Home / Foreign Investing / Obama’s Lastest Executive Order Freezes Americans’ Accounts
Print Friendly and PDF

Obama’s Lastest Executive Order Freezes Americans’ Accounts

Written by Gary North on October 12, 2012

So, you think your capital is safe. You think it would take a law to freeze your assets permanently.

Silly you.

All it takes is an executive order signed by the President.

Here is the most recent example. It applies to all Americans: individuals and corporations.

The way this legal precedent is being set is simple: it targets the latest bad guys in the ever-rotating roulette wheel of evil. (“Round and round it goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.”)

Hillary and Turbo Tim Geithner will be brought into the process. They will decide, meaning faceless bureaucrats under them will decide.

It’s all in bureaucratese, the better to hide what the Executive Order is really doing.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(i) with respect to section 6(a)(3) of ISA, prohibit any United States financial institution from making loans or providing credits to the sanctioned person consistent with that section;

(ii) with respect to section 6(a)(6) of ISA, prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which the sanctioned person has any interest;

(iii) with respect to section 6(a)(7) of ISA, prohibit any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions or by, through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of the sanctioned person;

(iv) with respect to section 6(a)(8) of ISA, block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the sanctioned person, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in;

(v) with respect to section 6(a)(9) of ISA, prohibit any United States person from investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of a sanctioned person;

(vi) with respect to section 6(a)(11) of ISA, impose on the principal executive officer or officers, or persons performing similar functions and with similar authorities, of a sanctioned person the sanctions described in sections 6(a)(3), 6(a)(6), (6)(a)(7), 6(a)(8), 6(a)(9), or 6(a)(12) of ISA, as selected by the President, Secretary of State, or Secretary of the Treasury, as appropriate; or

(vii) with respect to section 6(a)(12) of ISA, restrict or prohibit imports of goods, technology, or services, directly or indirectly, into the United States from the sanctioned person.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.

Sec. 2. (a) 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 or at the recommendation of the Secretary of State: . . .

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

To find out who the targets are, and why the President knew he could get away with this, click the link.

Continue Reading on www.whitehouse.gov

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

28 thoughts on “Obama’s Lastest Executive Order Freezes Americans’ Accounts

  1. This appears to be the executive order implementing the various Iran sanctions laws enacted by Congress. This is bad why exactly? What a I missing here?

  2. And he could not buy or sell, lest he have the mark of the beast. (Don't think for one second that Romney would not be doing the same exact thing if given the opportunity – same master, different puppet.)

  3. one step closer to the mark of the beast

  4. Phillip the Bruce says:

    @ nik – First of all, realize that the title of any official government action rarely means what it says. It is intended to mislead. E.g., the Affordable Care Act.
    2nd, what is good about commiting acts of war (which is what sanctions are) against Iran, that is NOT currently involved in war, and has not started one in several centuries?

  5. OregonMuse says:

    So attacking our embassy in 1979 wasn't an act of war?

  6. Currently there are no restrictions on moving capital out of the U.S.

    Just sayin'

  7. Supertad108 says:

    It has been stated as unattended consequences to those "good" laws.

  8. Supertad108 says:

    And they laugh when putting your money under your bed.

  9. Mother of Oregon says:

    Correct. That was not an act of war.

  10. we are the cause for Iran attacking our embassy. In 1959 we covertly overthrew their elected president and installed the corrupt and tyrannical Shah. It was blowback for our actions

  11. Texas Chris says:

    Because Iran is not the boogeyman the MSM and the government tell you they are.

    Most people say they don't trust the Media OR the government, but they believe the Media and the government about Iran? We KNOW they lied about Iraq… And now they're using the same lies on Iran, and people believe them.

    And Syria's next. You watch.

  12. Texas Chris says:

    Totally agree.

    And I find it funny that your comment was rated so low. Perhaps that veil has not yet been lifted from their eyes, eh?

  13. Texas Chris says:

    It could be argued that the '79 revolution was a response to the '53 overthrow of the Iranian government, and installation of a brutal, yet Western-friendly dictator, the Shah.

    History doesn't start at the point where WE got attacked. It goes back to why they wanted to attack us in the first place. And it's usually over oil, as it was in '53.

  14. Texas Chris says:

    Yes there are.

    You will be penalized a 10 year assessment on all wealth you attempt to expatriate with, and the IRS reserves the right to audit you for 10 years AFTER you leave to make sure you didn't earn more than what you were pre-taxed for.

    The IRS also audits foreign banks looking for US citizens, and recently foreign banks have been refusing to maintain or open accounts for US citizens, or recent expats. It's getting harder and harder to keep an account in the Caymans, Switzerland, or Panama.

  15. Phillip the Bruce says:

    If you are going to accept the PTB's definition of the difference between war and terror, i.e., that governments commit acts of war and "non-state" groups and individuals commit acts of terror, this was a terrorist attack.
    On the other hand, if you don't accept that def., then call it an act of retaliation, as Tx Chris explains below.

  16. This is a popular notion, but incorrect.

    You only pay an 'exit tax' when you apply for a formal tax release from the IRS, and only then if you are a 'covered expatriate'

    A covered expatriate is someone who has either a net worth of $2+ million or has paid a boatload of federal taxes in the prior year (IIRC, $135,000+ in federal income tax paid)

    If you are a 'covered expatriate' you are required to realize all unrealized capital gains and pay tax on those before the IRS will issue a tax release (meaning you are no longer subject to U.S. federal taxes).

    So, any unrealized gain in real estate (including your personal residence), businesses, retirement accounts, etc. are taxed.

    Of course, this year most of the above are only taxed at 15% – not a bad deal if you want to escape the future, higher federal taxes that are coming in 2013 and beyond.

    But none of the above impacts anyone who simply decides to liquidate and wire transfer their money abroad – there will of course be consequences if they don't follow the above procedure for obtaining a formal tax release, but currently nothing stops anyone from wiring money out of the U.S.

  17. Abraham NoBama says:

    You need to remember that Gary North likes to make headlines and sensationalize stories that have little impact on us as a whole. He will purposely leave out facts. This is not the first time he has done soe.

  18. For Iran it is true and has been since the fall of the Shah. As for Syria, no, it is Egypt and as we have seen the Obama administration is an active partner in the Egyptian debacle and will be found even worse complicit with the Libyan government fiasco. The information is correct but the policies of the Obama administration and their tacit and sometimes overt help to the terrorist/hamass/Muslim Brotherhood bad guys of and in these country's governments is despicable and treasonous.

  19. The law says it applies to United States persons which are U.S. citizens who work for the executive so they must obey his commands. you need a non-interest bearing trust account to be free from the IRS

  20. I know what you mean, Phillip. We are still being told that the conflict from 1860-1865 was a "civil war," and that it was fought "to free the slaves." Lincoln's own statements (never reported in history books or political allusions) effectively demonstrate that this was not true. Remember, during the "arab spring," the media told us how horrible nd evil Khaddaffy was for "using his military againwt his own people."

  21. Dean Palmer says:

    Dear Mr. North,

    In regards to your article titled, "Obama’s Lastest Executive Order Freezes Americans’ Accounts", I must point out to your readers that after reading the ENTIRE presidential executive order at http://www.whitehouse.gov (URL is contained in the link shown above), it is clear that the freezing of possessions, property, capitol or assets of any United States person is strictly limited only to those who are conducting business or certain kinds of correspondence with Iran – especially its government – or who are acting in any way harmful or hostile to its people such as by committing serious human rights abuses against them. Please sir, tell or point out to all of us how this Order could possibly affect or harm the rest of us or any person living in the United States who is merely going about their daily business having no affiliations or contact whatsoever with Iran?

    In this Presidential Order, the Secretary of State is named by the President as solely responsible for determining if any United States person has met or is meeting the criteria set forth in the Order that would constitute a breach of the Order. But this determination would come by due process of law after a thorough examination of the facts and attendant situation in a federal court. Even the US Government would have burden of proof in such a case and would not be able to arbitrarily act to block a person's assets without such proof or without the Due Process of Law.

    Things are difficult enough in the world without writers stirring up doodoo where there is no doodoo to be found. Look, I don't like Obama anymore than you do and I do not support him and his agenda. But these kinds of editorials aren't helping our cause! The kindest advice I can offer is that you would do well to stop writing with inference that there is cause for worry and alarm when there is no cause whatsoever to be found. Consult with a member of the Tea Party Economist's legal counsel after reading these presidential orders (or other federal legislation) in their entirety. They can help you determine if there is any cause for worry. In the case of this Presidential Order, I see no cause for worry – unless for example you happen to be selling more than $1,000,000 worth of stuff to Iran that would further Iran's political or military agenda. Conservative organizations like Tea Party Economist need all the respect and credibility they can get – especially now that a national insanity seems to have gripped our country causing Obama to be reelected. People need to know they can count on conservative organizations like this to get the purest facts w/o embellishment, posturing, fear-mongering or twist. Articles such as this that create needless worry and concern without basis or cause can harm the credibility of The Tea Party Economist.
    … Just some kindly advice.

  22. I think I remember reading somewhere, that embassies are concidered that countries sovereign ground. So therefore an attack on said embassy would be concidered an act of war.

  23. Bob Marshall says:

    Most Americans feel that the sanctions against Iraq that killed 500,000 Iraqi children due to starvation and diseases wasn't bad either. Madelaine Albright said it we felt it was necessary.

  24. Adolph JR. is on the move!

  25. Exactly.

  26. You have to realize that the leaders in Iraq could have come to a compromise at any time, yet didn't. The leaders back then didn't care about their own people. The current leaders do.

  27. Gary just loves to sensationalize and bring in web traffic. After all, that is how he gets paid.

    Silly hack.

  28. If you guys ( The Economist ) want to be taken seriously , please take your journalism seriously , I mean the title , Obama's Lastest Order …..Lastest ?? C'mon guys , I would like to show some of my more liberal friends some of your articles for their consideration , but they would laugh at me.