Obama Executive Order: Allows Seizure of Americans' Bank Accounts

page: 6
45
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Of all the things I read regaurding this post including the op...I dont know if your all being trolled however I can not be a part of it.Our goverments sole surival is based on YOU AND ME,With out us there can be no them.No one to fund them,no sheep for them to "Lead"...Our goverments have learned from germany, They need the illusion to have the capability of doing things they are incapeable of.Do you really think theres any chance that a goverment that is less then 400 higher ups can order a millitary that is less then 2% of its nations population can take on the 98% that is armed?Not a snowballs chance in hell,There not even in controll there whores who are bought and sold to the highest bidder mostly bankers and forign intrest.There going to come for the guns befor the money I promise you that,Besides they dont need to take your monopoly money its been taken long befor you knew it was there,The real question is what will we do when the president who ever it is desides to use every inch of power we have willingly granted these modern day slave owners to harnest for the next hittler?Will we go quietly into that good knight?I think not,Theres no chance they would do it,They need us they are cancer we are the patient.Cancer cant live without a host body luckly thats us lol.So please stop all the fear mongering and rember the words of our founders and not the metrosexuals who are in current charge,A people that fear there goverment is called tyrany,When a goverment fears its people that is liberty,jefferson.We can hang together or we will surely hang alone.Franklin...Stay positive




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by AngelofTheSun
 


Okay...
Suppose you do close your bank account. What happens when a someone pays you by check?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


No the President does NOT have the authority via executive order to suspend elections or dissovle congress.

There is a very specific reason our founding fathers built in checks and balances into out founding documents. It was to prevent one branch from becoming more poweful than the other 2 branches.

The Executive cannot order the Legislative branch to the bathroom, let alone to take an acvtion that would violate the Constitution / law. Should it decide it can tell the legislative what to do is the reason the Judicial can tell the executive where they can put that directive.

ITs also why the Legislative can decide top bring articles of impeachment against the President.


While I enjoy politicla drama as much as the next person some of the claims in the op source articles are off.
edit on 17-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

Thank you for the voice of reason. Though I'm not sure yet if I will agree, lol. And that's not laughing at you.
My point - Homeland Security from back in the Bush era (I thought) gave the acting Potus the power to (in a time or terrorist activity, war etc) 'dissolve congress and suspend the elections'.

I'll look to make sure and post what I find. Either way I appreciate the heads up.

peace



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 




President Obama has the RIGHT via his Executive order to dissolve congress and SUSPEND THE ELECTION all together.


For some reason I get the feeling I've read this before. Just replace Obama with Bush.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
America is not in the middle of a popular revolution so all these orders coming from the president`s office over the past two decades is reactionary behavior from the ruling capitalist class. They have been playing a very dangerous game over the past two decades and they have realized that the common people, as well as other nations, are getting better at resisting globalism and the American empire.

This latest action is, of course, not acceptable. I would suggest trying to arrange a deal in which you can get all payments for your time and labor in cash as much as you can.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

Thank you for the voice of reason. Though I'm not sure yet if I will agree, lol. And that's not laughing at you.
My point - Homeland Security from back in the Bush era (I thought) gave the acting Potus the power to (in a time or terrorist activity, war etc) 'dissolve congress and suspend the elections'.

I'll look to make sure and post what I find. Either way I appreciate the heads up.

peace


No worries and my comments arent directed at you personally, but some of the sources where the info came from. As for what Bush did people are constantly stating that Bush dissolved Posse Commitatus as well, when in fact he did not.

Posse Commitatus (fedral law preventing active duty military from engaging in civilian law enforcement functions) is not a part of the US constitution. It was passed by Congress in response to the political issues that arose after the end of the Civil war. Congress can change that law, or remove it outright, not the President.

No law can be enacted that would grant authourity to a branch that is not already granted to it under the constitution. This same standard also applies to international agreements / treaties, making any treaty / agreement illegal if it grantsd authority to the US government ( or brnach of) that is not already granted by the Constitution.

A prime example is all the hoopla over UN gun legislation..We can sign it all day long but in the end its a violation of the US Constitution, which is the end of the story and any type fo enforcement of such treaty.

The manner in which Congress is elected and established is prescribed by the Constitution and nowhere does it state the President can dissolve or susppend elections, nor would any executive order that grants that authority be lawful.

The only document that deals with this topic that I am familiar with is the Continuity of Government plans, which deal with actions that would destroy a significanyt amount of our government. Aside from the 25th amendment, there is nothing in the Constitution that deals specifically with the destruction of large chunks of our government.

Nothing in the COG deals with dissolution of Congress or suspension of elections. If we want to go one step further we can look at the sections that state the right of a perosn to vote shall not be abridged. I am pretty sure dissolving conghress and suspending elections would significantly abridge a persons right to vote.
edit on 17-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Is there an active review of these criteria. or is no one approving the ongoing definition? Will this get to the point of, if you exercise for more than 20 minutes daily, you could...



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
What could you say upon learning of this...



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
What's a bank account? Credit? I don't know of these thimgs



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GnosisAD
What's a bank account? Credit? I don't know of these thimgs


They are along the same lines as the saying -

"Close enough for government work"

Meaning:
Measured with a micrometer, marked with a crayon and cut with an axe.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 


Start losing it then man... They take from you every second of every day... bunch of bastard thieves!!!!!!!!



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
The entire issue comes down to not putting your money into a bank account unless absolutely necessary. Just keep your money hidden at home. If someone pays you with a check, cash it if possible. If not, deposit the check, wait till it clears, and then withdraw the money, SIMPLE AS THAT!!!!



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I really had hoped by now somebody would have put two and two together but it hasn't happened and I can't sit back and watch this thread any longer without BRINGING UP THE OBVIOUS!

Regardless if you 'think' this EO is 'only for those who feed money to Iran' - you're wrong. Period. If you don't like it? Too bad. Yeah I'm acting pissy - you don't like it? Go back to watching television. I mean honestly. Once something like this is singed in - it doesn't go away folks. It does NOT go away.

So let's pretend for a moment you don't have your head buried in the sand. Let’s pretend for a moment you can actually see fact for what it is - that being - if you're labeled ’sanctioned person’ you’re THROUGH.

How? Ok, How long do you think until the money in your pocket 'turns unto' money on a card - in other words - there's no more cash in hand because it’s all gone electric. Hmmm? Hmmmm?

So, then WHAT WILL YOU DO you absolute geniuses who've stated like snotty nosed little brats, 'Oh, giggle giggle, just take your money out of the bank hun'.


Yes, I'm angry. You're viewing your own demise and doing nothing about it! Of course do I know what to do about it? No! But I'm not going to sit there on the train tracks having a bloody picnic watching the train barrel down on me saying 'Oh, it aren't gonna happen ta me. Another beer anyone?'

‘Square’ Earth - ‘Money' (no longer) makes the World go ‘round

It’s already happening. Cash is on the endangered list as you read this. Countries all over the world are going Bio-Identity/Square, etc. UK, Italy, etc. Beyond that they're linking your FB page, your email, your Twitter, etc to the card. Of course you opt out of the ‘connecting the dots’ to your computer? Ok. But you’ll still be required to have a Bio-Card with all your info stored right inside.

One step from there? Tomorrow morning at a Starbucks near you? (Starbucks goes Square next month ) Your Bio-Card/Square Card will be your money not your cash in hand! It's already being done. All you have to do is pass within a shirt distance of the register and you’re bought and paid for - errr, I mean your coffee is bought and paid for.

How long do you think until all retailers will go 'cashless'? In a heartbeat baby cause they can't lose! NO more cash missing from the till, no more shotgun holdups, easier tax preparation and inventory, and on and on and on. Soon you'll not be able to buy via cash no matter what!

And then once everyone who thought it was 'cool' to pay via card complies, all retailers comply? When cash is GONE? Then what? When they don’t want you on ATS anymore (you‘re a ‘sanctioned citizen‘ if you believe in conspiracy theories). When they want your house. When they want to bust your noogies cause you went to a protest?

THEY TURN YOU OFF.

Period.

Wake up and smell the coffee people.

Oh, and for you geniuses who're going to post 'Oh, well, der, when I get my card I'll just stick it in the microwave for a few'! Please. Save yourself the embarrassment and don't (post).

peace
edit on 18-10-2012 by silo13 because: forgot the peace



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Before all the King Barry lovers twist this, this EO allows ALL real estate and other assets (your pissing ATM card won't even work because that would violate the EO) on anybody even ACCUSED of knowingly or UNKNOWINGLY, directly or INDIRECTLY doing ANYTHING that can be twisted to be of benefit or for ANYONE who has already been labeled a "sanctioned person". Then you're a sanctioned person. No trial, you don't have to know what you did, or who you did it for, or if you even really did it.

And this is not to try to deter Iran's efforts toward nuclear weapons, it's not a sanction due to Iran's threats to any other country, and it's not because Iran has been accused of assisting/arming against the Syrian rebels. It is if you are ACCUSED of directly/indirectly, knowingly/unknowingly doing SOMETHING that can tie back to the IRANIAN people being harmed.

I thought King Barry just bragged that he has just placed the most restrictive sanctions ever applied on the Iranian people???? Didn't he just crow about that in the townhall debate?

Fortunate for him only he, Hillary Clinton, and Tim Geithner can be the ones who declare you a sanctioned person, or he would be a sanctioned person!
edit on 10-18-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


LMAO!

There's a major problem with your RAMBLING excuse for this being "okie-dokie". You have to first be allegedly DAMAGED by an executive order/law/administrative code before you have standing to argue before the Supreme Court whether it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made clear - time after time - that they have no jurisdiction to preemptively rule on a person claiming FUTURE damage...because the person has no standing.

So blather all you want. It's going to be pretty efffing hard to get a good constitutional lawyer if your damned bank account is frozen and you can't even buy a sandwich.

edit on 10-18-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
LMAO!

There's a major problem with your RAMBLING excuse for this being "okie-dokie".

I never said it was okedoke...

Secondly its not rambling...



Originally posted by Valhall
You have to first be allegedly DAMAGED by an executive order/law/administrative code before you have standing to argue before the Supreme Court whether it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made clear - time after time - that they have no jurisdiction to preemptively rule on a person claiming FUTURE damage...because the person has no standing.

Incorrect - Executive orders only apply to the executive branch, as they are directives. EO's are NOT law and any EO applied that changes / bypasses / modifys a law are invalid since that responsibility falls to Congress. Issuing an EO that would suspend elections / dissolve Congress can be challenged since it becomes a Constitutional issue and falls outside the intended use of an EO.

Please brush up on your Con law / Court review / and standing criteria as you are way off.



Originally posted by Valhall
So blather all you want. It's going to be pretty efffing hard to get a good constitutional lawyer if your damned bank account is frozen and you can't even buy a sandwich.

edit on 10-18-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

Im not sure what you missed but I am not in favor of this or just about any other EO Obama has issued. Please take the time to read the post and understand it before taking a person to task.

okdedoke?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Where is Jack Bauer to expose this criminal?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


nice analysis of the EO.


Thanks


Originally posted by Valhall
on anybody even ACCUSED of knowingly or UNKNOWINGLY, directly or INDIRECTLY doing ANYTHING that can be twisted to be of benefit or for ANYONE who has already been labeled a "sanctioned person". Then you're a sanctioned person. No trial, you don't have to know what you did, or who you did it for, or if you even really did it.



Val, please explain to me your reasoning for your post. I do not see ANYTHING in here that includes or can possibly include any and all of us. Unless you and most you know own and controll people making them spend a million plus on Iran.




(a) knowingly, between July 1, 2010, and August 10, 2012, sold, leased, or provided to Iran goods, services, technology, information, or support with a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more, or with an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more during a 12-month period, and that could directly and significantly facilitate the maintenance or expansion of Iran's domestic production of refined petroleum products, including any direct and significant assistance with respect to the construction, modernization, or repair of petroleum refineries;

(b) knowingly, between July 1, 2010, and August 10, 2012, sold or provided to Iran refined petroleum products with a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more, or with an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more during a 12-month period;

(c) knowingly, between July 1, 2010, and August 10, 2012, sold, leased, or provided to Iran goods, services, technology, information, or support with a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more, or with an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more during a 12-month period, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the enhancement of Iran's ability to import refined petroleum products;

(d) is a successor entity to a person determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with this section to meet the criteria in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section;

(e) owns or controls a person determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with this section to meet the criteria in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, and had knowledge that the person engaged in the activities referred to in that subsection; or

(f) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a person determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with this section to meet the criteria in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, and knowingly participated in the activities referred to in that subsection.


Yes, Silo, I do believe this is " 'only for those who feed money to Iran' " because that is what it says. I see NO WAY POSSIBLE for this to me misconstrued to include us.
edit on 18-10-2012 by mrsdudara because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


You are apparently skimming past Section 2. That is the section of concern here. It puts NO limits on the amount of activity between the second-level of impacted person and the "sanctioned person". That's the point. Section 2 is NOT talking about the big-hitting "sanctioned people" in Sections 5 and 6. It's talking about ANYBODY who meets any of the 4 things in Section 2. And while subparagraphs (i) and (ii) under Section 2 have "knowingly" in them, subparagraph (iii) does NOT, and subparagraph (iv) states if you are just PURPORTED to be....then your assets can be frozen. There is no link between Section 2 and the actions of Section 5 or Section 6....all that has to be there is an accusation that you "acted on behalf of"....now how broad and ambiguous can you get..."on behalf of". If I'm contracted to paint your house, I'm acting on behalf of. If I'm a driver for a limousine...on behalf of.

If you pay me to move your household goods...on behalf of.

And I dont' even have to do anything of those things, I just have to be accused of doing those things.




new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join