FEMA - The Dark Under-bellygreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
http://www.shamrockbay.com/~hexnet/library/genres/graham/art-fema.htmI wish I knew how to insert a [hot?] link here, but I am still new to this.
This was written by Bob Worn
I just glanced at this, but it looked disturbing. Has anyone else read it? After lurking around here, as you call it, I find myself interested in what your opinions are regarding this.
Perhaps, if there is an earlier thread concerning this, someone would be kind eniough to point me to it?
Thanks
J
-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), April 18, 1999
Just another conspiracy B.S . Use your time to resarch " real" stuff to be concerned about.
-- guess (mumbojumbo@crap.org), April 18, 1999.
I agree.We really have no business researching, or even thinking about, such things. It's unpatriotic, and anti-government. You don't want to be thought of as anti-government, do you?
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Just don't worry your little head about it.
Dano
-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf.), April 18, 1999.
You mean no one cares that we are that close to having FEMA round up all the blacks and hispanics in the population and putting them in 'concentration camps' without trial as protection for national security? Not to mention those that speak out against the government before/after this SHTF? Or that the Constitution could be thrown out for a minimum of 6 months before Congress can do anything?Quote from article:
Even Congress cannot review a Martial Law action until six months after it has been declared.
Or are you saying this is all fabrication? Including all the executive orders that are listed there?
-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), April 18, 1999.
J,I've been studying Executive Orders on an amateur basis for quite a while. For the past couple of years, I've seen the same erroneous claims and warnings about certain EOs posted over and over and over and over by people who either don't bother checking whether what they're copying is accurate, or don't mind knowingly deceiving their readers.
Innocent ignorance is not a deadly sin; it can be cured by education. So here are some pointers to information about EOs.
All EOs must be published in the Federal Register, available in most major libraries and online at Federal Register at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/index.html
It is important to check the current legal status of any Executive Order you're investigating, because Presidents frequently amend or revoke EOs issued by earlier Presidents or themselves. Many of the articles making scary claims about EOs list ones that were revoked more than two decades ago and thus are no longer in effect in any way, shape, or form (see below). You can check the legal status of an EO issued by Kennedy or any more recent President (i.e., EOs numbered 10914 or higher, issued January 21, 1961 or later) at Federal Register - List of Executive Orders at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/eo.html
When I read the "FEMA - The Dark Under-belly" article, the first thing that struck me is that it copies the same erroneous list of long-ago-revoked EOs as so many other recent anti-government or Clinton-attacking articles do recently. The first two it mentions, EO 12148 and 12656, though amended, are still partly in force, but the article's prominent uppercase-emphasized list of EOs 10990, 10995, 10997-10998, 11000-11005, 11051, 11310 and 11490 is just hogwash because every one of those EOs has been entirely superceded or revoked since it was issued. If you doubt me, you can doublecheck that assertion for yourself either at the link given above, or at a library (ask in the reference department).
I disagree with the article's statements about "dictatorship" regarding EO 12148. Consider this: if the article's author is trustworthy in his assessment of EO 12148, why does he list thirteen completely-out-of-date EOs (and he could have checked their status in just a couple of minutes at the site I listed above had he really been concerned about factual accuracy) so prominently and treat them as though they were all still waiting to be activated?
I suggest that it is because he, like so many others, does not really care whether what he writes is true. He just wants to make a lot of other people believe what he writes, knowing that very few of them will bother to check the truthfulness of what he says.
Reader, beware.
>You mean no one cares that we are that close to having FEMA round up all the blacks and hispanics in the population and putting them in 'concentration camps' without trial as protection for national security?
I would care, IF there were credible evidence of it. But there's not. I see those stories over and over and over, and it takes only a few minutes of investigation to demonstrate that they are fabricated on a foundation of lies.
>Or that the Constitution could be thrown out for a minimum of 6 months before Congress can do anything?
That is simply F-A-L-S-E. It is a L-I-E. If you'll show me the source of that statement, I can help you track down the evidence to demonstrate that it is false.
>Even Congress cannot review a Martial Law action until six months after it has been declared.
F-A-L-S-E. If it's a law, it was Congress who passed it in the first place, so Congress can also amend or repeal that law. There is no six-month limitation. If a presidential EO were to declare something interpreted as martial law, then again Congress can override it, and there is no time limitation on their doing so. In fact, most, if not all, EOs cannot even go into effect until 60 days after their publication, which is the opposite limitation from what the author would have you believe.
If you doubt what I'm asserting here, verify it in the reference section of a library. In fact, many libraries used to offer some sort of fast-answer reference service, where they'd try to answer a question like "Is there a time limit on when Congress can override an EO?" in five minutes or less over the phone. Try it if you don't believe me.
>Or are you saying this is all fabrication?
It looks to me like that particular article has a significant amount of fabrication. (Of course, many of its sentence are true, taken by themselves. But a lot aren't.)
>Including all the executive orders that are listed there?
The author has intermingled truth and falsity. As I've already pointed out, thirteen of the Executive Orders he lists have been superceded or revoked and are no longer in effect. The EOs do exist; their existence is not fabricated. But the author's assertions and implications that those thirteen EOs are still in effect or can be resurrected are ... fabrications.
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 18, 1999.
Thanks No Spam. I will look at the links. The library will have to wait till tomorrow, considering the hour. Trying to find something at a government web site can be bothersome. I about died of laughter when I accidently went to whitehouse dot com! Thanks again!
-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), April 18, 1999.
The federal government -- executive, legislative, judicial -- and all their state and local franchises -- regularly violate their oaths of office, violating the main body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and probably most of the ammendments since.And that's just in the good times. What do you think they'll do when TSHTF? Remember Japanese-American internment camps in WWII in the land that was "fighting for freedom" (USA). Remember confiscation of gold and suspension of gold contracts during the 1930s depression? Remember wage and price controls and rationaing during vaious times -- WWII through Nixon? Remember all the undeclared wars (police or peacekeeping actions)?
So some posters may be a little overzealous, posting (what YOU say are) obsolete or superseded EOs. The fact that the President du jour has carte blanche to play with these royal edicts means that any and all EOs not now in effect, could be again, tomorrow. Plus new ones. Bottom line -- your're frickin' nit picking -- You are frickin' idiot, and I hope your sorry ass goes slowly when TSHTF. (No more Mr. Nice Guy.)
-- A (A@AisA.com), April 18, 1999.
As Diane would say - SIGH...- I must apologose to J for my fiend NO SPAM who, as usual, in his blinkered way, completely misses the wood from the trees. Nit-picker extraordinnaire is our old No Spam. He would be arguing about the width of the leather straps as not being up to ISO9000 standards as he is about to electrocuted. He would be arguing about the chlorine level in the bathwater as the baby is chucked out the window with it... For once in your sorry-assed life No Spam please get a grip and stop trying to MUDDY the waters. Is somebody paying you to do this? Back to the original question. Check out this link, many of your questions will be answered.
Game Over?
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 18, 1999.
Sorry Andy, but nospam is right in this case - there is no evidence to support the concept that martial law would over-rule congress for six months. There is also no credible evidence based on hard intelligence data from at least three independent sources (remember I'm an absolute stickler on that point) to back up any of the conspiracy theories currently being bandied about.*sigh*
Arlin
-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 18, 1999.
ok Arlin, let's agree to differ, but once ML comes in it will be the devil to get rid of."possession is nine tenths of the law" etc.
remember there may not be a fully functioning infrastructure to re- establish congress...
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 18, 1999.
Thanks for the lesson, Andy. My head is still spinning! You sure know how to wake someone up. I did check the link No Spam offered. And, while I couldn't actually read the orders, I did find that our friend Clinton signed one which is relevant to this quote from the FEMA site I mentioned at top.>And last but not least, on 20 July 1979 "You Can Trust Me" President Jimmy Carter authored Executive Order 12148 ( 44 F.R. 43239 ) which completes the plan for the COMPLETE DICTATORSHIP RULE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.<
Clinton did this one:
>12919 National defense industrial resources preparedness Signed: June 3, 1994 Federal Register page and date: 59 FR 29525; June 7, 1994 Amends: EO 10789, November 14, 1958; EO 11790, June 25, 1974 Supersedes or Revokes: EO 8248, September 8, 1939 (in part); EO 10222, March 8, 1951; EO 10480, August 14, 1953; EO 10647, November 28, 1955; EO 11179, September 22, 1964; EO 11355, May 26, 1967; EO 11912, April 13, 1976 (in part); EO 12148, July 20, 1979 (in part); EO 12521, June 24, 1985; EO 12649, August 11, 1988; EO 12773, September 26, 1991 (in part)<
I will continue to check on this one at the library if internet searches cannot find the text. The thing that I don't care for is the fact that it 'supercedes or revokes (in part).'
Thanks again. Learning is a wonderful thing!!!
-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), April 18, 1999.
FEMA is not likely to be part of some dark, insidious conspiracy. It's probably just another Cold War-era, Big Budget bureaucracy that is struggling to justify its existence and redefine its mission.On the other hand, I'm willing to bet that there us much more to FEMA than meets the eye. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:
By the way, I have actually driven by the facility. It's as real as day, and has an ambience creepy enough to be on an X-files episode. The signs telling you not to photograph the installation are real, as are the unmarked security cars that follow you when you go past to ogle at it.
-- jc (joncarson@yahoo.com), April 19, 1999.
Thanks jc, I'll go there next. I had some trouble remembering where I posted it but I found it! The Exec Orders site that has Clinton's is here:ttp://www.tricor.net/~myfirst/ClintonEO.htm
The order mentioned above where Clinton superceded Jimmy's is here:
http://library.whitehouse.gov/cgi-bin/web_fetch_doc?dataset=Plain-Data set-ExecutiveOrder&db=ExecutiveOrders&doc_id=12&query=all+by+clinton
He only amended Section 3. Whatever that was. I am still looking. I gotta find 'the Act' as well to make sense of it all! That was in 1950.
Ya know, this is infectious, this searching out stuff. I was happy just reading and letting you guys do all the work. Sorry about that. OH! Gals, too! Didn't mean to insult ya'll!
What is the politically correct term to use for a mixed group these days?
-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), April 19, 1999.
I've mentioned this before... We've been living under the War Powers Act since WWII. The War Powers Act is repugnant to the Constitution and thus, never should have been enacted. In fact, the WPA provides the means for the Executive Branch to act outside of it's Constitutional authority. This is the reason that Clinton can send troups to Kosovo before receiving Congressional approval, and how Bush initiated war on IRAQ in the same way.
Our Constitution has been raped and pillaged this century. Americans (acting out of trust, faith and patriotism) have accepted the definitions spoon fed to us. As a people we have been deceived and misled. Our cherished Constitution is already gone and we don't even realize it.
Therefore, I now expect the worst case scenerio in almost all situations regarding "our" governmental leaders. Especially, when they get on their self-righteous soapbox proclaiming their sincere interest in the welfare of the American people.
Washington has become the center of corruption for modern civilization. Even those few who go to Washington to actually serve and to make things right are soon cloaked in the stench of it all. Those with high moral standards and virtue soon go home with their tail between their legs... beaten and bruised.
I love this country. I love the Constitution. I am deeply pained to watch the "fall of the American Empire". I loath the cynicism they have sowed in me.
A "state of emergency" IS Martial Law. FEMA has been set up as the tool. Nitpick and doubt... have faith... trust... we shall see...
-- WebRNot (webrnot@ncap13k.com), April 19, 1999.
Spam Ass: And another thing. Whatever the six months deal is or isn't, do you think for one minute that that bunch of poultroons and traitors -- congress -- will do anything other that say "Oh, OK!" if Klinton declared martial law? What did they do re Kosovo and Klinton's other exercises? Or Bush's? Or Reagan's? Or... Or... Or Truman's (undeclared Korean War "police action"). "Well, since we're in there (wherever) -- got to support our troops!"
-- A (A@AisA.com), April 19, 1999.
A (A@AisA.com),>posting (what YOU say are) obsolete or superseded EOs
Look it up for yourself, A. The words that say they're revoked or superceded are just as real and authoritative as the words in the EO texts that the critics cite. (That's because the revocation or supercession is brought about by the text in some later EO!!) In some cases, more so, when the EO text the critics cite is obsolete.
Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. I don't ask you to take it on just my word. I TELL YOU WHERE YOU CAN LOOK IT UP, which is more that those EO-scaremongers do. Think about that.
>any and all EOs not now in effect, could be again, tomorrow
The President could write any words tomorrow and sign them. So what? The EO-scaremongers are basing their arguments on DEMONSTRABLY FALSE DATA! The EO-scaremongers are saying those obsolete EOs have some force now, when actually they don't. If they were operating from your argument that the President could issue an identically-worded EO tomorrow, why don't they say so instead of writing factually-false statements?
Your argument fails Occam's Razor.
>do you think for one minute that that bunch of poultroons and traitors -- congress -- will do anything other that say "Oh, OK!" if Klinton declared martial law?
Then why are you defending arguments plainly made on the basis of demonstrably false assertions? Why don't the EO-scaremongering authors use correct data to support their assertions instead of false data? Do you think it is alright for them to mislead their readers in this regard?
If the argument is "they (Congress, Prez, ...) can do anything", why try to flesh it out with easily-exposable hogwash about obsolete EOs? Are those authors deliberately trying to deceive their readers, or are they just sloppy, A?
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 19, 1999.
Andy,I told you earlier that when I saw you pulling your rhetorical tricks on me that I would expose you, so ...
>NO SPAM who, as usual, in his blinkered way, completely misses the wood from the trees.
J,
Notice how Andy once again (he's done this multiple times in other threads -- if you really don't believe me you can look through earlier threads and find the other instances for yourself!) has tried to misrepresent what I wrote. I'm laying out facts for you, _facts you can doublecheck for yourself_ because I'm including references to independent sources of information. Andy's trying to get you to believe that somehow my desire to get the facts straight is instead a symptom of blinders, because I so often expose his invalid arguments by supplying contradictory facts from reality (If you don't believe me you can check for yourself -- something you'll note that Andy didn't offer you).
>Nit-picker extraordinnaire is our old No Spam
I object to attempts to deceive readers by offering arguments based on false information. It turns out that often these are arguments offered by Andy, so he's irritated and tries to make others think my efforts are not what they are. But I offer you ways to double-check what I assert!!
>For once in your sorry-assed life No Spam please get a grip and stop trying to MUDDY the waters.
Andy is familiar with the muddying-the-water tactic because he uses it. I tell you where you can find accurate references for information.
>Is somebody paying you to do this?
That _would_ be nice! All this fun and getting paid for it, too. But, alas, the truth is: no.
>Check out this link, many of your questions will be answered.
J, whenever Andy offers you a link like this, beware, and doublecheck it. Whenever _I_ offer you a link, beware, and doublecheck it. After you've doublechecked a dozen links from each of us, compare the results. :-)
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 19, 1999.
J,>letting you guys do all the work. Sorry about that. OH! Gals, too! Didn't mean to insult ya'll! What is the politically correct term to use for a mixed group these days?
I've repeatedly heard women refer to other women in an all-woman group as "guys".
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 19, 1999.
Take it from an Old Lady....this crap, for the most part, was circulating in the 70s. It will be circulating in 2020!! (Gary North was one of those promoting this stuff) If you are going to spend your time reading and believing this kind of stuff, then you are wasting the best years of your life and you are wasting your time and brains on garbage. Better you use this time to get you and your family prepared for what COULD be dire results from Y2K. Use your brains to be innovative and make a "bush box" or a solar oven, or figure out how you are going to make and conserve heat in Jan. If you have all of those things prepared and figured out, then go out and help your neighbor do the same. Don't operate from fear and don't needlessly worry about things that are not going to happen. Get a positive attitude and go at this thing as a challenge of wits rather than wringing your hands. Its far more productive. I wish you well and we hope you don't give up on this forum. There is a lot to learn here, and one of the things is to learn how to sort through the garbage. HugsTaz
-- Taz (Tassie @aol.com), April 19, 1999.
Well,Clinton and former Presidents have retired old E.O.s -- its the ones that still stand that provide an interesting insight. Rather than rely on others research, or what passes for it, inform yourself by reading the source documents. Except, the classified ones.
You can also Search the White House Virtual Library at ...
http:// www.whitehouse.gov/WH/html/library.htmlOr ... Executive Orders: Official actions, procedural changes, and organizational changes. (Use a targeted keyword or two to pull up appropriate hits).
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/search/executive-orders.htmlSee also ...
QUESTION: What Does It Mean When A Presidential E.O. Declares A National Emergency?
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000Wc6And ...
The Governments Critical Infrastructure Protection Plans -- Presidential White Paper (Think Y2K -- Link From State Guard Association)
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000X6GFrankly, Im not hot and bothered about NWO stuff, just about what happens when a National Emergency IS declared.
Because, I strongly suspect it will be, and we will experience martial law in some places, not all. And in some places, it may help, for awhile, IMHO.
IF the ML power is then abused, beyond helping (think Kosovo refugees), well, I'm quite sure people will "encourage" a change, back to our founding intentions. That means freedom for all, not just some. And not for those who "think" the same way. (Boring).
Diane
(BTW, No Spam Please have you delared a personal war on the world? Or just this forum? It seems like you are CONSTANTLY spoiling for a fight! Others too. Can we all TRY to be civil, please?)
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 19, 1999.
Thanks for all the help and input. I agree that any statements by anyone should not be taken in blind faith. Research is one key to intelligent decision and opinion. If one person reviews the data and comes to one conclusion, and another person comes to a differing conclusion with the same data, then it follows that the data must be reviewed by yourself to determine which view is 'correct' or 'most agreeable.' As so often happens when this is done, a third conclusion is found. This should instantly cause all three to discuss and explore the data to see if perhaps a fourth conclusion is possible that all might agree on. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen very often. The common outcome of three differing views is usually argument, slander, and the like. As history shows us, this can escalate to all out war just for the sake of differing views. It has been thus since the beginning.I have not finished researching all there is available on FEMA and EO's and such, but what I have found leads me to believe that there is a chance that FEMA will be involved. The level of involvement is what I am interested in knowing. I found a listing of FEMA's budget requests for 1998 and 1999 and 2000. http://www.fema.gov/library/budget.htm $3.2 billion was requested in 1998 $3.1 billion in 1999 $3.4 billion for 2000 I found some odd wording regarding their 'Project Impact' which they say they have 118 of. This was in the budget request for year 2000:
>Already we have 118 active Project Impact communities and more than 680 participating corporate and business partners, Witt added. Non-federal contributions far exceed our investment in these communities. Our request for $30 million for the next fiscal year will allow us to continue to expand this effort for building disaster-resistant communities throughout the nation. <
What exactly is a 'disaster-resistant' community? I don't know, but they have 118 of them. And they want to build more. I have a theory, yet unproven and slightly slanted, that these communities, while the drivel points to awareness and helping throughout the nation, may be the various 'bunkers hidden around the land.' [I can't remember where I read that line, or if I have it worded the same, but the meaning is still there.]
After going through hurricane Andrew in FL in '92, I can say without doubt that I was without electricity for a month. I lost half my windows. [I lived alone at the time and happened to be sick in bed when it hit.] While supplies and such could be found by driving North a few miles, I was nevous about leaving the house empty. From the front of the house it looked fine, but from the back it was a mess! They deemed it habitable by driving by!!! Andrew was a dry hurricane as hurricanes go, but it rained a lot afterward! It rained and my roof leaked. Interior damage to my house was minimal from the hurricane, but the following rains totaled it. I am still not finished putting it back. My point, which you probably thought I forgot, is that FEMA was no help to me during this time. I was working. I had insurance. But, within six months of the storm, I was let go [to cut overhead]. I wasn't making much at the time, but they could hire two people for less to do what I did. And they didn't have to speak English either. So, at that time I was in a damaged house, with minimal repairs so far, no income, in a depressed area where a lot of people are looking for work and will accept any rate of pay. NO help from FEMA. Mom and Dad, yes. The army was called in after the storm to help 'police' the area to control looters. I had to be home before dark to get through the checkpoints. The checkpoints where well lighted intersections and an ID with an address in the area was a must or you didn't get in. Once I was coming home after dark and the Army was out doing their thing, but one squad was out in front of the checkpoint away from the lights. Since we had to stop at that stopsign anyway, they were checking id's there as well. After getting through that one I sped up to get to the next one and the Army dweeb ran all the way behind me yelling, 'Hold him! Hold him!' When he arrived at the next checkpoint I was 'being held' at, he started yelling at me for going too fast [45 in a 45 zone] and didn't I realize that he had his squad out there? Well, I was in no mood, as you can imagine, and told him that he was stupid to have them out in the dark where no one could see them. [I knew the area, remember.] He wanted to detain me till the commander arrived but the guy with my license gave it back and told me to go home. This is what FEMA did for me! I do not want any more help from FEMA, thank you.
When the elctric finally came back, I was partially hooked up for three days until they could come back and check it. 120 doesn't run the air conditioner you know. All I had was alternately, fan, light, or TV. Any two together caused the fuse to pop. I didn't dare try the fridge. It was under a waterfall from the rain.
So, I am naturally interested in what FEMA is going to do if there is a 'national emergency' declared. Been there, done that! No thanks!
This is what I use to gauge my preps by. It's more than some have, and less than others. But we do what we can.
I am not alone anymore. In fact, I was fortunate to meet someone who has been with me since a month after the storm. Come to think of it, I now seem to recall that the power was out longer than a month. I'll have to check...
We are passable gardeners, and have been growing all sorts of things in the yard. A well for the spinklers is coming but now we may just go the extra depth for drinking water too. What the hell! Food, medicine, first aid, home repair supplies, entertainment, lighting, and so forth are things that we are used to stocking in case of hurricane. So it is not new to do this for y2k. Common sense, you know. 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.' Three times? Not bloody likely!
Back to the past... I still remember tossing and turning on a cold waterbed. Getting up in oppressive heat and humidity, taking a cold shower, having an instant coffee that defies discription, a granola bar, going to work and then to Ma and Pa's for dinner [they had a generator for the fridge and would alternate it with a wall air unit.] and then home through that damn checkpoint. [HA! I found out later on that all I had to do was take the alley behind the strip mall and I could go right by! What idiots!] Then I was alone, wandering around the shambles of my home, with a flashlight and a candle, getting depressed, or, if it had rained, mopping up the water, which was a most disagreeable color from having gone through the roof and walls, until I fell asleep exhausted. What fun!
At least with y2k, I won't be alone. That was the hardest part.
-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), April 19, 1999.
Sounds a lot like the FEMA I know.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 19, 1999.
What FEMA is good for is getting their excellent training and learning to become SELF-RELIANT so you can help yourself and your neighbors and NOT HAVE TO THINK ABOUT FEMA !!! :-)
Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT)xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), April 19, 1999.
Maria,This will be a first, but, I agree with you. (There ... get over it).
FEMA has been designed to REACT to events, although theyre trying to become more proactive. Project Impact is part of that effort.
... The increasing number and severity of natural disasters over the past decade demands that action be taken to reduce the threat that hurricanes, tornadoes, severe storms, floods and fires impose upon the nation's economy and the safety of its citizens. With Project Impact- Building a Disaster Resistant Community, FEMA is changing the way America deals with disasters. Project Impact helps communities protect themselves from the devastating effects of natural disasters by taking actions that dramatically reduce disruption and loss. ...
http://www.fema.gov/impact/However, dont forget, IN A NATIONAL EMERGENCY, they ARE the lead agency for emergency response command and control according the the Presidential E.O.s.
Its a key reason to prepare your family, neighbors and community.
FEMA has not been known for its high level of efficiency, even in the SoCal 1994 Northridge Earthquake!
Diane
P.S. They ARE good for some thing's Leska ... ;-D
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 19, 1999.
See also thread ...LINKS: Know Your FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000NRV
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 19, 1999.
Thanks Diane. You really know how to keep someone busy!As soon as I can get my jaw off the floor I'll start checking the rest of your links. [Neat that you can put the hot links in, it makes it easier to book mark for referral.]
I am sure that there are helpful strategies throughout the FEMA plans and so forth, and I bet I am already doing some of them without their help.
What makes me nevous is the still unexplained scope of their 'alleged' power in a [general] national emergency. Alleged in that I haven't found an official transcript describing it in detail...yet. [As if I would understand it, alas!]
Yes, there are many places to go to on the 'net by searching keywords, but many of those are of the 'spin?' variety that paint it their own way. The official type sites which you and others have so graciously spent time pointing me towards are very helpful. If only I could understand governmentese better! Well, I guess if I wanna know I gotta do it.
It's just that I don't want them coming into my house and telling me I have to share with my neighbors because they were too stupid to prepare. I want to be able to do it because I want to. I think you all feel the same way on this, if my opinion of you all is correct.
Even so, if someone else wants to be told to do it, well, it's a free country. Um, isn't it?
-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), April 19, 1999.
J (jart5@bellsouth.net),It's really worth the several hours time it takes to study the FEMA site. There's a "wealth" of stunning information hidden there.
Be sure to spend time at the FEMA library
http://www.fema.gov/library/The FEMA site index
http://www.fema.gov/fema/FEMA Y2K info
http://www.fema.gov/y2k/
And the "GEMS" Global Emergency Management System (Complete Alphabetical Listing -- long load time) link list. It'll blow your socks off.
http://www.fema.gov/gems/It's time well spent to "know" who they are during a National Emergency.
BTW, the KEY E.O. # 12919 ... assigning power to FEMA ... to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market... in a national emergency. It doesnt declare a national emergency, just assigns powers.]
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
June 6, 1994 -- EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919 -- NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri- res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1994/6/7/3.text.2
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 19, 1999.
Spam and sympathizers:You are missing the point: Regardless of what EOs, if any, are in effect, or are not in effect, or are obsolete or not obsolete, or superseded or incorporated or not by/in some other EO -- the fact is that whenever your government "determines" that there is an "emergency," there will be government goons with guns telling you where to go and what to do.
-- A (A@AisA.com), April 19, 1999.
A,No, I'm not missing any point. I see what you have to say. What I'm complaining about is the corrupt claimed-to-be-but-not-really-factual foundation for some of it. I'm interested is seeing the part of your assertions that remains after the part based on lies (not _your_ lies, others' lies; I'm not calling you a liar) is rooted out.
>Spam and sympathizers:
You mean those who want to expose false statements and factually-corrupt arguments? That sort of sympathizers? If you meant some other kind, then (a) what is it, and (b) how did you assign me to that group?
>Regardless of what EOs, if any, are in effect, or are not in effect, or are obsolete or not obsolete, or superseded or incorporated or not by/in some other EO
But what about those who _are_ saying that such-and-such is based on EOs that are obsolete or superseded? That's what I'm trying to correct.
>-- the fact is that whenever your government "determines" that there is an "emergency," there will be government goons with guns telling you where to go and what to do.
I consider this a valid subject for discussion. Generally I prefer not to post my views on it, for several reasons.
My principal concern is that the discussion of this subject have a sound factual basis, not be justified by a bunch of lies. I'm trying to get the facts straight, A -- do you have a quarrel with _that_? Do you care about arguing from correct premises instead of incorrect ones?
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 19, 1999.
Taz, I think you're a crafty old lady. I too have simply heard that conspiracy stuff so long it's getting boring. When I was growing up there was McCarthy and a communist under every bush. Then Viet Nam and new conspiracies.I was on the Democratic Comm., in the 70's and one of the other committee members told the committee very seriously that "they" (the govt.,) was building ovens in Alaska to burn the old people.
-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), April 19, 1999.
A,There's not enough of "them" to move scores of people anywhere.
They may mostly be working with emergency response at hospitals, with HAZMAT crews at chemical and other facilities, and in those areas where the urban populace "might" go nutsy IF the power is out for any extended period of time. (And remember the terriorist idiots too).
Well organized communities won't need outside intervention, unless there's a catastrophic event, hence, they're more likely to stay put in the event of widespread water or food shortages ... etc.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 19, 1999.