In it, Maloney makes one false statement, and one misleading one.
1) “They took it and they put it all in one place owned by the government, so it was nationalized.”
False. It was given to the illegal privately owned Federal Reserve banking cartel.
2) He says that people were compensated for the gold that was taken from them, which is true, and I mentioned that in my article. However, it was taken at the figurative point of a gun at $20.67, only for the price to be unilaterally raised half a year later to $35 an ounce. I argue that’s a violation of the 5th amendment protection of “just compensation” for the taking of private property, on two fronts. 1) A 60% unilateral increase in half a year isn’t just and 2) It wasn’t taken for public use, but for use by the illegal privately owned Federal Reserve banking cartel.
Additionally, he claims that the there was no confiscation of gold, saying that confiscate means to take without compensation.
From Merriam-Webster’s Online dictionary, confiscation is defined with the entry confiscate, as:
1. to seize as forfeited to the public treasury
2. to seize or as if by authority
Definition 1 doesn’t apply in this case, since the gold had to be turned over the illegal privately owned Federal Reserve banking cartel, and not the public treasury.
Definition 2 applies, and mentions nothing about it being seized without compensation. Indeed, the gold was seized, by the figurative barrel of a gun, backed by criminal penalties, as outlined in FDR’s Executive Order 6102.