Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Taro who wrote (8890)	3/20/2014 12:52:46 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

New Executive Order: “Obama Has Just Given Himself the Authority to Seize Your Assets” .................................................................................................... March 20, 2014 by Mac Slavo 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 blanketcoverage, 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 individualwould 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 othermethods, 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?

To: Taro who wrote (8890)	3/20/2014 12:53:46 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

It's just a choreographed show. WH Press Secretary Gets Questions from Reporters Before Press Briefings Mar 20, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER weeklystandard.com A CBS reporter from Arizona reveals that President Obama's press secretary, Jay Carney, receives questions from the press in advance of his daily press briefing. In fact, she says, the reporters often receive the answers in advance of the briefing, too. According to the reporter, Jay Carney told her this yesterday at the White House: "It was a very busy day. We started here shortly after 8 o'clock with a coffee with press secretary Jay Carney inside his office in the West Wing," says the reporter. "And this was the off-the-record so we were able to ask him all about some of the preparation that he does on a regular basis for talking to the press in his daily press briefings. He showed us a very long list of items that he has to be well versed on every single day. "And then he also mentioned that a lot of times, unless it's something breaking, the questions that the reporters actually ask -- the correspondents -- they are provided to him in advance. So then he knows what he's going to be answering and sometimes those correspondents and reporters also have those answers printed in front of them, because of course it helps when they're producing their reports for later on. So that was very interesting." The reporter, from a local CBS Arizona affiliate, interviewed President Obama yesterday. UPDATE: Carney denies: .

To: Taro who wrote (8890)	3/22/2014 4:29:59 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

Ambassadorships: Qualified Applicants Need Not Apply? ............................................................... Townhall.com ^ \| March 22, 2014 \| Ed Feulner “I’m no real expert on China.” Sobering words to hear from the man nominated by President Obama … to be U.S. ambassador to China. But that’s what Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said during his confirmation hearing in January when asked some detailed questions about U.S.-China policy. At least Baucus had actually been to China. Not all of President Obama’s nominees for ambassadorships can say that. Consider this exchange between Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Noah Mamet, during the latter’s confirmation hearing to be U.S. ambassador to Argentina: Rubio: “Mr. Mamet, have you been to Argentina?” Mamet: “Senator, I haven’t had the opportunity yet to be there. I’ve traveled pretty extensively around the world, but I haven’t yet had a chance.” Others have displayed an alarmingly flimsy grasp of how politics work in the country where they would serve. For example, when Sen. John McCain asked George Tsunis, prospective ambassador to Norway, “What do you think the appeal of the Progress Party was to the Norwegian voters?” Tsunis called them a “fringe element” that “Norway has been very quick to denounce.” At which point McCain noted that the Progress Party is part of Norway’s coalition government. “I stand corrected,” Tsunis replied. But let’s ask a more basic question: Why are there political ambassadors? Over many years of traveling around the world, I have had the opportunity to meet some extraordinary women and men who have served as U.S. representatives on every continent. Some have been career foreign service officers, others have been political appointees. By and large, these individuals have performed yeoman service to represent our country under often difficult and challenging circumstances. I remember long sessions with former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, a Democrat appointed by Jimmy Carter and reappointed by Ronald Reagan to the critically important post of ambassador to Japan. He was later succeeded by House Speaker Tom Foley, and then by Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, a Republican. Today, the post of Ambassador to Japan is held by a famous person whose qualifications for appointment to the Embassy in Tokyo are, well, limited. Caroline Kennedy may have caught the fancy of the Japanese people, but her qualifications to represent our nation in one of the most important posts internationally are not obvious. The most recent round of Obama appointees, however, are so ill-qualified that even The Daily Show’s John Stewart made fun of them. The ambassadors-designate to Argentine, Iceland, Norway and Hungary had never stepped foot in the country to which they would be accredited as the U.S. representative. Their main qualification seems to be that they raised millions for the president’s reelection campaign. Sure, blatantly political appointees are nothing new, but this latest batch apparently can’t even be bothered to Google the country they’d serve in as ambassadors. But you don’t nominate someone just because he or she raised money for the president, particularly if they lack knowledge of the country to which they would represent the United States. Argentina is a linchpin country in Latin America with politically unstable leadership. Norway is one of Europe’s largest energy suppliers and the NATO bulwark on the Northern Flank. Iceland has had a tough economic recovery and is strategically located in the heart of the North Atlantic. Hungary is a former Soviet state and a fellow NATO member that borders Ukraine. It’s a sad commentary when not only TV commentators, but late-night comedians make fun of America’s representatives overseas. President Obama once vowed to “have civil servants, wherever possible, serve in these posts.” What happened to that promise?