Skip to comments.Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans' Bank Accounts
Posted on 10/13/2012 9:09:25 PM PDT by Nachum
The latest executive order (EO) emanating from the White House October 9 now claims the power to freeze all bank accounts and stop any related financial transactions that a sanctioned person may own or try to perform all in the name of Iran Sanctions.
Titled an Executive Order from the President regarding Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions the order says that if an individual is declared by the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of the treasury to be a sanctioned person, he (or she) will be unable to obtain access to his accounts, will be unable to process any loans (or make them), or move them to any other financial institution inside or outside the United States. In other words, his financial resources will have successfully been completely frozen. The EO expands its authority by making him unable to use any third party such as a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, subgroup or other organization that might wish to help him or allow him to obtain access to his funds.
And if the individual so sanctioned decides that the ruling is unfair, he isn't allowed to sue. In two words, the individual has successfully been robbed blind.
But its all very legal. The EO says the president has his vested authority to issue it, and then references endless previous EOs, including one dating back to 1995 which declared a state of emergency (which hasnt been lifted): Executive Order 12957.
EO 12957 was issued by President Bill Clinton on March 15, 1995, which was also obliquely related to the Iran problem:
I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of the Government of Iran to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
What the heck does this mean in plain English?
Similar EO dating to 1995? Seems we had another president since then that could have reversed this. Hmmm, all well.
What makes anyone think that electing a liberal to office is going to change anything?
The next election is not about liberal and conservative. Its about liberal and liberaler. What a joke.
3 more months and President Romney can order all of obamma’s EO’s null and void.
If Obama wants to freeze your account, all he has to do is to name you a “sanctioned” person. They’ll tell you it has to do with moving money from your account to overseas for terrorist purposes.
Maybe it can also be used to keep people from parking their money in Canada or some other nation as the destruction of the dollar continues. Twofer.
“What the heck does this mean in plain English?”
It means that the government can raid your or my bank account anytime they please for any reason they please.
Its already written into Obamacare.
ladies and gentlemen this concludes the takeover of American banks. I’d recommend a little stashed cash on hand for that proverbial rainy day a’comin’ should Zero “win” the election.
Anyone know what the definiation of "sanctioned person" may be?
Is anyone worried about the potential of a "scorched earth" departure?
Anyone they dislike. :(
Wow. I’m not holding my breath for the Republicans or the ACLU raising a stink about this.
Iran today, contribute to TEA tomorrow. Stroke of a pen.
How didi we know that this was coming.
We must, must, must un-elect this man — turning into a villain, isn’t he?
Given your scenario, forget emptying out your accounts.
New $100 bills coming out next year could - again, by the stroke of the pen - make your stash useless.
We must unelect congresspersons that standby and let such an EO go unchallenged. Obama and his enablers are not governing but instead confiscating under color of office.
Romney will have to recall ALL of bambi’s EO’s
According to them, maybe.
According to the Original Intent of the Constitution, however, it's treason.
In the United States of America the people have retained the sovereignty in their own hands: they have in each state distributed the government, or administrative authority of the state, into two distinct branches, internal, and external; the former of these, they have confided, with some few exceptions, to the state government; the latter to the federal government.
Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
Preliminary Remarks, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution
That's right, boys and girls. Despite what we've all been taught, treason is NOT an action against government..... it's ANY attempt by the administrative organ known as the federal government to make laws that affect the people.
He could but probably won’t