- 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
- Bush Outlaws All War Protest In United States
- By Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western
- 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
- New Executive Order Stomps on the Fifth Amendment
- "...any (citizen) person who undermines
efforts to promote
economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq."
- 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
- 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?