[graffis-l] AARON RUSSO& G. EDWARD GRIFFIN

[Guest guest]

At 09:46 AM 7/29/07, you wrote:

>G. Edward Griffin and Aaron Russo: A Second Call-to-Action

>Posted by: " Mark Graffis " mgraffis mgraffis

>Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:06 am (PST)

>PO Box 4228. Thousand Oaks, CA 91359

>www.freedom-force.org

>info

>

>A Second Call-to-Action

>

>G. Edward Griffin and Aaron Russo

>

>Last week, we issued an e-mail alert regarding an Executive Order signed

>on July 17 by President Bush that authorizes him to block the personal

>property of anyone in the United States who opposes his Middle East

>foreign policy. Read the document here:

>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html. If this

>link does not work, here is a backup source:

>http://www.freedom-force.org/newsarchive/EO_2007-07-17.mht.

>

>The response was immediate, huge, and encouraging. However, not everyone

>was equally concerned, and they wrote to say that we had misunderstood the

>language and intent of the document. There were two primary objections.

>The first was that the Order was written to prevent acts of violence, not

>political dissent. The second was that it applies only to people and

>organizations whose names appear on a list attached to the Executive Order

>but not made public. Larry Becraft, nationally respected Constitutional

>attorney, said:

>

> " I have no doubt that there was a list of the names of certain people

>attached to that EO that was not published. Bush provided the full

>document with the names of " the following persons " to certain members of

>Congress, but that list was not published for the public, nor was that

>list published in the Federal Register. … The EO clearly addresses foreign

>funds and property brought into this country and held either by foreigners

>or US persons. To contend that Americans holding their own property or

>having others hold that property (funds, financial instruments, etc), are

>going to have that property seized is a contention plainly outside the

>clear language of the EO. To assert that those protesting the war subjects

>those protesters to seizures is groundless. "

>We are not convinced by this argument. A reading of the EO, itself, points

>to a contrary interpretation. It may be true that there was a list

>attached to the EO, but that does not mean the list cannot be expanded at

>any time. In describing whose property may be blocked, the document says:

>

> " Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation

>with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, (i) to have

>committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of

>violence that have the purpose or effect of: (A) threatening the peace or

>stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or (B) undermining efforts to

>promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. "

>

>The phase " any person " completely negates the concept that this applies

>only to a few specifically named bad guys from the Middle East who happen

>to be in the U.S.

>

>If you think this EO applies only to those who have committed or intend to

>commit acts of violence, then read the words again: It applies to any

>person who poses " a significant risk of committing an act of violence. "

>Who would that be

 

******

Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentucky

http://www.thehavens.com/

thehavens

606-376-3363

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05