Gold & Silver BAN by Federal Government
ALL Trading Outlawed After July 15, 2011
This is NOT a Conspiracy Theory! (i.e. hucksterbee can't call it a glennbeckian "boogerbear").
This is NOW LAW!
Discover How the New Government Ban will affect all Financial Markets, the U.S. Dollar, ETF's, Stock Market, etc.
Read the New Amendments and Sections to the New Commodity ACT; which Prohibits certain Cash (check & wire) and Retail Gold & Silver Transactions, For ALL Consumers.
Discover What Government Officials and Agencies are Involved.
Plus, the Hidden Plot behind it.
This New Government BAN is NOT a "Bill", It is Now LAW!
Bullion Will Now Be Illegal for ALL U.S. Residents
The Over the Counter (OTC) Bullion Market, will be Banned for ALL U.S. Residents and corporations as of July 15, 2011.
Many OTC Precious metal Dealers have already begun to Unwind their Bullion Retail businesses; including one of the world's largest, Forex.com
The New Law will initially Ban Tangible Bullion that is purchased or sold on Finance, Leverage, and Margin... for now!
Purchasing Gold & Silver and taking personal delivery or having it delivered to a Depository is Exempt from this New Ban... Thanks to GOLDWORTH FINANCIAL and other dealers, who were able to lobby Congress for this Exemption.
The Ban on Physical/Tangible Bullion trading is set forth by the Dodd-Frank Reform and Consumer Protection Act, specifically section 742 and the newly amended section 2(C)(2)(D), dealing in Retail Commodity Transactions. As well as, section 2(C)(2)(E) of the Commodity Exchange Act, which refers to Spot Retail Transactions.
The New Law will NOT Regulate Spot/Cash Market Transactions, But rather make such Transactions Illegal!
Is it to Protect "Consumers" from Leverage, and Financed purchases of Gold & Silver?
There's certainly A Lot of "Consumers" Losing money with Bullion Dealers who sell metals on a Margin basis.
But!... Why not Regulate Bullion trading Firms, much like the Feds Regulate Series 3 Gold Commodity trading Firms?
If "Client" protection is their Goal...The Feds are NOT doing such a great job.
Statistics show as much as 92-96% of Clients Trading with "Regulated" Series 3 Commodity Brokers Lose their Money!... Futures & Options are High Leverage-High Margin positions.
So, could the Only reason be "Government Regulated" Precious Metal Brokers... Transact in "Paper" Gold? While... OTC-Dealers Transact in Real Gold Bullion?
We can only start connecting the dots.
We recently saw a Drop in Gold & Silver, Due to the highly Publicized Increase Margin requirements by the Comex-Mercantile Exchange.
The Exchange was "Encouraged" by a Government Agency, The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to Increase margin Numerous Times to keep "Volatility" Down.
Well, the Only Thing that was Brought Down was the price of Gold, especially Silver; which dropped from $50.00 to $32.00 per oz.
Now, ask yourself,
Was this Government Agency (CFTC) protecting "Consumers" from the Rising price of Gold & Silver?
Was this Agency Protecting what little value the U.S. Dollar has Against Gold & Silver?
The answer is obvious...
Consumers were NOT being hurt by the Rise in Gold & Silver.
The Only victim was the Value & Reputation of the "Paper" U.S. Dollar! (Gold trades Against the Dollar)
Nevertheless, The Government tactic worked!
The Margin Increase, Squeezed out Most small & mid size investors; leaving an Open Field for Large Institutions like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.
The Trillion Dollar Questions are...
Will the Government go after Your Physical Gold & Silver?
Does the Government want to Ban and make ALL Gold & Silver Bullion Illegal?
If the following is Any Indication of their Ultimate Plot...We should ALL be Afraid!
The CFTC (Gov. Agency) pushed Congress to Outlaw All Bullion that is NOT deliverable to Retail "Consumers" within 48 hours.
That would Shutdown 95% of All Retail Dealers.... Overnight!
No Matter how Large a Dealer maybe,... No Dealer sits on ENDLESS amounts of Inventory.
The Dealer would eventually have to Order Inventory from Mints such as U.S., Canada, Austria, South Africa or Directly through the Exchange. Nonetheless, delivery takes 3-14 days.
Which does NOT complete the process, the product would still need to be shipped to the Retail Investor...
A 48 Hour Delivery Mandate is Ultimately Impossible.
Ultimately, making ALL Bullion transactions Illegal by DEFAULT!
This is Exactly what CFTC (gov. agency) pushed for.
So, ask yourself...
Is the Frank-Dobbs reform and Consumer Protection Act,
about "Consumer Protection" Or Government Control?
History has taught us...
First comes Government control, then comes Government Ban/Confiscation!
Remember,...Who or "What" controls the Money, controls Everything!
Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama! (Video, Obama 2007)
Holy hypocrisy Batman!!!
It would be completely understandable if then candidate Obama was just your run-of-the-mill politician looking to get elected or re-elected.
He did, and will do, what politicians always do which is to tell the people what they think they want to hear while blaming someone else for all of the problems.
Unfortunately for the country he was, and still is, simply a run-of-the-mill politician but with a significant caveat.
Typical politicians will look to a) feather their own nests while, b) having the the greater good of their constituents in their heart, if only for the purpose of being re-elected.
Obama?... very unsure about about his commitment to that second part!
'Tuba Man' killer now accused of ramming woman's car
Posted by Jennifer Sullivan
SEATTLE TIMES FILE PHOTO
Billy Chambers during a court hearing earlier this year.
Billy Chambers, one of three juveniles convicted of the 2008 slaying of Seattle street musician Ed "Tuba Man" McMichael, is back behind bars, this time for allegedly deliberately ramming a woman's car.
Chambers, now 18, was arrested by Seattle police last week after a woman said that he intentionally struck her car. Chambers was charged in King County Superior Court Tuesday with second-degree assault and hit and run.
Prosecutors allege Chambers struck the woman's car and ran her off the road because she had filed a police report against him after an earlier car prowl.
Chambers is accused of rear-ending the woman's car while it was stopped for a traffic light at the intersection of 23rd Avenue South and South Jackson Street around 3:45 p.m. on Thursday. The woman told police that as she tried to drive away the same car followed in the next lane and swerved toward the passenger side of her car, causing her to leave the roadway and strike a tree, according to charging paperwork.
The woman was not hurt.
She told officers that she recognized the driver of the mid-1990s Ford Crown Victoria that hit her, according to charging papers. She said that she had reported him to police about a week earlier after he allegedly broke into her car, according to charging paperwork.
Police located the Crown Victoria parked outside Chambers' home and were allowed inside. Officers said they overheard Chambers on the phone saying "will you please tell them you did it," charges allege. When Chambers was arrested he told police that he had been sleeping all day and that someone else had been using his car.
In her request to have Chambers held in lieu of $250,000 bail, King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Amy Montgomery wrote that the "State has grave concerns for the safety of the community" in reference to Chambers.
"The defendant was angry at the victim for filing a police report against him," Montgomery wrote. "While it is fortunate that no occupants of the car or pedestrians were injured, it does not lessen the risk that the defendant's violent actions could harm someone."
Montgomery said that Chambers has a lengthy criminal history, including convictions as an adult for first- and third-degree theft. And juvenile convictions for first-degree manslaughter, second-degree robbery and possession of stolen property, Montgomery wrote.
Chambers has pending King County District Court cases stemming from incidents on June 8, June 21 and 22, when he was caught either driving without a license or operating a vehicle without insurance, Montgomery wrote.
Chambers, who was 15 when he and two other boys were prosecuted in McMichael's slaying, spent about 18 months at Maple Lane School in Centralia in connection with McMichael's death and another robbery on the same night in October 2008.
The sentences for Chambers and the two other youths who fatally beat McMichaels outraged many in the community. Because no witnesses came forward, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg said his office was forced to charge the three teens as juveniles instead of seeking to have them charged as adults.
For 20 years, McMichael, 53, was a fixture at Mariners, Sonics and Seahawks' games and around the Seattle Center -- trading his talent for spare change.
Houston Veterans Claim Censorship of Prayers, Including Ban on 'God' and 'Jesus'
Published June 29, 2011
Report says Kucinich praised Syrian dictator, congressman says statement ‘mischaracterized’
Amazon threatens to shut down CA affiliate program
Aislyn Greene on Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 1:21pm PDT
Sixth Circuit upholds ObamaCare mandate
posted at 1:15 pm on June 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
The decision got overlooked in all of the attention to Barack Obama’s press conference, but nonetheless this will make some big news. The Sixth Circuit has denied an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center and a group of individuals whose challenge to the ObamaCare mandate lost at the district-court level. In a split decision, the panel upheld the individual mandate as falling within the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, and ruled that the Constitution does not forbid regulation of “inactivity”.
The conclusion sums up the decision, in which the panel accepted the government position entirely:
Virtually everyone will need health care services at some point, including, in the aggregate, those without health insurance. Even dramatic attempts to protect one’s health and minimize the need for health care will not always be successful, and the health care market is characterized by unpredictable and unavoidable needs for care. The ubiquity and unpredictability of the need for medical care is born out by the statistics. More than eighty percent of adults nationwide visited a doctor or other health care professional one or more times in 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2009, table 35 (2010). Additionally, individuals receive health care services regardless of whether they can afford the treatment. The obligation to provide treatment regardless of ability to pay is imposed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, state laws, and many institutions’ charitable missions. The unavoidable need for health care coupled with the obligation to provide treatment make it virtually certain that all individuals will require and receive health care at some point. Thus, although there is no firm, constitutional bar that prohibits Congress from placing regulations on what could be described as inactivity, even if there were it would not impact this case due to the unique aspects of health care that make all individuals active in this market.
In light of the conclusion that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, it is not necessary to resolve whether the provision could also be sustained as a proper exercise of Congress’s power to tax and spend under the General Welfare Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1.
Congress had a rational basis for concluding that, in the aggregate, the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care substantially affects interstate commerce. Furthermore, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act’s larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance. Finally, the provision regulates active
participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity. Thus, the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Judge Graham’s dissent also falls along predictable lines:
If Congress exceeded its authority by enacting the mandate, then the mandate is “legally stillborn” and cannot be valid in any application. Virginia v. Sebelius, 728F.Supp.2d 768, 774 (E.D. Va. 2010). “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid.” The Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton). As cases in point, Lopez and Morrison struck down statutes as facially unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and did so without reference to Salerno. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). …
If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power? The ultimate issue in this case is this: Does the notion of federalism still have vitality? To approve the exercise of power would arm Congress with the authority to force individuals to do whatever it sees fit (within boundaries like the First Amendment and Due Process Clause), as long as the regulation concerns an activity or decision that, when aggregated, can be said to have some loose, but-for type of economic connection, which nearly all human activity does. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 565 (“[D]epending on the level of generality, any activity can be looked upon as commercial.”). Such a power feels very much like the general police power that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and the people. A structural shift of that magnitude can be accomplished legitimately only through constitutional amendment.
That question may have more resonance for the case brought by the states. The question of standing didn’t prevail in Thomas More Law Center v Obama, but neither did any of the plaintiffs represent sovereign states, either. The question of federal usurpation of power will matter more in the context of Virginia v Sebelius and the multi-state case originating in Florida.
However, this will give the Obama administration some political breathing room until those two cases get to the appellate court. This is just one more stop along the road anyway, as this won’t get resolved until the Supreme Court decides to combine the cases and make a final ruling.
Update: Jonathan Adler at the Volokh Conspiracy notes that the court did reject the tax argument for the mandate, which keeps the batting average for that White House argument at .000. (via Aaron Worthing)
The EPA assault on Texas
posted at 7:10 pm on June 19, 2011 by J.E. Dyer
The necessary precondition for Texas’s unique economic success – a beacon in a deep recession – is energy. And the EPA is closing in for the kill.
This would be one thing if Texas were an outlier among the 50 states in terms of dirty air or an otherwise demonstrably imperiled environment. But the truth is closer to the opposite: the air in Texas has been getting cleaner; in the urban areas, much cleaner. And in spite of being by far the largest electric power producer of the 50 states, and heavily reliant on coal, Texas has been steadily reducing its emissions of the EPA’s least-favored compounds from coal combustion (e.g., sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide). Its emissions of NOx and SO2 are substantially lower than the national average; Texas is ranked the 11th lowest in NOx emissions (.098 lb/mmBtu in 2009, versus a national average of .159 lb/mmBtu), and 24th in SO2 (.309 lb/mmBtu in 2009, versus a national average of .458 lb/mmBtu).
But the EPA isn’t really making the argument that Texas is an environmental pigsty. It’s not putting any data or findings behind that premise, at any rate. Instead, it is simply acting high-handedly, assuming an authority that nothing in written law confers on it, to pronounce Texas’s procedures in violation of EPA rules – even when there is no basis for making that claim. To put it bluntly, the EPA is making a power grab.
Overriding the state air-permit system
There are three principal facets to the power grab. One began with an EPA decision in January 2010 that the Texas air-permit program was invalid, and that every facility operating under such a permit in the state would have to be re-permitted. The argument was not that Texas plants were emitting too much. Rather, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, the Texas “air-permit program … caps emissions of air pollutants from an entire facility, but the EPA wants to scrutinize and restrict emissions from every polluting unit of a plant.” Texas, along with a number of other states, is concerned that regulating on the EPA’s basis will cost considerably more, without improving air quality.
Neither of the two approaches can claim to be the obvious intent of the Clean Air Act. In default of a clear intent in written law, the point at issue is whose judgment ought to prevail in this matter. Texas argues that federalism was a key component of the Clean Air Act, and properly so; that’s how things work in the United States. The EPA is supposed to set air quality standards, and then the states choose their methods to meet them. Other states agree.
The EPA has made no philosophical arguments to justify its regulatory ukase – but, of course, it doesn’t have to. It is currently operating under a chief executive who endorses its approach and doesn’t require it to justify what it wants to do. Reining it in would require concerted action from Congress, and/or a favorable ruling for the states in a lawsuit.
Keep in mind that throughout the 16 years in which Texas issued its industrial air permits, air quality in Texas improved – a lot. The Texas system wasn’t failing to produce a compliant outcome. And it took the EPA 16 years to decide, in spite of that record of success, to invalidate all the existing state-issued permits. The motivation was clearly political.
The war on coal; New draconian air-quality standards
The permit invalidation was just the beginning, however. The second facet of the power grab, the Obama EPA’s war on coal, will have at least as damaging an effect on Texas as on other states, and in some ways perhaps more. The war on coal is part of a larger regulatory assault on emissions and industrial byproducts of all kinds, which will, if implemented as intended, ensure life as we know it cannot continue in the United States. The impact on Texas is discussed in the testimony submitted to Congress by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) in March.
The findings include the likelihood that the new regulations adopted by the Obama EPA will shut down more than 5700 MW of electrical generating capacity in Texas, or about one-twelfth of the peak demand levied by state users in the last couple of years. Meanwhile, based on economic trends, Texas expects to need as much as 25% more capacity by 2020. TPPF cites industry and independent think-tank estimates that the cost of compliance with the new EPA standards will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and will thus drive utility costs – and therefore the cost of living – up significantly, while at the same time eliminating thousands of jobs in many industries.
From regulating the naturally-occurring fine dust in the countryside, to treating the byproducts of coal combustion as hazardous waste, and preventing them from being sold for use in cement, the EPA’s proposals would shut down one aspect of human economic life after another.
TPPF gets in a number of good points about both the politics and the data; for example, it observes on p. 6 of the document that the EPA got around the rules governing its implementation of the new regulations by deeming its proposed action (dramatically tightening air quality standards) to be deregulatory. How did it do that? By positing that a comprehensive scheme of regulation would involve issuing permits for 6 million sources of emissions, and deciding instead to “tailor” its program to cover only large sources (e.g., the 12,000 emitters that currently require permits to operate).
Just imagine how we could fleece our fellow men if we all had the power to declare it “deregulation” – mercy, relief, a benefit to the regulated – when we don’t do as much as we could have done. There is a distinctly mafia-like ring to that thought process.
The TPPF testimony also alludes to the EPA’s extremely shaky case that fuel-burning plants need to have their mercury emissions reduced by 91% (mercury emissions from US industry have already been reduced considerably in the past 30 years). A number of studies suggest that many coal-fired electrical plants will simply find this impossible.
And there doesn’t appear to be a pressing need for it anyway. Besides the facts that the entire United States power sector emits only 1% of the globe’s anthropogenic mercury output, and that 50% of the mercury in the Atlantic is emitted from Asia, not the US (virtually all the human-emitted mercury in the Pacific comes from Asia), everything in the alarmist case about mercury is either undemonstrated (e.g., that mercury levels in fish have been rising), or wildly overestimated (e.g., the incidence of mercury in child-bearing women in the US, and how that compares to the level of mercury considered dangerous to humans). See here and here for evidence and counterarguments.
But wait – there’s more. If you’re wondering how Texas is going to make up that 5700+ MW of power-generating capacity, so is Texas. Nuclear power would do the trick, of course, but as TPPF observes, new nuclear power plants are an iffy proposition in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. Wind, solar, and biomass are laughably uneconomic sources, and wind and solar are unreliable as well.
Shutting down natural gas
But what about natural gas? The EPA is way ahead of us, with the third facet of its power grab. Ben Voth wrote a piece for American Thinker in January calling out the new EPA assault on the production of natural gas in Texas. And if you think the EPA’s particular beef is with fracking (hydraulic fracturing) chemicals, think again. The basis for the EPA’s abrupt move against a Texas natural gas driller in December 2010 was methane and benzene found in local water.
It all fit nicely with the emotional appeal of the “documentary” Gasland, which did for the natural gas industry what Michael Moore did for 9/11. The problem is that not only was Gasland full of errors and misrepresentations, the EPA case against Range Resources in Texas was full of holes as well. Based on analysis of their nitrogen content, the methane and benzene in the afflicted water came not from the natural-gas drilling by Range Resources, but through natural seepage from a shallower nearby gas formation – one that is not being drilled. In other words, there’s nothing humans could have done to prevent the seepage.
(The Energy in Depth write-ups point out also that methane is a naturally occurring gas and the hazards of its presence in drinking water depend, as with so many things, on concentration. They also cite a study by the Texas health authorities which demonstrated that benzene exposure in the gas-drilling areas of Texas is no higher than it is in the rest of the US, and that the only residents who have elevated levels of benzene are smokers.)
But subsequent testimony from EPA staffers, part of a reconstruction of the December 2010 decision to shut down the Range Resources drilling operation, showed that the EPA did not even consider the possibility that the methane and benzene appeared naturally in the water in question. This failure fit well with other patterns in the EPA action; the reconstruction (see the second EID link) indicates that it was an instance of activists and the EPA working together to jump the gun.
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is pursuing this issue. The Republicans in Texas’s congressional delegation have sent a letter to Cass Sunstein expressing strong disapproval of the EPA’s failure to abide by its own rules in implementing the new air quality and emissions regulations. As Pajamas notes, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has sent a letter of its own decrying the new regulations – although the Texas Democrats have remained silent.
The fight continues among the states. At least 15 (including Texas) filed suit against the EPA over its “climate-change” regulations in 2010, even before the full slate of new air quality/emissions regulations were published. On the other side are 16 states
fighting back on behalf of the EPA, saying without regulations, climate change will adversely affect them.
Those states are: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Remarkably, the states “fighting on behalf of the EPA” include the ones with the biggest state deficits, the ones with the highest taxes, the ones with the highest unemployment, and the ones hemorrhaging businesses and revenues and losing seats in Congress after the 2010 census. One principles-of-governance note: as long as there is an EPA, any president can put people in it who will abuse the agency’s portfolio. The courts are incompetent to decide how much the EPA “should” be doing. That’s a political decision that belongs in Congress – and we need to be telling Congress to do things differently.
|Liveleak on Facebook|