Reader G writes:

After further review and study, plus confirmation from a retired government official I must agree with the original poster on this EO. The recent executive order by Obama would appear mundane and non threatening, unless you look closer. The wording specifies "U.S. Operations", not foreign operations. This would create a new protocol for a variety of issues involving civilians that are affected by so called "U.S. operations". Such as a martial law scenario and people are caught in protests, riots, etc. and have loss of property, loss of life, and are actually given an insurance policy for their losses with this EO.

You need to see the movie Valkyrie with Tom Cruise. It is the true story of officers plotting against Hitler. They came up with a plan to get him to sign an executive order that would designate the chain of command in an emergency. They sent out the troops on special drills, practice runs around the capital, so when the coup actually took place they would have the troops stationed strategically to be able to seamlessly take over. Is it possible that Obama's experts are trying the same thing to get around the Constitution? And,(?) to use US or UN troops to enforce martial law and then bypass the Posse Comitatis act, which disallows the use of US troops against US citizens?

The truth is, we already have the necessary protocols in the US Constitution to take care of any emergency involving the use of troops. A different executive order is not required, unless the complex wording was meant to confuse congress just enough to let it slide through and become law. For an executive order to become law congress doesn't need to do anything during a 30(?) day or longer period. It automatically becomes the law of the land after a waiting period.

What this particular EO does is set up a system to pay rioters, protestors and anyone caught in collateral damage in a conflict to reimbursement for their loss. What this does is set up the incentive for rioters to be involved in the "cause" of rioting, with the promise they will be paid for any injuries, losses and a life insurance policy for the family. Notice they did not specify on what side of a conflict the people were on. They were simply "caught" in the turmoil, the fog of war, and were considered collateral damage and should be compensated for their loss. This is also what ISIS does and Palestinians when they lose a guy in a suicide attack or on front line duties.

Obama is preparing to bring war to our soil, and set up the protocol to pay for losses when they occur, just as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Remember these well known quotes: "Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool."
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998

"We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively." Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999