Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Executive Order’

With word that Trump has revoked the press credentials of the Washington Post for appearing in an official capacity at any of his events, and criticism of that from the usual quarters, I couldn’t help but recall what I learned perhaps only about five to six years ago, about “America’s greatest President,” Abraham Lincoln, arresting critical newspaper editors.

In fact, here’s Lincoln’s official Executive Order on the matter (emphasis mine):

Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.

And before that, America’s second president, John Adams, signed the blatantly unconstitutional “Alien and Sedition Acts,” which made it a punishable crime to be critical of the federal government.

Unlike Adams and Lincoln, Trump is still a private citizen. When he’s President, then starts banning various press agencies, then let’s put things in historical perspective and judge what a violator of the First Amendment he truly is, and decide on the appropriate remedy.

Read Full Post »

Ayn RandOn the July 8, 2012 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb, George Whitehurst-Berry, former host of GCN’s “Crash! Are You Ready?,” identified several misleading points that he labelled disinfo, which were made in the following passage from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (starting at 49:50):

Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into an arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day it bounces, marked: ‘Account overdrawn.”

Ayn Rand:
– Failed to distinguish between debt money and sovereign, debt-free money.
– Claimed gold has an objective value, despite its value changing, like when Roosevelt’s Executive Order in 1933 seized gold at $20.67 USD an ounce, only for Congress to later increase its value to $35 an ounce.
– Falsely associated paper money with force, which doesn’t include local, voluntary currencies.
– Falsely identified debt-based paper money as a demand instrument — it’s a promise to pay.
– Failed to distinguish between privately issued debt-free money by individuals, and debt-based money by banks.

Read Full Post »

In response to my article, “Gold confiscation: It depends on what gold, and how much,” someone posted a link to this video, by Mike Maloney of GoldSilver.com.

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.

Read Full Post »

There is growing talk about another confiscation of gold by the U.S. government as gold prices continue to set new all-time highs since 2008. I’ve heard at least three shows this week raise that possibility.

On May 22, 2010, Al Korelin, host of the Korelin Economics Report, had Louis James of the Casey Research Organization on in the last segment of the first hour.

Al Korelin: “One of them is the question of government confiscation, which is something I haven’t thought about, but more and more of my guests are bringing it up. I think that’s an interesting consideration. It has happened before.

Louis James: “It is something that has been done before, and not just by banana republics. The United States government confiscated privately held gold, during the Great Depression era, and yes, that could happen again. Our feeling has long been that that could happen, but the point at which that would happen, the point at which the government would even be willing to talk about gold being an issue, we would already see huge increases in the price of gold. It would become a public problem before the government were to take action. So there would: a) be warning and b) already huge increases for holders of gold and gold in dollar terms.

I agree with James that there would be warning, and a substantial increase over the current price of gold of around $1200 USD an ounce before the U.S. government is likely to confiscate gold again.

It is important to remember that if gold is confiscated again in a similar way to the 1933 precedent, there would be certain exceptions. At the time, they included:

“Gold coins having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins,” and “gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate of $100 belonging to any one person.”

Gold then was worth $20.67 an ounce before the confiscation, and $35 an ounce from then until August 1971, which was equal to 2.8 to 4.8 ounces of gold during that time.

If a future gold confiscation is similar to the 1933 confiscation, it is likely that individuals will be able to keep a similar amount of non-collector gold. The way to keep all your gold in such a scenario would be to buy numismatic gold. That is, gold with a significant premium value over its metal content.

To really be on the safe side, you should consider diversifying into silver, and especially platinum and palladium. Find out why platinum is the overlooked investment metal and currency, and how palladium was the best performing precious metal currency of 2009.

Read Full Post »

Since 2009, I have heard two prominent financial analysts repeatedly make the claim on multiple programs, including two major ones with over a million weekly listeners, that gold and silver are all you can rely on. But what about platinum?

How much can you really rely on gold and silver, when gold was confiscated by the U.S. government in 1933 at the height of the Great Depression, and silver in 1934. And how can you specifically rely on gold when it’s the commodity most controlled by the international bankers, and a reserve currency for national and international banks?

Unlike gold and silver, a confiscation of platinum is unlikely for several reasons:
1) It’s not a reserve currency for national and international banks like gold is.
2) It isn’t as widely held as gold and silver.
3) Its historical investment and currency use is shorter than gold and silver.
4) Its decreased demand relative to gold and silver in a recession, due to its overwhelming industrial demand, leading to better performance during the subsequent recovery.

When I mention platinum as an investment comparable to gold and silver, I’ve been told that platinum has little to no historical use as a currency. As I wrote previously, platinum has an international currency code along with gold, silver and palladium. Since 1988, one ounce platinum coins from the Royal Canadian Mint have a legal tender value of $50. Since 1997, American Platinum Eagles from the United States Mint have a legal tender value of $100.

From 1967-1978, the first and only regularly minted gold coin available for the masses was the South African Krugerrand. However, due to trade sanctions imposed by many Western countries on South Africa for their policy of apartheid, the Krugerrand’s availability was severely limited from the 1970s until 1994.

It got some serious competition in 1979, when the Royal Canadian Mint began minting Canadian Gold Maple Leaf coins. Just nine years later, at the height of sanctions on the import of Krugerrands, one ounce platinum coins were minted by the Royal Canadian Mint between 1988, and continued to be minted until 2002, and were reintroduced in 2009.

Not only can you rely on platinum as a historically non-confiscatable metal, you can also rely on it historically trading at a substantial premium over gold. Over most of the past decade, platinum has traded at a 50 to 100% premium over gold. At a 38% premium over gold at the end of January 2010, it still has plenty of room to appreciate to its historical trading premium relative to gold.

Recently, platinum outperformed gold in 2009, and for the first month of 2010.

Now ask yourself why you’re being told that gold and silver, and not platinum, are the only things you can rely on, why gold and silver are being pushed so much, and not platinum, and why most of you haven’t heard these things about platinum before.

Read Full Post »