When our country was stolen..........

[weaponoffreedom]

How Likely is a New Ban on Gold Ownership in America?

Read FDR's Executive Order 6102 to find out when the ban on gold happened & learn what investors should know to keep their assets safe...

www.moneymetals.com

 

[hmt5000]

Nothing is off the table with what is in dc now.

 

[Jtrain80]

How Likely is a New Ban on Gold Ownership in America?

Read FDR's Executive Order 6102 to find out when the ban on gold happened & learn what investors should know to keep their assets safe...

www.moneymetals.com

If I had gold back then, I would have buried under my garden.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

You can always tell the idiots who don’t understand economics or currency by their affection for the gold standard. Getting rid of it was one of the best thing The US has ever done.

Here’s Why the U.S. No Longer Follows a Gold Standard

Calls for the U.S. to tie its currency to the price of gold still occur. Here’s why going back to the gold standard doesn’t make much sense.

www.stlouisfed.org

There are significant problems with tying currency to the gold supply:

• It doesn’t guarantee financial or economic stability.
• It’s costly and environmentally damaging to mine.
• The supply of gold is not fixed.

“The U.S. mines a lot of gold, but we’re not the biggest producer,” Wheelock said. “The bigger suppliers of gold would have more control over our monetary policy, and there’s no reason to have it because we can get the advantages of the gold standard and avoid the disadvantages without being on a gold standard.”

 

[weaponoffreedom]

If I had gold back then, I would have buried under my garden.

Well then it would be worthless under the ground.

 

[Jtrain80]

Well then it would be worthless under the ground.

FYI. Gold never looses value.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

FYI. Gold never looses value.

False. Gold frequently loses value as this graph shows.

When and Why Do Gold Prices Plummet?

A wise investor is one who recognizes gold’s place in the market, without attaching too much or too little significance to it.

www.investopedia.com

The reasons why gold prices may experience a fall in value include an excess of supply relative to demand and shifts in investor sentiment. A strong dollar and rising interest rates can also hurt the price of gold, as can low inflation. When the economy is healthy and growing, stocks and other investments may become more appealing to investors, who may sell their gold holdings, which can lead to a fall in gold prices.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

FYI. Gold never looses value.

If you had all the gold in the world, on a desert island, dying of thirst, the gold would have no value. You would happily trade all of it for a glass of ice water...............gold has no value, it is us that put a value on it.

 

[Joe King]

If you had all the gold in the world, on a desert island, dying of thirst, the gold would have no value. You would happily trade all of it for a glass of ice water...............gold has no value, it is us that put a value on it.

That could be said of anything.


The point of a gold standard is to keep the government in its britches.

 

[Joe King]

How Likely is a New Ban on Gold Ownership in America?

Read FDR's Executive Order 6102 to find out when the ban on gold happened & learn what investors should know to keep their assets safe...

www.moneymetals.com

The emergency banking act is when our government started operating full-time outside of its Constitutional limitations on power. In fact, the government has openly and clearly admitted to having done so.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

That could be said of anything.


The point of a gold standard is to keep the government in its britches.

agreed, but all they have to do is take itself off the gold standard....

 

[ChicagoFats]

If you had all the gold in the world, on a desert island, dying of thirst, the gold would have no value. You would happily trade all of it for a glass of ice water...............gold has no value, it is us that put a value on it.

In your scenario water we should all go buy water.

Gold does have inherent value as it is used in many semi conductors etc.

But over the long term it’s most likely golf will underperform the stock mArket

 

[Joe King]

agreed, but all they have to do is take itself off the gold standard....

When the gov did, it ripped off the People.

In short, the emergency banking act was literally the gov declaring war on the People.
Edited to add:....and anyone who thinks it's funny is either woefully misinformed, or in favor of the gov using war powers against the People.

 

[Jtrain80]

In your scenario water we should all go buy water.

Gold does have inherent value as it is used in many semi conductors etc.

But over the long term it’s most likely golf will underperform the stock mArket

Except when the stock market crashes. Human beings have been collecting gold for several THOUSAND years, it's not going away or loosing value.

 

[Jtrain80]

If you had all the gold in the world, on a desert island, dying of thirst, the gold would have no value. You would happily trade all of it for a glass of ice water...............gold has no value, it is us that put a value on it.

See my post above. It not Americans or anyone from the 20th that put value on gold, it's mankind.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

In your scenario water we should all go buy water.

Gold does have inherent value as it is used in many semi conductors etc.

But over the long term it’s most likely golf will underperform the stock mArket

Not water, but stuff you can use, equipment, gear, repair items etc.

Yeah I have heard all that about gold.....semi conductors and the like........and gold does have value, but the only intrinsic value it has is to those who can use it. I am sure you dont make semiconductors.

Gold is a rare thing, which is why it is used as currency, unlike diamonds, which are not rare, but controlled by companies.

Value, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[LafesterMacintosh]

.gold has no value,

and gold does have value,

 

[Joe King]

The emergency banking act is when our government started operating full-time outside of its Constitutional limitations on power. In fact, the government has openly and clearly admitted to having done so.

For those who may not know and for the idiots who think it's funny, here's the proof in the gov's own words.

These words were written in 1973 by the US Senate and can be found in Senate Report 93-549

https://archive.org/stream/senate-report-93-549/senate-report-93-549_djvu.txt

A majority of the people (today, all of us) of the United States have lived all of their
lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, (now 90 years) freedoms and governmental
procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees,
been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national
emergency.


If the gov tells us that "freedoms and governmental procedures" "guaranteed by the Constitution" have been abridged, that means that the gov admits that it operates outside of its Constitutional limitations of power. That it is depriving the People (you) of Rights you would otherwise have.

Some people think it funny that their (our) gov did this.

Anyone thinking it is funny exposes themselves as someone who stans against what many of the Founders gave us with their lives. To find it funny is to shit on their graves.

 

[Rebarcock.]

How Likely is a New Ban on Gold Ownership in America?

Read FDR's Executive Order 6102 to find out when the ban on gold happened & learn what investors should know to keep their assets safe...

www.moneymetals.com

It actually started closer to the boleshevicks 1890. Birth of it is well before the civil war. It happened from they mass of people rising. The frenchies knew.
There was such a fuck you attitude the Populists had a fuck ING Revelation

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

For those who may not know and for the idiots who think it's funny, here's the proof in the gov's own words.

These words were written in 1973 by the US Senate and can be found in Senate Report 93-549

https://archive.org/stream/senate-report-93-549/senate-report-93-549_djvu.txt

A majority of the people (today, all of us) of the United States have lived all of their
lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, (now 90 years) freedoms and governmental
procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees,
been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national
emergency.


If the gov tells us that "freedoms and governmental procedures" "guaranteed by the Constitution" have been abridged, that means that the gov admits that it operates outside of its Constitutional limitations of power. That it is depriving the People (you) of Rights you would otherwise have.

Some people think it funny that their (our) gov did this.

Anyone thinking it is funny exposes themselves as someone who stans against what many of the Founders gave us with their lives. To find it funny is to shit on their graves.

Tell me you don’t know about The National Securities Act without telling me you don’t know about The National Securities Act.

In the future please try to refrain from spreading misinformation.

Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The debate to end long-running national emergencies ended in 1976 with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601–1651), which rescinded the president's authority under the prior emergencies[1][2][3] and established an expiration period (subject to annual presidential renewal) on future declared emergencies.

 

[Joe King]

The debate to end long-running national emergencies ended in 1976 with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601–1651), which rescinded the president's authority under the prior emergencies[1][2][3] and established an expiration period (subject to annual presidential renewal) on future declared emergencies.

Yea, I now all about it. The problem is that they kept in place the unConstitutional laws they wrote as a result of their fake emergency*.

The way it's supposed to work is that while it may be permissible to act outside the law in dealing with an emergency, when the emergency is over you repeal any extra-Constitutional laws that were enacted to deal with the emergency and resort to the laws that were in place prior to the emergency.

The government did not do that. It ended the emergency in name only while maintaining the unConstitutional Acts that were taken because of it.

It's called "the new deal" because it really was a "new deal" between the government and the People.

*...and yes, it was a fake emergency in that had the gov and the fed conducted their fiscal and monetary responsibilities in the they should have, there would have been no need to use powers of war to deal with the problem they created.

 

[Joe King]

Also, one of the things the Emergency Banking Act changed was that it amended the Trading With The Enemies Act of October 6th, 1917 to include American citizens within the definition of "the enemy", hence allowing powers that had been reserved for use only against foreign nationals whose nations we were at war with, to then be used against the American population.


When the emergency was over, was the Trading With The Enemies Act re-amended to remove Americans from the definition? No, it was not.

In a nation where the People are supposed to be the sovereign, it should be seen as an act of treason for the People's agents to treat them as the enemy.
Edited to add:...but some among us stan for treason.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Yea, I now all about it. The problem is that they kept in place the unConstitutional laws they wrote as a result of their fake emergency*.

The way it's supposed to work is that while it may be permissible to act outside the law in dealing with an emergency, when the emergency is over you repeal any extra-Constitutional laws that were enacted to deal with the emergency and resort to the laws that were in place prior to the emergency.

The government did not do that. It ended the emergency in name only while maintaining the unConstitutional Acts that were taken because of it.

It's called "the new deal" because it really was a "new deal" between the government and the People.

*...and yes, it was a fake emergency in that had the gov and the fed conducted their fiscal and monetary responsibilities in the they should have, there would have been no need to use powers of war to deal with the problem they created.

Also, one of the things the Emergency Banking Act changed was that it amended the Trading With The Enemies Act of October 6th, 1917 to include American citizens within the definition of "the enemy", hence allowing powers that had been reserved for use only against foreign nationals whose nations we were at war with, to then be used against the American population.


When the emergency was over, was the Trading With The Enemies Act re-amended to remove Americans from the definition? No, it was not.

In a nation where the People are supposed to be the sovereign, it should be seen as an act of treason for the People's agents to treat them as the enemy.
Edited to add:...but some among us stan for treason.

These are both false and the exact opposite of what The Founding Fathers wrote into The Constitution as anyone who has actually read the document knows. Laws passed during a national emergency carry the same weight and authority as laws passed not during a national emergency and only end of explicitly written into the text of the law.

Since you are unwilling to stop stanning CCP & Russian misinformation there is no doubt your loyalty lies with the communists and not America!

 

[Joe King]

These are both false and the exact opposite of what The Founding Fathers wrote into The Constitution as anyone who has actually read the document knows.

Absolutely false. The main thing the Emergency Banking Act did, was to amend the Trading With The Enemies Act to include American citizens within the definition of "the enemy".

If it hadn't, all the actions taken by the gov to deal with the emergency would have been illegal.

Emergency Banking Act

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

The Emergency Banking Act amended the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 and provided for the reopening of banks after the four-day banking holiday and an examination of banks by the Department of the Treasury. The act expanded the president's regulatory authority over the nation's banking system, granted the comptroller of the currency the power to restrict the operations of banks with impaired assets, and gave the Federal Reserve Board the authority to issue emergency currency backed by assets of a commercial bank. The act granted the secretary of the treasury the authority to determine if a bank needed additional funds to operate and, with the approval of the President, to request that the Reconstruction Finance Corporation invest in the bank.[1]

Laws passed during a national emergency carry the same weight and authority as laws passed not during a national emergency and only end of explicitly written into the text of the law.

When the emergency is over, things are supposed to go back to how they were PRIOR to the emergency.

Otherwise, it amounts to an Amending of the Constitution via a simple majority vote in Congress.

If there is stuff they can't do unless there is an emergency, it stands to reason that absent the emergency, that stuff would be been unConstitutional for them to do.

If they leave that unConstitutional stuff (laws) in place after the emergency ends, they immediately become unConstitutional.



Think of it this way. If you are at home and an intruder invades your home and tries to attack you, it would constitute an immediate emergency, correct?

At that point it would be permissible in all 50 States for you to violate the law that would in non-emergency times, prohibit you from killing someone without facing punishment.

Now let's say you kill the guy. The emergency is over. Do you then sill have the Right to continue killing people? It was a Right you gained during an emergency. Shouldn't you be able to keep it?

No, of course not and I think you would also agree with that. To continue killing people after the emergency is over would be wrong.

So why do you support the gov continuing to use the unConstitutional laws that were enacted during a time of emergency, to continue to be used during times of non-emergency?

To support that makes YOU the freedom hating commie loving freak.

 

[dirtytoeddawg]

Yea, I now all about it. The problem is that they kept in place the unConstitutional laws they wrote as a result of their fake emergency*.

The way it's supposed to work is that while it may be permissible to act outside the law in dealing with an emergency, when the emergency is over you repeal any extra-Constitutional laws that were enacted to deal with the emergency and resort to the laws that were in place prior to the emergency.

The government did not do that. It ended the emergency in name only while maintaining the unConstitutional Acts that were taken because of it.

It's called "the new deal" because it really was a "new deal" between the government and the People.

*...and yes, it was a fake emergency in that had the gov and the fed conducted their fiscal and monetary responsibilities in the they should have, there would have been no need to use powers of war to deal with the problem they created.

Patriot Act is good because it has the word “patriot”. in it

 

[Joe King]

Only commie fags who hate America think that the government using powers reserved for times of war against the People, is funny. It's a f'ing tragedy, is what it is. Especially when one considers that the "emergency" was entirely of the govs own making.

Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1933, newly-elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039, which declared a national emergency and imposed a bank holiday. The proclamation cited TWEA (obliquely referenced as the "Act of October 6, 1917") as the basis of his authority.[10] Aware that such action was legally dubious since the United States was not at war, Roosevelt asked Congress to ratify his actions by passing the Emergency Banking Relief Act, which amended TWEA to enable its use during any "period of national emergency declared by the President."

Simply put, the gov declared war on the People, stole their gold, and began regulating them as if they were a foreign national during time of war.

If they had tried taking the same actions absent an emergency, it would have properly been termed a coup.

 

[AmericanViking]

How Likely is a New Ban on Gold Ownership in America?

Read FDR's Executive Order 6102 to find out when the ban on gold happened & learn what investors should know to keep their assets safe...

www.moneymetals.com

You’re about 70 years too late

 

[weaponoffreedom]

You’re about 70 years too late

yep, never heard of it, wonder why they did not tech this in school?

 

[Joe King]

yep, never heard of it, wonder why they did not tech this in school?

Because they want people thinking like bro stan does.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

all that is taken out of context, read the post.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

all that is taken out of context, read the post.

Exactly. Nothing that he posted does anything other than reaffirm what I said. Laws passed during a time of national emergency are no different that laws passed a time when there isn’t a national emergency. This is grade school level civics yet he continues to make an ass out of himself and spread patently false information.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Exactly. Nothing that he posted does anything other than reaffirm what I said. Laws passed during a time of national emergency are no different that laws passed a time when there isn’t a national emergency. This is grade school level civics yet he continues to make an ass out of himself and spread patently false information.

who are you talking about? Me?

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

who are you talking about? Me?

No that joker @Joe King

He is either the worst troll of all time or the dumbest person I’ve interacted with on a long time which is a saying something because my job requires me to interact with literal state certified retards.

 

[Joe King]

Exactly. Nothing that he posted does anything other than reaffirm what I said. Laws passed during a time of national emergency are no different that laws passed a time when there isn’t a national emergency. This is grade school level civics yet he continues to make an ass out of himself and spread patently false information.

The heck they are. An actual emergency allows for actions that absent the emergency would not be legal.

It is a fact that prior to March 9th 1933, the Trading With The Enemies Act was not applicable to American citizens.

On that day, and under the guise of an emergency, it was amended to to include American citizens within the definition of who those war powers could be used against.

That was done because the gov saw that the people making runs on the banks in order to get their rightfully owed money, could crash the monetary system if allowed to continue.

The actions taken by FDR would have been illegal had it not been for the emergency declaration and the amending of the Trading With The Enemies Act.

This is all documented fact. The gov told us in 1973 that for the prior 40 years had been operating unConstitutionally. It's right there in black and white in 93-549. Why do you find it so hard to believe? Or are you just too dumb to grasp it?

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

The heck they are. An actual emergency allows for actions that absent the emergency would not be legal.

It is a fact that prior to March 9th 1933, the Trading With The Enemies Act was not applicable to American citizens.

On that day, and under the guise of an emergency, it was amended to to include American citizens within the definition of who those war powers could be used against.

That was done because the gov saw that the people making runs on the banks in order to get their rightfully owed money, could crash the monetary system if allowed to continue.

The actions taken by FDR would have been illegal had it not been for the emergency declaration and the amending of the Trading With The Enemies Act.

This is all documented fact. The gov told us in 1973 that for the prior 40 years had been operating unConstitutionally. It's right there in black and white in 93-549. Why do you find it so hard to believe? Or are you just too dumb to grasp it?

Senate reports can say anything since they are just political propaganda which is why they carry no weight unlike a law.

Furthermore, I’d love to know what law or portion of The Constitution you believes states that laws passed during a national emergency are different from laws passed during times that the nation isn’t under national emergency since it doesn’t actually exist.

You do realize to amend a law takes an act of Congress which means your whole story about FDR amending a law is impossible?