Bush Outlaws All War Protest In United States

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

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 8 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."
this isnt my opinion it is what is being circulated……….
In reading these EO’s I havent seen anything in them pertaining to arrest pertaining to protesting any war.

in France, you do not mix religion and society : it is a private domain and no candidate for any public function would ever mention his religious belief, the name of God; it is absolutely unthinkable that a French president would express his religious beliefs the way US presidents and at social occasions it would be considered very rude to start a discussion about God and religion, unless a very light and careful one. The role of the church in social life is extremely limited compared to the U.S.A. Globally speaking, France is a country much less religious than the USA which does not mean that people have no religious beliefs, but they are strictly a personal choice. "Laïcité" does not mean that the state is against religion, but it means that it must guarantee that all religious beliefs are treated equally, including having no religious belief. One can say that "laïcité" is a value which shared by a huge majority of the French, whatever their religion. This is why the Islamic veil in school caused an almost unanimous scandal. Since 1905 there has been the separation of church and state. Since that date, all religious buildings belong to the local authorities and no member of the clergy can be appointed and paid by public funds . These principles are largely agreed upon in the French society but many Americans strongly disagree with them. Even French Muslims are progressively accepting the secular ways. But how is it monitored? By the creation of an "Observatoire de la Laïcité", a permanent commission including members of the Parliament and highly respected personalities. They will report to the Prime Minister and monitor the "respect of secularism in public services". In my opinion, I think that Laïcité should be adapted into England’s society because of the simple reason to rule out racism. At the moment, racism is peaking in this country and hardly anything is being done to stop it. Secularism would stop religion from influencing not only education but every aspect of life.

I love to gamble; play the slots as often as I can, my limited income permitting. Am a retiree, 75 yrs. old, and receive a "non-service" connected, Disability Pension from the VA. This accounts for approximately 1/3 my monthly income – the remainder is from SSA.

Any income in addition to the SSA reported to the IRS, the VA wants to deduct from my pension. The law requires that any gambling wins over a specified amount – in my case, a slot win for over ,000 in 2007 – be reported.

The VA keeps tabs on these; but it usually takes 2-3 years for them to process, and then act on them. I’ve received such an action notice recently; and am in the process of gathering my documented losses: the VA accepts them to nullify the otherwise would be deductions. I have to contend with them nearly every year over these issues.

THE SITUATION: any Casinos that offer a "Card Club Membership" – an electronic recording system of amounts wagered/returned – offers thereby documented Win/Loss statements to a holder – and if one has these, the VA will accept them, and then there’s no problem.

But the particular casino where the JP was won, doesn’t. They will only give a patron a W/L recording card; and it’s up to the wager from that point on. I moved recently from one apartment to another in the complex where I’ve lived for the past 9-10 yrs.; and now, unable to locate the recording card on which I had kept a record of my W/L there.

I do have a computer print-out W/L statement from another casino – one which is now defunct – but it shows W/L for all the years I patronized it, and is dated for 2008(the only record(s) they could offer me, because of the idiosyncrasy of their set up); and shows amounts loss that would more than cover the 2007 JP won, at the aforementioned casino. I have not yet submitted this to the VA. Really not sure what to do.

There is an organization called AM-VETS(American Veterans), that has assisted me in the past with Gambling Wins/Losses litigation with the VA; but they don’t know what best to do either.

Any suggestions? Recommendations? Would really appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Thank you,

Alberich
Thanks anyway MLL: it’s the thought that counts.
——————————————————–

"joe c": forgot to thank you for thanking me for serving our country.

I’m certainly glad that I did, and proud to have done so – but would have to admit, that I sure wouldn’t have cared for a repeat: a definitely "thank you", but, NO THANK YOU.
——————————————————–

"joe c": many thanks for your response. But afraid you’ve misconstrued my life situation.

I live on a fixed income; and to declare my gambling as a business – aside from the fact that I could in no way afford the declaration fee – would have an utterly disaterous effect on the governmental subsides I receive: so that it would not be a practical option for me.

If you don’t mind, have made you a contact; and should you wish, please feel free to email me – seems we may have some things in common.
——————————————————–

"joe c": forgot to thank you for thanking me for serving our country.

I’m certainly glad that I did, and proud to have done so – but would have to admit, that I sure wouldn’t have cared for a repeat: a definitely "thank you", but, NO THANK YOU.

So, the superbowl – one of the biggest American cultural events of the year – with a past history of controversial entertainment (i.e. Janet and Justin’s racy performance) – is doing controversial in the other direction this year.

An informational ad will be broadcast advocating that people think hard before they abort their children… (So, how can anyone with scruples have a problem with that?)

Wanda Sykes, comedianne and host of a new late night show has already taken aim at CBS, for both refusing to air an ad for a homosexual dating service "Man Crunch" and for choosing to air the Tebow ad.

http://mancrunch.com/

What is wrong with this picture, America?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/07/wanda-sykes-takes-on-cbss_n_452473.html