Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency


Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
By Matthew Rothschild

May 18, 2007

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”

The White House released it on May 9.

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.

The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”

It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “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 function.”

This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”

The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.

But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial
branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”

Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”

The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.

She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.

As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”

The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.

“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”

The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”

This is front page

on Digg, and some 9/11 truthers are getting in comments:


Should be here...

I believe it was here


And a few people wanted it front-paged then as well.

Harry Taylor

There's a time for politics, Jon

There's a time for politics...

and there's a time for

and there's a time for treason...

Yes, this should be big news here too

so please front-page it.

Many researchers have pointed out the significance of these government continuity plans - just see Peter Dale Scott's comments in the recent blog "Just What Was Cheney Doing on the Morning of 9/11?".

This is not good.

These orders are not good. It means they are thinking about something really, really, really bad happening sometime before Bush's term ends. And if they are thinking about it, they are probably planning it. We need to give this a little more coverage.

I agree.

Everytime I turn around no it seems, I hear someone in a position in a position of power and authority saying that it's not a matter of if we get hit again but, when. And they always seem so assured that it will happen as if they know already.

Perhaps they do know. Some may just relish capitalizing on the politics of fear and hate. But, if you look at all of this onerous legisaltion passed, particularly post 9/11, you can't help but believe that it is designed for the specific purpose of facilitating implementaion of martial law and a total police state.

Buy more ammo. That's about all you can do to counter the threat.

Molon labe.

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

well, 9/11 happened pretty

well, 9/11 happened pretty early in Bush's rule, so considering Western people's short memory and attention span, it would be most opportune to put the next "big one" at the end of his presidency, to have as few people has possible connect the two. (and maybe install Marshall Law, and no new election..)
Notice how they always say, like Guliani at the recent debates, that they have kept the American people from terror attacks in over five years all because of Homeland Security. Well, the previous one was in 1995, so that is the same time period now, with no Homeland security then. The first bombing of the Trade Centers was in early 1993, a few weeks into Clinton's rule, but Bush the First wasn't and still isn't blamed for that. Not that I think highly of Clinton here.I still remember how he bombed the only malaria medicine producing factory in Africa, 1998, but I guess by then he didn't need the "black vote" anymore...

Matthew Rothschild, go fuck yourself

"Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already"

If you haven’t had the pleasure of enduring these rants, please let me share.
Here’s what the conspiracists believe:

9/11 was an inside job.

Members of the Bush Administration ordered it, not Osama bin Laden.

Arab hijackers may not have done the deed.

On top of that, the Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the airplanes and the ensuing fires but because the Bush Administration got agents to plant explosives at the base of those buildings.

Building 7, another high-rise at the World Trade Center that fell on 9/11, also came down by planted explosives.

The Pentagon was not hit by American Airlines Flight 77 but by a smaller plane or a missile.

And the Pennsylvania plane did not crash as a result of the revolt by the passengers but was brought down by the military.

I’m amazed at how many people give credence to these theories. Everyone’s an engineer. People who never even took one college science course can now hold forth at great length on how the buildings at the World Trade Center could not possibly have collapsed in the way they did and why the Pentagon could not have been struck by that American Airlines jet.

Problem is, some of the best engineers in the country have studied these questions and come up with perfectly logical, scientific explanations for what happened.

The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O’Mara in Maryland.

It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, “were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.”

The National Institute of Standards and Technology did its own forty-three volume study of the Twin Towers. “Some 200 technical experts . . . reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, [and] performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations,” the institute says.

It also concluded that a combination of the crash and the subsequent fires brought the towers down: “In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.”

Popular Mechanics, first in its March 2005 cover story and now in its expanded book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, after interviewing scores of other experts in the engineering field, takes apart the most popular contentions of the conspiracists. “In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified,” the book says.

I made a few calls myself, including to Gene Corley, who conducted the American Society of Civil Engineers/FEMA study, and to Mete Sozen, structural engineering professor at Purdue, who was one of the principal authors of “The Pentagon Building Performance Report” of January 2003, which was done under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. I also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, they view them as a huge waste of time. They are busy trying to figure out how to prevent buildings from falling in the future.
Of course, any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt will claim that all these people are in on the plot.

And that I am in on it, too.
Get over it.

The guru of the 9/11 conspiracy movement is David Ray Griffin, an emeritus professor not of engineering but of philosophy and theology at the Claremont School of Theology. First in The New Pearl Harbor and then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions and now in Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, Griffin has peddled his conspiracy theory. [/quote]

Isn't he related to the warmongering globalists
the Rothschild counterfeiting mafia-family ?
You know, the rich pricks who have financed BOTH sides
in every war the last 150 years ...
Talk about gatekeepers; this guy makes Noam Chomsky
look like a dissident .
Sorry for the swearing but these guys make my blood boil .


In the past two months we have had threats by Cheney, Bush, and Ghouliani that we can expect "terrorist" to NUKE an American City.


it's always a good idea to

it's always a good idea to get the paper work straight before you enter into something...