First of all, an ancient journalism axiom is, if a headline is a question that can be answered with the word "no" then "no" is usually the right answer.
Second, Executive Order 13603 isn't anything new. It's simply an updating of one just like it that Bush signed. The original Executive Order dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248). It has been updated a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush. Nothing in the Executive Order claims presidential authority to seize private property and place them at the personal disposal of Obama, nor does it allow him to remain in office for any reason whatsoever, including an emergency or simply by declaring martial law.
The Executive Order provides the framework and authority for the allocation or appropriation of resources, materials and services to promote national defense, to identify, assess, be prepared, improve, foster cooperation. It contains the directives for implementing these rather analytical tasks, mostly in the form of explicit delegations of presidential authority to Cabinet members and others in the executive branch. That's all it does.
If you read a headline that is a question which can be answered with "no," you can simply answer the question and stop reading, because everything written below it is almost certainly going to be crap. Never seen one of those articles yet that wasn't just a load of crap, whether it's on the Internet, or in a newspaper or a magazine.
