Tuesday, May 22, 2007

"National Continuity Policy" signed by Bush on May 9, 2007

The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.

"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;

This is very broad, and is not limited by location. A war in the Middle East causing very high oil prices might be sufficient, as would a hurricane such as Katrina, or a 9/11 type event.

When such an event occurs, this directive says that the President can "coordinate" the three branches of government.

"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President . . ."

"Continuity of Government" plans have been around for years, and I don't know how this latest directive compares.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan

I do know that post-9/11, a false-flag emergency is a serious prospect. I also know that Bush has already asserted excessive power, and has joked about being a dictator.

Zbigniew Brzezinski might agree that a false-flag operation is a serious prospect:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/zbigniew-brzezinski-warns-senate-of.html
Christian Liberation Front: "Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency"

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=2169

Ron Paul: "'Continuity of Government' - A Threat to the Constitution"

http://www.conservativeusa.org/cog-ronpaul.htm


Mathew Rothschild: "Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency"

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22710


More information:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidential_Directive

3 comments:

Spooked said...

I feel so powerless over this sort of thing. If they are going to do it, what can we do? Except maybe stock up on guns? But I don't really want guns in my house.

Ningen said...

Guns won't work. Their guns are bigger. I don't believe in violence anyway. All I can hope is that the military and law enforcement would not accept the trashing of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold, and would not fire on unarmed civilians that are peacefully protesting.

Anonymous said...

guns in the home...
guns in your home might be effective in deterring a starving mob from taking your last morsel of food - or your wife and daughter - but aside from that they have no function in the society of tomorrow.
feel free to quote me on that.
^ha.