No products in the cart.


New Executive Order: “Obama Has Just Given Himself The Authority To Seize Your Assets”


This article was written by Mac Slavo and originally published at

On Monday the U.S. government took steps to seize the US-based assets of Russian lawmakers and anyone else that the US government deemed complicit in supporting the Crimean secession movement.

We’ve seen the U.S. government do this in countless cases surrounding drug and financial crimes, and sometimes even against foreign leaders like Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega.

What makes this particular instance so unprecedented and terrifying is that President Obama went so far as to issue a new Executive Order to give himself the authorization to do so, because the laws of the United States are such that our government is not allowed to simply take someone’s bank assets, home or business without due process.

Here’s the kicker.

The new Executive Order doesn’t just apply to just Russians or foreigners. It gets blanket coverage, so even American citizens could now face asset forfeiture if their actions are deemed to be “contributing to the situation in the Ukraine.”

Be careful what you say. Be careful what you write. President Obama has just given himself the authority to seize your assets.

According to the president’s recent Executive Order, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” (first reported by WND’s Aaron Klein), the provisions for seizure of property extend to “any United States person.” That 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.”

Via: The Ron Paul Institute

Like most Executive Orders and government legalese, the definitions for why an individual would have their assets seized under this directive are extremely broad and they could, for all intents and purposes, be used against anyone who supports Russian interests, or simply argues against those of the United States.

You can read the full Executive Order at the White House web site. The key points are noted below:

All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:

(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine;

(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or

(C) misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine

This new Executive Order has crossed a very dangerous line. It’s one that turns the notions of property rights and due process upside down by effectively bypassing the U.S. Constitution.

While we’re sure the President and his staff would argue that such a law would never be used against Americans who are protected by free speech, the fact is that the Executive Branch now believes it has the self-manifested authority to target any individual who engages in activities that undermine US interests abroad or at home.

If a President of the United States believes he has the authority to make it illegal for you to provide support to Russia by way of political commentary, charitable donations or other methods, could he also use similar directives to push forward other agendas?

President Obama has already re-authorized an E.O. giving him the ability to seize farms, food, processing plants, energy resources, transportation, and skilled laborers during national emergency.

The next Executive Order could come in the form of restrictions on firearms advocacy or target those who speak out against policies like government mandated health care. All it would take is the declaration of a national emergency and they can essentially do as they please.

Is it prudent to give a single person the ability to force such actions down the throats of the American people without Congressional oversight or Judicial review?





  1. While it is true that Executive Orders are almost raining down like confetti these days, in this case the words “of the following persons” need to be considered before jumping to the conclusion that this is a blanket EO that will affect everyone. The first sanctions by the US were only on no more than 20 of Putin’s buddies, and a bank run by one of his closest friends. Putin treated that as if it were a slap on the wrist with a wet noodle.

  2. This is – ONCE AGAIN – treason against the USA and her people. But lets not charge the traitorous scum(s) with anything. (the word “scum(s)” because there are more then one traitor to the USA within the federal gov, and within a few states.)

    Who is constitutionally charged with the enforcement of the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance there of, each state’s Constitution, the Laws of the Union – that would be those “in Pursuance thereof”, Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”?

    Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

    Notice that it says that a Militia (made up of the people of each state) is “NECESSARY to the security of a free State”.

    US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

    The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

    Clause 15 requires of the federal congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions”.

    Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

    U.S. Constitution: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    “This is why the Militia offers the best protection against rogue politicians and usurpation’s for those serving within the governments, “We the people” protect our own natural rights and hold accountable those we put into positions of power by enforcing the US Constitution and each state’s constitution. When everyone takes a part in guarding the security of the neighborhood, county, city, state that they live in; plus the country when needed, it basically stops or makes it very difficult for a small body of people to take over this nation. (Edward Vieira, Junior “Constitutional Homeland Security” Volume 1, the Nation in Arms”.)

    Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

    George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court Judge, wrote of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.” (The Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases, in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era.)

    Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

    Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.

    Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

    Tench Coxe: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.

    Justice Robert H. Jackson (Chief of Counsel for the United States, Nuremberg Trials – Nazi Germany): “It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error”.

    Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions – even concealed weapons bans – are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”

    Nunn vs. State: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

    Andrews v. State explains, this “passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”

    Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.

    The Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 (Dick Act) broke the militia down into three groups.
    The three Militia classes H.R. 11654 provides for are:
    – The organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia; (governmental organizations)
    – The unorganized militia and (“We the People”)
    – The regular army. (governmental organizations)

    But that is unlawful, there is only one (1) constitutionally recognized militia, the Militia of the several states. The National Guard and the regular army are “standing” military organizations.

    It states: “The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.”

    They – feds, corporate media – started calling the Militia of the several states – the ONLY lawful Militia – the “unorganized Militia” to put it down and make fun of it. It is another use of propaganda, social media, corporate news to destroy and change the way the people think. The only reason that there is an unorganized Militia is because:

    – The congress did not carry out it’s lawfully assigned duty
    – The governors of the state have not “picked up the slack” and carried out those constitutionally assigned congressional duties

    Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”

    Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition: The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.

    The USA has been doing many unlawful and destructive things in our name – they are there ot represent OUR wishes – not those of a world government. We need to protect and defend OUR nation. Build it back up and get out of the rest of the world’s business. Our legitimate government ONLY allows us to go to war to DEFEND (lawfully, not on lies) our country… PERIOD!

  3. Continued
    Clause 15 requires of the federal congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions”.

    Notice that it does NOT require the congress to call out any military body or governmental professional police force to do any of those duties; “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions””. The US Military is ONLY to be created and used when we are in a lawfully congressional DECLARED war.

    “Emergency Powers” do not exist in the constitutional USA. “Emergency Powers lack both a specific source in the Constitution of the United States of America, and a definition (Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume 1: The Nation in Arms, Edward Vieira, Jr.).

    The US Constitution does not contain a clause delegating to the congress “Emergency Powers”. It does not define the content of those powers, set out specific conditions under which they could be used, by whom, and for what purposes they could be used. “Emergency Powers” are illegal usurpations and thus, not lawful here in America. The definition of a constitutional government is that of defined and limited powers of those put into position to carry out those duties assigned.

    Our US Constitution:
    – Does not delegate to the government as a whole; or to the congress, president, or supreme court separately, any “emergency powers”.
    – Does not delegate powers that can only be used for an “emergency”, or brought into existence in an emergency.
    – Does not delegate power to even declare that an “emergency” exists.
    – Does not use the term “emergency”, let alone define it as a lawful part relevant to the “Supreme Law of this land.

    The founding fathers created the US Constitution because of an “emergency” of the highest order, it would not seem possible that they would forget to insert that term within the US Constitution if they so deemed it necessary. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 grants the congress the power “to declare war” – which would qualify as an emergency. It also recognizes other areas”
    (Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume 1: The Nation in Arms, Edward Vieira, Jr.)

    There can lawfully be no (NO!) standing army except in times of war, and ONLY the congress can lawfully declare war under the contract they get their duties and powers from.

    *War must be declared by congress in order to be a lawful war that our US military are used to fight in, it must be in defense of our nation ONLY which is why so many lies were used as excuses to get us into wars.

    (If starting WW3 is not conspiring agaisnt the US Constitution since we have NOT been using our US Military as it was LAWFULLY intended; in declared wars – by the congress, no standing military EXCEPT in a congressionally declared war and in DEFENSE of our nation – NOT starting it or because of lies (and why did we let US Presidents no longer physically lead our troops into war about the same time that we started keeping a “standing military” here?) Then what is? Because wars alwaus – not lawfully – trample upon our rights so it applies)

    18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
    If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured
    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12: ““To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.

    The money that the congress has illegally spent beyond the lawfully allowed time of two years for the support of a “standing military” was/and still is a misappropriation of funds (misappropriation n. the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one’s own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official…), a felony for which they are PERSONALLY responsible.

    The point is, “We the People” MUST say “NO” to the Military Industrial complex and the banking and corporate interests when they go beyond what is allowed by REMOVING the traitors in office and supporting and defending OUR legitimate government at this time – the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution.

  4. Cal excuse me for responding at such a late date. I haven’t been on this site since before your post. I agree with everything that you set forth, and I commend you on your knowledge of the constitution and the laws of the land. But my question to you sir is probably one that people just like me from all over this great country have. How and who will get the ball rolling on all of this? I and many others will have your back if and when the ball gets rolling. I’m not an Oath Keeper but I am an American, a proud one at that. I stand behind all the principals of the Oath Keepers. I stand behind the constitutional republic that we have. People like me just need some hope that we will fight for our counties salvation of our republic. Thanks and God bless.

Comments are closed.