myth???

total fabrication???

why would this NOT be believed, over news on the local news channel's???

there is more total data and information, to suggest mainstream news media is extremely agenda biased and bought and paidf for, when one takes notice that ALL the mainstream news media outlet's, are member's of and within the same groups politicians are also member's of???

would one believe mainstream news alone, when individual's within are promoted to tier's of the "elite", given position's within the media as comparable to hollywood star's, and profit with lavash salaries from such???

such that write and post such storie's as these read below, actually put themself and the live's of their families at risk, to produce and post???

which one has more personal risk invested???

who profit's from the story is the question???

is the individual "whistleblower" so to speak, risking ousting from any public place and capitolist ventrue within "the system", doing so to INCREASE SELF PROFIT, and self comfort???

how does one personally gain, profit or otherwise, from being labeled anti-war, anti-government, unpatriotic, possiblly "terrorist", when inspecting and researching such stories, and placing them for publiuc awareness???

is it for "15 minute's" of fame???

true inspection, would show such things when they rear their ugly "self interest alone" head, but it is not seen how these things match the "profile" of that???

just question's???

Sources:
Global Research, July 2007
Title: “Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement”
Author: Michel Chossudovsky

The Progressive, August 2007
Title: “Bush’s Executive Order Even Worse Than the One on Iraq”
Author: Matthew Rothschild

Student Researchers: Chris Navarre and Jennifer Routh
Faculty Evaluator: Amy Kittlestrom, PhD

President Bush has signed two executive orders that would allow the US Treasury Department to seize the property of any person perceived to, directly or indirectly, pose a threat to US operations in the Middle East.

The first of these executive orders, titled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq,” signed by Bush on July 17, 2007, authorizes the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to confiscate the assets of US citizens and organizations who “directly or indirectly” pose a risk to US operations in Iraq. Bush’s order states:

I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined 1) to have committed, or pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq . . . or 2) 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 . . .

Section five of this order announces 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 . . . there need be no prior notice of listing or determination [of seizure] . . .”

On August 1, Bush issued a similar executive order, titled “Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions.” While the text in this order is, for the most part, identical to the first, the order regarding Lebanon is more severe.

While both orders bypass the Constitutional right to due process of law in giving the Secretary of Treasury authority to seize properties of those persons posing a risk of violence, or in any vague way assisting opposition to US agenda, the August 1 order targets any person determined to have taken, or to pose a significant risk of taking, actions—violent or nonviolent—that undermine operations in Lebanon. The act further authorizes freezing the assets of “a spouse or dependent child” of any person whose property is frozen. The executive order on Lebanon also bans providing food, shelter, medicine, or any humanitarian aid to those whose assets have been seized—including the “dependent children” referred to above.

Vaguely written and dangerously open to broad interpretation, this unconstitutional order allows for the arbitrary targeting of any American for dispossession of all belongings and demands ostracism from society. Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration says of the order, “This is so sweeping it’s staggering. I have never seen anything so broad. It expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population.”

In an editorial for the Washington Times, Fein states, “The person subject to an asset freeze is reduced to a leper. The secretary’s financial death sentences are imposed without notice or an opportunity to respond, the core of due process. They hit like a bolt of lightning. Any person whose assets are frozen immediately confronts a comprehensive quarantine. He may not receive and benefactors may not provide funds, goods, or services of any sort. A lawyer cannot provide legal services to challenge the secretary’s blocking order. A doctor cannot provide medical services in response to a cardiac arrest.” Fein adds, “The Justice Department is customarily entrusted with vetting executive orders for consistency with the Constitution. Is the Attorney General sleeping?”1 (see Story #8).

Citation

1. Bruce Fein, “Our Orphaned Constitution,” Washington Times, August 7, 2007.

UPDATE BY MATT ROTHSCHILD

This is a story that went virtually nowhere that I know of in the mainstream press. When I traveled around the country giving speeches last summer and brought up the subject of this executive order, people couldn’t believe it and wondered why they hadn’t heard about it. I’m still wondering that myself.

Here are a couple of good places to check for issues related to this story:

The American Civil Liberties Union, http://www.aclu.org.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, http://www.ccrjustice.org.

Obama lets them, to be more accurate.

Logically, if we are to say that Bush is responsible for what did happen on his watch, then Obama should be held as responsible for what goes on on his.

And conversely, if Obama is not responsible, because he isn't a king, after all, then the same can be applied to Bush.

Obama lets them, to be more accurate.

Logically, if we are to say that Bush is responsible for what did happen on his watch, then Obama should be held as responsible for what goes on on his.

And conversely, if Obama is not responsible, because he isn't a king, after all, then the same can be applied to Bush.

Obama lets them, to be more accurate.

Logically, if we are to say that Bush is responsible for what did happen on his watch, then Obama should be held as responsible for what goes on on his.

And conversely, if Obama is not responsible, because he isn't a king, after all, then the same can be applied to Bush.

Obama lets them, to be more accurate.

Logically, if we are to say that Bush is responsible for what did happen on his watch, then Obama should be held as responsible for what goes on on his.

And conversely, if Obama is not responsible, because he isn't a king, after all, then the same can be applied to Bush.

I think I am understanding this.

You are saying if Bush is responsible then also those in Congress which includes Obama who was a Senator at the time.

Is this correct?

The thing is those who rejected going to Iraq were not many.

How many said no to the war on Iraq? It wasn't enough votes.

So can we really hold Obama responsible if he was against the war from the beginning.

You see he thought it over and said that going to a war thrived zone that has existed for thousands of years will not resolve the problem. He came to the conclusion it would be a bad mistake for the US.

What do you think? Was it a bad idea?

Many will believe it to be a bad idea now since they have caught up why it was a bad idea.

but again some still believe it was a good idea.

So in the end it is but a opinion we have. The government with its corporations will do what they want anyway. Those who have money and power usually do.

Yet maybe there is hope like Obama had used for his campaign slogan.

I wouldn't count on it, but I would like to hope that future politicians will make wiser decisions concerning the welfare of simple people like us.

Congress did not vote to go to Iraq. They decided shortly after 9/11 and after lies from the Bush administration of Saddam's involvement, to allow Bush to have free reign to do as he liked in regards to Iraq.

Oh I thought Congress had to approve this. Okay I stand corrected.
Well there you go that is where the mistake was.

Yes many lies came out of the Bush Administration which made many of the Senators and House of Represenatives confused.

Perhaps many of them where also bought by lobbyists. Mainly from lobbyists who represented oil.

What say you?

I have no faith in the American government as it now stands. There are only a few politicians who hold any credibility with me and they are too few and far between to have an influence.

I can feel you brother

Many people I listen to have the same feelings as you. They have little faith in the government anymore.

I'm not sure what can be done about it though. Even if one thought revolution was the answer, would it even stand a chance? Or would the revolutionists be labeled terrorists and made to suddenly disappear?