Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Top Constitutional Law Experts: Obama Makes Nixon Look Like An Amateur

For all you die-hard Obama defenders, please note the experts cited in this article are primarily liberally oriented in their views.  Here's some golden truth:  Obama Considered Worse Than Nixon



  1. Who's defending Obama? And the liberal scholars are right, the executive branch has seized powers that didn't exist before Bush and Cheney did their evil deeds. The media is no longer a watchdog like in the Watergate days, and our dysfunctional government is as a result corrupt to the core. All elected officials are bought and paid for to some degree, and self-interest has trumped what's in the best interests of the nation.

    Your problem, Dave, is that you take an extreme right-wing libertarian view of things, and your apocalyptic view of our future ($7,000 gold, world to become like the book "The Road", etc.) is misguided and delusional. You are too married to these extreme points of view.

    The pure liberals such as Turley who is quoted in your linked article have it right. It's not about big versus small government. It's about INTEGRITY in government. Smart and honest government with all the influence peddling and money removed, is the best direction for all.

  2. You'd be surprised at how many people still defend/support Obama. Look thru the comments on my other post today. I know many people in Denver who blindly defend him w/out looking at the facts and the truth.

    1. Dave, I always wonder why so many people root for Obama. Just because he is black? I have always been puzzled...He has done nothing good since he was sworn in in 2009.

    2. Good question. I don't know why anyone supports ANY politician.

  3. Dave, Im having a W.T.F. moment. Please look at this and tell me that Im not having a brain cramp. Who the hell are these people?

    1. Dude! That's your problem for watching CNBC. I get a brain cramp every time my channel clicker accidentally passes by CNBC.

      There's no accounting for retards. I love it when these "gurus" get on tv and discuss charts or price action. Where's the debate over the fundamentals.

      I stopped watching CNBC in 2002.

    2. Gold going higher against paper would crush valuations for funds like Fortress Investment's Michael Novogratz. He's all smoke and mirrors.

      The lucrative investment trend hedge funds don't want you to know about

      FORTUNE -- But unlike those celebrity residences, the houses the profit-chasing investors were hunting at the gathering have a prosaic facade: tax liens.

      Far from the mansions of Greenwich, Conn., houses owned by homeowners struggling with delinquent property-tax bills are sparking a gold rush by the elite money pools. Leading the recent lien-buying surge is Fortress Investment Group, the $53 billion alternative investments company now working with former executives who drove J.P. Morgan's prior rush into the business from 2008 through mid-2011.

      David Zussman, a Newport Beach, Calif.-based investor in foreclosed homes, calls the buying frenzy by hedge funds "reminiscent of junk bonds."

      Spain's "bad bank" rebuffs three investment funds
      MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's so-called 'bad bank', Sareb, has rejected overtures from investment funds Cerebrus, Fortress and Centerbridge to enter into its capital because they were asking for advantages over other shareholders, a source with knowledge of the matter said on Saturday.

      "They asked for privileges when it came to buying the assets, and Sareb rejected that offer," the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity said. "Sareb has a commitment to treat all shareholders the same."

      Vanity Fair- Over the Hedge
      The five hotshots who took Fortress Investment Group public were worth billions at first. Today they look like arrogant showboats, and their story helps explain why hedge funds are imploding by the thousands—and why there’s still a truckload of money to be made.
      There are few better measures of the end of the era of easy money than the chart of Fortress’s stock, which went almost straight down after the I.P.O. On Wednesday, December 3, 2008, it plummeted 25 percent, to $1.87—a 95 percent drop from its opening-day high—after Fortress told investors that they would not be allowed to withdraw the $3.5 billion they had invested in Fortress’s Drawbridge Global Macro fund, which is run by Novogratz. By the end of October, the fund was 26 percent below its high-water mark; Briger’s fund had also suffered double-digit losses. The redemption requests, combined with the investment losses, would have brought down Novogratz’s fund, which had $8 billion in assets on September 30, to just $3.65 billion. The firm also canceled its dividend for the last two quarters of 2008. Bad jokes about “cracks in the Fortress” and “pulling up the Drawbridge” are now making the rounds on the Street.

    3. Michael JacksonThursday, 16 May, 2013

      I can't find the link but on youtube there was someone who posted an old cnbc/msnbc news clip with a financial guru who told everyone that the dotcom section was getting ready to go even higher up and that everyone should jump on buying stocks into it. people did and lost terrible when several weeks later the bubble popped.

      NEVER pay attention to mainstream media. You have to realize that their coporate boards with their corporate executives get together during the day and PLAN OUT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY TO YOU during tomorrow's broadcast. What you want is the truth. You won't find it there.

  4. Barack Obama: America's first third world immigrant President. He sees nothing wrong with his actions or those of his administration. This is how the guys in power are supposed to act, right? Former corrupt Presidents and administrations at least understood that they were doing wrong. This one, not so much.

  5. So Much for Position Limits on COMEX Gold

    Where were the regulators on gold futures position limits April 12 and April 16?

    Our simple question: Where are the regulators (in this case the CFTC and CME Group) with regard to size and accountability limits?

    First, though, a caveat: We do not have the actual trade data which would include the actual orders and the sellers of those orders. Without that, this is pure speculation and subject to receiving that actual data. (More...)

    That said, what we do know is that the volume spiked to an unprecedented level April 12 and Monday, April 15 and that initial sale triggered an avalanche of trading and trailing stops. The net effect was that the initial order was indeed large enough and sold into the market fast enough that it literally overwhelmed the gold futures market. Whoever it was used a bazooka at a knife fight. The selling panic that ensued will be talked about for generations.

    Whether the initial sale into the gold market was 124 tonnes or 400 tonnes is not really material to our question. Either size would be so much higher than any one trader should have been able to sell into the gold market at one time that it begs the question: How many traders would have had to be involved in order to “legally” sell that many gold futures contracts into the market?

    Let’s assume for this discussion that the initial sale was 124 tonnes. That’s about 4 million ounces or the equivalent of 40,000 COMEX contracts.

    From earlier work we know that the CME Group has position limits for gold futures of 3,000 contracts in the front month and 6,000 contracts in all months.

    We know from the open interest that the initial sale on April 12 was concentrated in the front month, so no one trader should have been able to sell more than 3,000 contracts at one time, and that’s assuming that trader had a zero open position when the sale occurred. The 3,000 number is supposed to be the limit of all contracts and options, both long and short at any time, even intra-day.

    Assuming all the traders involved had no open contracts before opening four million ounces worth, how many traders would have had to be involved? Simple math says (40,000 contracts / 3,000 lots limit) = 13.3 traders. Call it 14 traders.

    So, in order for the initial 124 tonne sale to have occurred “legally” it would have had to have been 14 traders, all with zero orders open, all acting simultaneously, all acting independently, in their own self-interest, without colluding with each other to “sell-for-effect” or conspiring to foment a price smash.

    In actuality, the chances that there were 14 traders who held zero open orders all acting independently, all throwing their full allowable 3,000 contracts into the gold market within a few minutes of each other are infinitesimally small.

  6. Predatory Lenders Still Target Soldiers: ‘Desperate People Accept Any Terms’

    In their reporting, ProPublica and Marketplace cited examples such as a soldier based in South Carolina who borrowed $1600 and ended up paying $15,000 in interest over 32 months, and another in Texas who paid 600% in annual interest for a $400 loan.

    As Kiel explains in the accompanying video, military personnel are particularly vulnerable to these legal loan sharks because “desperate people are willing to accept any terms to get the money.”

    That desperation is fed, in part, because there are “repercussions for soldiers who fall into debt,” including the loss of security clearance, he says. Fear of such reprisals inhibits soldiers from taking advantage of government-sponsored aid agencies that are on the base and offer loans at far better terms, including 0%.

    Soldiers "have a motivation to take care of [money needs] quickly, quietly and discretely; obviously, that’s not what ends up happening,” Kiel continues.

    Indeed, as Marketplace quotes Army Captain Brandon Archuleta: “On a good day I would be notified by the soldier that a payday lender was looking for them because they are in default. On a bad day, it would be almost like an ambush. A phone call looking for such-and-such soldier. They were relentless.”

    ...and why doesn't the Fed create a 0% lending facility for those who make their money monopoly possible? Should be at least worth that much to the shysters.

  7. Man Dave, it sucks major balls being a silver gold bull these days!

    1. Patience. In time you'll be like a dog who can lick his own balls

    2. It's all manipulation. can't believe how low silver has come. It's basically a waiting game of us vs them. The whole structure of government, FED Reserve, wall street, maybe even corporations and traitors - they may be able to drag this out for awhile. The question is always about timing. The housing bubble was predicted 10 years in advanve. Can this be played out for 10 years? I think its doubtful as the 2008 crash exposed the cracks in the system with many major faults. There's also other factors that can throw a wrench into their plans - the instability of the global community, for one.

  8. The World Paper Council
    Thus with the simultaneous occurrence of a massive liquidation of paper-called-gold, and a massive surge in demand for real gold; this was the headline from the WGC’s Q1 analysis, as reported by another one of the bankers’ most-loyal friends, Kitco Metals:

    WGC: 1Q Global Gold Demand Contracts Due To ETF Outflows; Jewelry Rises

    This headline was immediately followed by more of Kitco’s trademark gold-bashing:

    …Large outflows from gold exchange-traded funds led to a 13% year-on-year decline in global gold demand during the first quarter to 963 metric tons, the World Gold Council said Thursday.

    If one actually goes to the WGC website and reads through the report, it is presented in an almost opposite manner to Kitco’s bias. But understand this is a tag-team operation. Perhaps only 1% of the gold investors who see Kitco’s “WGC” headline and (supposed) summarization will ever actually go and read the original report.

    The WGC produces the intentionally misleading data, and then the spin-doctors of Kitco “present it.”

  9. Let's File This Email About Greenspan and Replicating the Gold Standard Under 'Irony'

    I found this little gem, and added it to my collection of reminders that Greenspan said that fiat money 'worked' because central bankers had learned to 'replicate' the gold standard through their policy actions. I had said 'emulate' but perhaps that was a quirk of memory.

    This is from a publicly published note by Jude Wanniski titled Savings Glut.

    From: Jude Wanniski <
    To: Ben.S.Bernanke@ * * * * *.GOV
    Subject: Fwd: Re: Savings glut
    5:44 pm, 7/21/2005

    "Greenspan was plain awful in his testimony this week. But members of Congress don't know any better, so they slobber all over him. He again said we don't need a gold standard, because he has demonstrated since he came to the Fed in 1987 that the central bank could 'replicate' the gold standard.

    Take a look at the dollar/gold price from 1987 until today and you will see how terrific he has been in replicating the gold standard. I can't wait for him to leave, Ben, because he now has so much invested in his Fed legacy as a Maestro that he could never admit he screwed up almost all along the way."

    Wanniski sent this to Bernanke, who was at that time either on the Fed Board of Governors, or on the Council of Economic Advisors to W Bush. I can't recall the exact date of the transition.

    The note is almost a howler, given the excesses in trickle down helicopter monetization and banking subsidies that Bernanke has engaged in since becoming the Chairman of the Fed, and the manner in which he has haplessly ravaged the quality of the Fed's Balance Sheet, while accomplishing little except extending the unsustainable status quo.

    And I also like it because it helps to dispel the myth that the Fed does not watch and worry about the price of gold, which we have known for quite a long time. It is tied to their aspirations on interest rates, through the management of market perception. Larry Summers wrote about this relationship in Gibson's Paradox.

    this was a great post I did not want anyone to shows you what the truth is.

  10. make $300/oz on the way to the bottom!
    This guy sounds pretty damn sure of himself.
    may 15