new executive order, outlaws war prorest

[slimpickens]

Bush Outlaws War Protest -
Citizens Face Full Asset Seizure
From Dave Livingston
7-20-7


WELL IT HAS HAPPENED. THIS MANIACAL SON OF A BITCH HAS OUTLAWED ALL WAR PROTEST AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.
PASSED INTO LAW JULY 17TH. SINCE CONGRESS IS TOO WEAK-KNEED TO STAND UP AND DO THE RIGHT THING, PERHAPS IT WILL BE LEFT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WILL THIS BEGIN THE CIVIL WAR HERE IN THE UNITED STATES PREDICTED BY JOHN TITOR? READ THE ARTICLE BELOW, "Bush Outlaws All War Protest In The United States"..........best of luck.........dave livingston


Bush Outlaws All War Protest In United States
By Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
7-19-7

In one of his most chilling moves to date against his own citizens, the American War Leader has issued a sweeping order this week outlawing all forms of protest against the Iraq war.

President Bush enacted into US law an 'Executive Order' on July 17th titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq", and which says:

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004."

According to Russian legal experts, the greatest concern to the American people are the underlying provisions of this new law, and which, they state, are written 'so broadly' as to outlaw all forms of protest against the war. These provisions state:

"(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken."

To the subsection of this new US law, according to these legal experts, that says "...the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit...", the insertion of the word 'services' has broad, and catastrophic, consequences for the American people in that any act deemed by their government to be against the Iraqi war is, in fact, supporting the 'enemy' and therefore threatens the 'stabilization of Iraq'.

In an even greater affront to the American people are the provisions of a law called The Patriot Act, and that should they run afoul of this new law they are forbidden to allow anyone to know about it, and as we can read as reported by the Seattle Times News Service:

"The [Patriot] act also expands the use of National Security Letters, which are a kind of warrant that the Justice Department writes for itself, authorizing its agents to seize such things as records of money movements, telephone calls and Internet visits. Recipients of a National Security Letter are not allowed to tell anyone about them, and so cannot contest them."

It is interesting to note, too, that this is not the first time that the United States has unleashed the brutal power of their government against its citizens to further their war aims and stifle domestic dissent, as during the European conflict of World War I they enacted a law called The Sedition Act of 1918 and which "...forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war."

It is curious to note that after the enactment of this new law there has been no protest by any of the other political leaders in the United States, with the exception of the only Muslim member of the United States Congress, Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, and who compared President Bush to the Nazi War Leader Adolph Hitler by stating the attacks upon the World Trade Center could be likened to the burning of the Reichstag.

Today, as the United States faces an imminent economic collapse, while at the same time its war bill has reached the staggering amount of $648 billion, one of the last freedoms the American people have had to protest their leaders actions against them, and other peoples in the World, has now been taken away from them, the freedom to speak and write in opposition to what is being done to them.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.", said the great British writer George Orwell, but, and sadly, liberty has been lost to the once free people of the United States who are no longer allowed to tell their leaders, or each other, what they don't want to hear.

With this being so, the American people should, likewise, contemplate their 'new' future, and as, also, stated best by George Orwell, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

© July 19, 2007 EU and US all rights reserved.

[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.]


********************************


New Executive Order Stomps on the Fifth Amendment
"...any (citizen) person who undermines efforts to promote
economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq."

Gambling911.com
7-18-7


Did anyone get the license plate of that Mack truck that ran us over yesterday? By executive order, the Secretary of the Treasury may now seize the property of

The Secretary may make his determination in secret and after the fact. Click here to read this new little gem out of the Bush Administration.

What's it say, you ask? The White House will decide if you are in any way "undermining efforts" in Iraq, or related to Iraq or pretty much anything else, the Treasury Department is authorized to seize your money, property, stocks, etc

Although good in overall notion (stop terrorist funding), the ridiculously broad language in this order takes the 5th amendment, and flushes it down the toilet. As an example, if it appears that if you, say, donate to a charity that the Bush administration determines, without any proof, is trying to undermine the Iraqi government, all of your assets can be frozen. No due process, do not pass go.

The order permits the targeting of those who aid someone else whose assets have been blocked under the order -- wittingly or not. And under Section Five, the government does not have to disclose which organizations are subject to having their assets frozen:

For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

The scope of the order has raised civil-liberties concerns. "Certainly it is highly constitutionally questionable to empower the government to destroy someone economically without giving notice," says Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "This is so sweeping it's staggering. I've never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population. This covers stabilization in Iraq. I suppose you could issue an executive order about stabilization in Afghanistan as well. And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose 'a significant risk' of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you've committed a crime if there's significant risk that you might commit a crime."

How does the Secretary of the Treasury feel about a t-shirt that says, 'Stop the War?' Is such a T-shirt considered destabilizing?

http://www.gambling911.com/Executive-Order-Fifth-Ammendment-071907.html


Disclaimer

[Braddogg]

John Titor   God, it's been a couple years since I heard that name.  Wasn't the civil war supposed to begin in 2004 due to unrest surrounding the elections, with a "Waco" assault or two every month?

[Lasse]

I remember this EO and I remember discussion on it (I'm not sure whether it was here or on FSP boards). It's not new.

[Rochelle]

According to Russian legal experts...

Russian legal experts, eh? In Russia, all laws are interpreted so broadly as to mean whatever who ever's in power wants them to mean.

[Fluff and Stuff]

According to Russian legal experts...

Russian legal experts, eh? In Russia, all laws are interpreted so broadly as to mean whatever who ever's in power wants them to mean.

Did you say "in Russia" or "in America?" 

[J’raxis 270145]

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9738.0
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9785.0

[Lasse]

According to Russian legal experts...

Russian legal experts, eh? In Russia, all laws are interpreted so broadly as to mean whatever who ever's in power wants them to mean.

In Mother Russia, law interprets YOU!

[dEadERest]

??????? ?? ???????? ???????, ?????

When this first came out I thought (see forum title) about who this was intended for. Dave Ridley? Maybe more like bigger name folks, the Sean Penns, who could be proved to have provided "material assistance". They censored Sally Fields for saying "god damn war". Clooney and Penn and Sarandon et al seem rather quiet lately.

I haven't spoken to single moderately intelligent person in the last few years who has disagreed with me that this administration is criminal and dangerous. Yet the discussion usually ends somewhere near, "well, you know, what are you gonna do?"

[supperman15]

ok, Im sick of this shit.  time to use the first amendment to petition congress for a redress of grevience, for letting this bullshit happen.  can anyone lead me to a place i can find out more about all of these bullshit presidential mandates.

[dEadERest]

??????? ?? ???????? ???????, ?????

these were added to my post, by a moderator? why for?

[J’raxis 270145]

??????? ?? ???????? ???????, ?????

these were added to my post, by a moderator? why for?

Three question marks in a row is the shortcut for that smiley, that's all. Put spaces in between them to stop that.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[dEadERest]

Three question marks in a row is the shortcut for that smiley, that's all. Put spaces in between them to stop that.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

um, but, i dint put any in the original post . . .

[J’raxis 270145]

Three question marks in a row is the shortcut for that smiley, that's all. Put spaces in between them to stop that.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

um, but, i dint put any in the original post . . .

Did you have a bunch of non-English characters? I notice the forum software here screws them up like that. The text over there under my avatar is in the actual Greek on other forums, but it doesn't work here.

[dEadERest]

yes, yes, now i remember, i had a russian translation, lol, my bad


hmmm, seems my short term memory may be somewhat compromised . . . it's the government!!

[dEadERest]

when will a susan sarandon or a george clooney or a sally fields directly challenge something like this?

(rhetorical)