Monday, November 26, 2012

Gold Will Not Be Confiscated, But Your Guns Will Be


Gold

There was much to be gained by gold confiscation in the 1930s because we were on a gold standard.

Without taking you into complicated explanations, please accept the true fact that gold in the 1930s was the only instrument of QE. It is not now nor will it be again in the future. There may be more to gain by a significant price of gold in the new reserve currency. There is no reason except some sort of fear of revenge to consider confiscation of gold, gold shares or the gold ETFs now. Those that worry so much about this do not really understand what gold was under a gold standard.

Why was energy not confiscated at $145 crude? Why not confiscate Apple at $750? Confiscation is NOT going to occur, nor will the gold bullion or gold share profits be confiscated via punitive taxation. It serves no monetary purpose and just might injure the efforts for a new reserve currency that is sure to come.

Guns

Every governor of every state by law can create and many have created a state defense force. That is not the national guard. As the name implies, it is a state defense force.

It is rumored that these organizations are in the crosshairs of the Administration.

The moment you see these state defense forces under the control of the state governor disbanded, the end has come. The Constitution will no longer exist and the next day I will be writing you from Buckreef in Tanzania.

You are all invited to come with me, but I will not be selling you anything. -- Jim Sinclair

~ ~ ~

The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

Story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/us-arms-usa-treaty-idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

1 comments:

Iconoclast said...

Sadly, unless the tyrant wannabes taking control of our Republic back down, it is almost certain patriotic Americans will need to take up arms in self defense. While it is likely we can protect ourselves, the division inevitably would make us vulnerable to foreign enemies - Chinese & muhammadan chief among them.