an article July 16th of this year in which he noted "On 16
June 1998, the Navy and Marine Corps were conducting their annual strategy
meeting entitled "Current Strategy Forum". This year's meeting was held at the
U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. A source who was in attendance
at the meeting reported that he was shocked by a sentence uttered by the Under
Secretary of the Navy, if only for its remarkable candor. "After I read the
following quote I called personal friends of mine in Rhode Island, and people I
know at the War College in Newport. Four sources confirmed the following. "U.S.
Under Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Jerry MacArthur, then began to
answer questions. Mr. MacArthur made this statement, apparently off the cuff:
'Senior Military Pentagon officials have been working closely with senior
officials at Wall Street to perfect several scenarios that could quickly be put
into action once Wall Street crashes.'"
Think about that, Agent Mulder.
My response follows.........JD |
