No products in the cart.

News

New Trump Executive Order Targets Clinton-Linked Individuals, Lobbyists And Perhaps Uranium One

New Trump Executive Order Targets Clinton-Linked Individuals, Lobbyists And Perhaps Uranium One

This article comes from ZeroHedge.com

The Trump Administration quietly issued an Executive Order (EO) last Thursday which allows for the freezing of US-housed assets belonging to foreign individuals or entities deemed “serious human rights abusers,” along with government officials and executives of foreign corporations (current or former) found to have engaged in corruption – which includes the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, and corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources.

Furthermore, anyone in the United States who aids or participates in said corruption or human rights abuses by foreign parties is subject to frozen assets – along with any U.S. corporation who employs foreigners deemed to have engaged in corruption on behalf of the company.

In fact, anyone in the world who has “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services” to foreigners targeted by the Executive Order is subject to frozen assets.

Read more here.

0

Shorty Dawkins

Oath Keepers Merchandise

12 comments

  1. It’s my understanding there is a list of names attached that has not or maybe will not be released publicly which would make sense as to not tip off those who might liquidate their assets and flee the country.

    1. I see them. Thanks. Will be interesting to see what other rats get nabbed in this since there are two additional qualifiers to nab any foreigner or person and entity subject to the order (Soros et al, the Clinton cartel, etc.)

  2. Am i wrong or are executive orders unconstitutional and illegal? No matter which side you fall on don’t use against them what we don’t want used against us.I’m tired of these Presidents and Governors Making (pretend) laws with a swish of a pen.

    1. Some EO’s are challenged in court, as we witnessed recently with the president attempting to close the door on jihadis entering the country, but the EO is granted by congress and the constitution, typically backed by federal law and/or constitutional provision. However, we saw how Bath house Barry and NWO Bush used his pen and how the congress looked the other way and how the courts were blinded when the entire corrupt government is supporting an unconstitutional EO. Entree’ Trump, who I believe is at least using the EO to undo the travesty of the last 24 years to 28 years. Staying vigilant.

  3. OK, I will kick the smelly. It’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Not just based on the Presidential Unilateral Dictates, and not because of the Unconstitutional Regulatory agencies making regulations as they go (some “Ex Post Facto”), but because it establishes a clear “Bill of Attainder.” Where’s the “Due Process?” Who gets to define “Civil Right?” More importantly, who gets to habitually, and continually redefine “Civil Rights?”

    Be careful what you wish for. I get the “Get em’ thing going on occasionally myself, but when we encourage Unconstitutional Legislation, Regulation, Presidential Dictates, or Judicial decisions, we do so at our own peril. It’s only a matter of time before the awesome force of the governmental canon gets pointed in our direction.

Leave a Reply