The "Dictator" Give Himself More Control

All Obama now has to do is to declare an "emergency" and he can control the communications in this country. Does that not remind you of Libya? Or Iran?

Are you feeling comfortable yet? In the last paragraph, it states:  "Later, the president announces that the Department of Homeland Security will be tasked with drafting a plan during the next 60 days to explain how the DHS will command the government’s Emergency Telecommunications Service, as well as other telecom conduits. In order to be able to spread the White House’s message across the country, President Obama also asks for the purchasing of equipment and services that will enable such."

Is the  equipment mentioned, in addition to the 450 million bullets they just ordered?  If one was a conspiratorial nut (we are beginning to describe ourselves as such) all these pieces are seemingly coming together.

If he controls communication i.e. the internet, he would be able to get only HIS message out and would hamstring any other information from getting to the public.  Is it time to set up pirate radio stations off shore?

Conservative Tom

P.S.  If you think this article came from some wacko Tea Party person, it is from Russia Today!

Obama gives himself control of all communication systems in America

Get short URL

email story to a friend print version

Published: 10 July, 2012, 00:11

US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo/Pool/Luke Sharrett)

TAGS: Obama, Internet, USA

US President Barack Obama quietly signed his name to an Executive Order on Friday, allowing the White House to control all private communications in the country in the name of national security.

President Obama released his latest Executive Order on Friday, July 6, a 2,205-word statement offered as the “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.” And although the president chose not to commemorate the signing with much fanfare, the powers he provides to himself and the federal government under the latest order are among the most far-reaching yet of any of his executive decisions.

“The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions,” the president begins the order. “Survivable, resilient, enduring and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies and other nations.”

President Obama adds that it is necessary for the government to be able to reach anyone in the country during situations it considers critical, writing, “Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies and improve national resilience.” Later the president explains that such could be done by establishing a “joint industry-Government center that is capable of assisting in the initiation, coordination, restoration and reconstitution of NS/EP [national security and emergency preparedness] communications services or facilities under all conditions of emerging threats, crisis or emergency.”

“The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of NS/EP communications policies, programs and capabilities,” he adds. 

On the government’s official website for the National Communications Systems, the government explains that that“infrastructure includes wireline, wireless, satellite, cable, and broadcasting, and provides the transport networks that support the Internet and other key information systems,” suggesting that the president has indeed effectively just allowed himself to control the country’s Internet access.

In order to allow the White House to reach anyone within the US, the president has put forth a plan to establish a high-level committee calling from agents with the Department of Homeland Security, Pentagon, Federal Communications Commission and other government divisions to ensure that his new executive order can be implemented.

In explaining the order, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) writes that the president has authorized the DHS "the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications."

In Section 5 of his order, President Obama outlines the specific department and agency responsibilities that will see through his demands. In a few paragraphs, President Obama explains that Executive Committee that will oversee his order must be supplied with “the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications,” and that that same body will be in tasked with dispatching that communiqué “to the Federal Government and State, local, territorial and trial governments,” by means of“commercial, Government and privately owned communications resources.”

Later, the president announces that the Department of Homeland Security will be tasked with drafting a plan during the next 60 days to explain how the DHS will command the government’s Emergency Telecommunications Service, as well as other telecom conduits. In order to be able to spread the White House’s message across the country, President Obama also asks for the purchasing of equipment and services that will enable such.

Good Bye Work Requirements for Welfare

Sebelius Claims Power to Gut Welfare Reform, Contrary to Law

By Matt Cover

July 13, 2012

Subscribe to Matt Cover's posts

    

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speaks at the release of the HRC’s Healthcare Equality Index 2012. (Photo by Judy Rolfe/HRC)

(CNSNews.com) – In a bid to expand federal welfare rolls, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claimed on Thursday that HHS had the authority to waive the key requirement in President Clinton’s welfare reform law – the requirement that beneficiaries find and maintain a job.

A plain reading of the law, however, does not seem to support this claim.

On Thursday, HHS issued what it called guidance to state welfare agencies, claiming that it could absolve states of the requirement that some welfare recipients work in order to continue receiving benefits.

HHS claimed that its authority to approve innovative state experiments – known as demonstration projects – by issuing waivers of certain welfare requirements empowered it to waive the work requirements as well.

At issue are several sections of the Social Security Act, which governs federal welfare programs.

The waiver authority is found in Section 1115 of the law and grants Sebelius the power to issue waivers to certain welfare requirements so a state may conduct its welfare experiment. State experimentation was another key component of Clinton’s welfare reform.

“The Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements of section 2, 402, 454, 1002, 1402, 1602, or 1902, as the case may be, to the extent and for the period he finds necessary to enable such State or States to carry out such project,” the law reads.

In its memo, HHS claimed that a provision of Section 402 – one of the sections Sebelius has the power to waive – granted it power to get rid of work requirements.

Section 402 requires states to submit an administrative plan to the federal government, outlining how it will spend federal welfare funds and how its plan complies with the law – including the work requirement.

“While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement,” HHS said in its memo.

In other words, HHS claims that because it can relieve states of the requirement to submit a welfare spending plan to the government. It can also relieve them of the requirement that some welfare recipients must work.

However, federal law does not say this. In fact, it says exactly the opposite of what HHS claims it says.

While the law does empower Sebelius to relieve a state of the burden of providing the government a written plan, it does not empower her to waive the work requirements.

Specifically, the section of the law that governs those waivers clearly states that the waivers do not absolve states of the work requirements.

“[A] waiver granted under section 1115 or otherwise … shall not affect the applicability of section 407 to the State,” the law reads.

Section 407 is the requirement that some welfare recipients work in order to receive benefits.

The move is designed to expand welfare rolls, as HHS made clear in its memo – saying it would only issue waivers to states that planned to expand their welfare rolls.

“The Secretary will not approve a waiver for an initiative that appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families,” HHS said.

In practice, the waivers would allegedly relieve states of the requirement that certain percentages of welfare recipients work in order to remain on a state’s welfare rolls, allowing states to essentially cook their books by coming up with new ways to count people as employed who are not actually employed.

HHS lists several things states could do to earn a waiver, including counting those in vocational or other post-secondary education as working, counting people working in welfare-subsidized jobs but who are no longer receiving welfare benefits, and inventing different ways to count the disabled as working.

The proposal was met with opposition from two top congressional Republicans – Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah.). Camp chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, and Hatch is ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee – the committees that have jurisdiction over welfare.

Hatch and Camp sent a letter to Sebelius on Thursday demanding to know why she thinks she has the legal authority to waive welfare work requirements.

“We request that you provide a detailed explanation of your Department’s legal reasoning behind the guidance released today, as we believe it is deeply flawed and specifically contradicted by TANF (welfare) and related statutory language,” they wrote.

“Simply put, if Congress had intended to allow waivers of TANF work requirements, it would have said so in the statute,” Hatch and Camp said. “Instead, Congress did the exact opposite and explicitly prohibited waivers to section 407 work requirements among other sections of the Social Security Act.”