![]() |
|
Tags for This Article:
Government (3423) Media (3291) Media Mainstream MSM (687) Americans (258) Power (219) Letters To The Editor (162) Dictator Dictatorships (148)
|
Add to My Group
--email address-- I have just finished writing a follow-up letter to The Contra Costa Times. I sent you the letter to the editor found below on 5/22/07. The subject of the letter is the new National Security Presidential Directive, NSPD 51. This directive was created and published on the official White House web site on May 9, 2007. It revokes National Security Presidential Decision Directive 67 which was created in October of 1998 and which, along with FEMA's Federal Preparedness Response Circular 65, adequately covered the necessary scenarios to maintain a Constitutional Government in case of a legitimate catastrophic event. One may have a more difficult time reading FPRC 65 than NSPD 51 because the former rightly spreads the responsibility for maintaining a Constitutional Government among the many administrative departments which should be involved in that task. National Presidential Security Directive 51 is easier and quicker to read because all power goes to "The President". In addition, the parameters which define a "catastrophic event" are very loosely widened, making NSPD 51 extremely easy to implement. Not only have you not published my letter, but I can not find any coverage of this extreme and unnecessary updating of a national emergency plan by doing a search on The Contra Costa Times web site. I know that some people would rather call others names, such as "alarmists", than to closely investigate changes in our government's policies as extreme as the NSPD 51 is. I hope that this isn't the reason you're not publishing my letter. I would also like to know what you think it is about NSPDD 67/FPRC 65 that necessitated their revocations and the implementation of NSPD 51. By its not even covering this change in policy, The Times obviously concurs that NSPDD 67/FPRC 65 was inadequate and that it was so obviously necessary to potentially bestow dictatorial powers upon George W. Bush based upon a very loose and widely encompassing definition of a "catastrophic event" that it wasn't even important to let the American people know. Do you honestly look at the implementation of a national policy change that easily opens the door to dictatorship for the president as being "no big deal" or "all in a day's work"? Please help me understand why The Times does not find this drastic change in national emergency policy important enough to report to the people. Michael Bonanno I urge anyone and everyone reading this article to write to their local newspapers and to bring this unwarranted and dangerous national security policy change to their attention.
Song sample for November, 2008 Soldiers Of Peace from the cd Flameland. Michael Bonanno is a published poet, essayist and musician who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of his poetry can be found at The Poetry Corner at OpEdNews.He is an associate editor for OpEdNews. Bonanno is a political progressive, not a Democratic Party apologist. He believes it's government's job to help the needy and that leaving the people's well being to the so called "private sector" is social suicide.His CDs may be purchased at CD Baby. .
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||