You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trump craps the bed
- Thread starter Covertibility
- Start date
wow... private central bankers of the world, laugh with glee when they read that.
the whole point of the gold standard is because we in theory would have trouble controlling the price of gold. That is the check on excess printing.
We have experienced 700 percent inflation or more since the 1960s... because the Federal Reserve has created (how man trillions? the Fed does not tell us) electronic dollars and supplied the world with dollars. In exchange the banker's crony owners and buddies got control of assets world wide. Had the privately owned Regional Federal Reserve banks and the big Fed itself not been creating so many dollars... we might still see Gold at 35$ an ounce or 25 or 10. Think about how strong the world wide demand for the dollar was.
By going off the gold standard the Federal Reserve was able to flood the world with so many dollars they created (for their own banker owners benefit) that the wealth of our middle and non crony upper class in America was looted.
You seem to miss the point I am making here.
Prior to QE... govt deficit spending did not create the inflation or pressure on gold.
Why? Because the govt was borrowing the money.
The inflation was caused by Federal Reserve printing and by "expanding the money supply".
Lets focus on this point for now... prior to QE... what caused inflation... especially in light of the massive world wide demand for the dollar.
Seriously.. how did we get inflation... (which means the dollar got weaker) if there was very strong worldwide demand for the dollar?
Imagine how strong the dollar would be today... if the Fed had not expanded the money supply? Can you do that?
(I am happy to explain to you what QE is later... I have googled QE many times and most of the articles leave out important points... And Picketty's reasoning is hideously flawed at times, although he does get some things... so to which ideas are you referring . )
the whole point of the gold standard is because we in theory would have trouble controlling the price of gold. That is the check on excess printing.
We have experienced 700 percent inflation or more since the 1960s... because the Federal Reserve has created (how man trillions? the Fed does not tell us) electronic dollars and supplied the world with dollars. In exchange the banker's crony owners and buddies got control of assets world wide. Had the privately owned Regional Federal Reserve banks and the big Fed itself not been creating so many dollars... we might still see Gold at 35$ an ounce or 25 or 10. Think about how strong the world wide demand for the dollar was.
By going off the gold standard the Federal Reserve was able to flood the world with so many dollars they created (for their own banker owners benefit) that the wealth of our middle and non crony upper class in America was looted.
You seem to miss the point I am making here.
Prior to QE... govt deficit spending did not create the inflation or pressure on gold.
Why? Because the govt was borrowing the money.
The inflation was caused by Federal Reserve printing and by "expanding the money supply".
Lets focus on this point for now... prior to QE... what caused inflation... especially in light of the massive world wide demand for the dollar.
Seriously.. how did we get inflation... (which means the dollar got weaker) if there was very strong worldwide demand for the dollar?
Imagine how strong the dollar would be today... if the Fed had not expanded the money supply? Can you do that?
(I am happy to explain to you what QE is later... I have googled QE many times and most of the articles leave out important points... And Picketty's reasoning is hideously flawed at times, although he does get some things... so to which ideas are you referring . )
Jem, Jem, Jem, get a grip man. I can't believe I'm reading that from you. You of all people. You know we can't go back to the gold standard because we can't control the price of gold anymore. That's why we were forced off the standard in the first place. When the Treasury was selling gold at $35, elsewhere it was selling for $40-45. Doesn't take rocket science to figure out what you would do if you could buy gold at $35 and sell it at $45. That's why Tricky Dick shocked us all. For those who like gold we still have a gold standard in a sense. You can convert your dollars to gold at the prevailing price!, then barter for a pineapple using your gold to pay the merchant. Wouldn't that be convenient! Ben Carson wants to use a basket of commodities as a currency standard, bless his naive childish heart. Same problem there. Fiat currency is what makes sense today. Money is worth what you can buy is worth to you.
If you google, "Is QE printing?," or something like that, you will find articles by people that understand QE. Printing is what Germany did after WWI, and what Zimbabwe did.
What the U.S. did is create new money in a reversible process by borrowing at exceedingly low real interest rates. Don't forget that when the Fed is the buyer of new bonds on the secondary market, any interest paid on those bonds comes back to the Treasury minus the operating cost of the Fed. QE is a reversible process. When the Fed sells bonds on the secondary market, money comes back out of the economy and they can figuratively flush it down the toilet. You are in good hands with Ben and Janet, they should start an ice cream company. One of the flavors could be called 'QE' and it would be the color of money.
Yes the middle class is being wrecked, but it isn't the Fed that is destroying the middle class. Read Thomas Piketty's book "Capital in the 21st Century" when you get some spare time.
Last edited:
"Secret footage of Donald Trump's debate prep surfaces"
If you can't control the price of the standard you haven't accomplished anything. That's an essential component of a currency standard. The dollar is still the reserve currency. Gold and other commodities are priced in dollars. Their price fluctuates with the dollar and demand. If you want to use a commodity as a currency standard you have to get control of the commodity price. That is not a realistic possibility in a global market. Fiat currency makes the most sense today for the currency that is the reserve currency. Others can peg their currencies to the dollar if they like, and in so doing maintain a constant ratio. In a global economy, It is only the ratio that matters whether you have a gold standard or not. The forex market determines the ratio. That is a much better system than a commodity standard.wow... private central bankers of the world, laugh with glee when they read that.
the whole point of the gold standard is because we in theory would have trouble controlling the price of gold. That is the check on excess printing.
We have experienced 700 percent inflation or more since the 1960s... because the Federal Reserve has created (how man trillions? the Fed does not tell us) electronic dollars and supplied the world with dollars. In exchange the banker's crony owners and buddies got control of assets world wide. Had the privately owned Regional Federal Reserve banks and the big Fed itself not been creating so many dollars... we might still see Gold at 35$ an ounce or 25 or 10. Think about how strong the world wide demand for the dollar was.
By going off the gold standard the Federal Reserve was able to flood the world with so many dollars they created (for their own banker owners benefit) that the wealth of our middle and non crony upper class in America was looted.
You seem to miss the point I am making here.
Prior to QE... govt deficit spending did not create the inflation or pressure on gold.
Why? Because the govt was borrowing the money.
The inflation was caused by Federal Reserve printing and by "expanding the money supply".
Lets focus on this point for now... prior to QE... what caused inflation... especially in light of the massive world wide demand for the dollar.
Seriously.. how did we get inflation... (which means the dollar got weaker) if there was very strong worldwide demand for the dollar?
Imagine how strong the dollar would be today... if the Fed had not expanded the money supply? Can you do that?
(I am happy to explain to you what QE is later... I have googled QE many times and most of the articles leave out important points... And Picketty's reasoning is hideously flawed at times, although he does get some things... so to which ideas are you referring . )
We don't have a hard currency standard because we can't have one. That's what these folks blathering on about going back to a hard standard can't seem to absorb.
Last edited:
You keep missing the point. We don't want the Federal Reserve to have the right to dilute "our" dollars by printing trillions. Being the reserve currency allowed the owners of the fed to electronically print trillions of dollars. Where did all that money go? To whom did that wealth and power go? is that why they can make our political leaders do stupid pet tricks?
its not that we love the idea of the dollar being tied to one commodity... is what is better than what we have suffered and will continue to suffer.
By the way I note... that I don't endorse what Frum wrote (because I think the Federal Reserve has overdone the printing and looted the middle and non crony upper class and purchased Congress... but his opinion at the end of this article is worth noting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock
Later ramifications[edit]
The Nixon Shock has been widely considered to be a political success, but an economic mixed bag in bringing on the stagflation of the 1970s and leading to the instability of floating currencies. The dollar plunged by a third during the '70s. According to the World Trade Review's report "The Nixon Shock After Forty Years: The Import Surcharge Revisited", Douglas Irwin reports that for several months, U.S officials could not get other countries to agree to a formal revaluation of their currencies. German mark appreciated significantly after it was allowed to float in May 1971. Also, the Nixon Shock unleashed enormous speculation against the dollar. It forced Japan’s central bank to intervene significantly in the foreign exchange market to prevent the yen from increasing in value. Within two days August 16–17, 1971, Japan’s central bank had to buy $1.3 billion to support the dollar and keep the yen at the old rate of 360 Yen. Japan’s foreign exchange reserves rapidly increased: $2.7 billion (30%) a week later and $4 billion the following week. Still, this large-scale intervention by Japan’s central bank could not prevent the depreciation of US dollar against the yen. France also was willing to allow the dollar to depreciate against the franc, but not allow the franc to appreciate against gold (Page 14 Douglas). Even much later, in 2011, Paul Volcker expressed regret over the abandonment of Bretton Woods: "Nobody's in charge," Volcker said. "The Europeans couldn't live with the uncertainty and made their own currency and now that's in trouble."[2]
In 1996, liberal economist Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, 2008) summarized the post-Nixon Shock era as follows:
The current world monetary system assigns no special role to gold; indeed, the Federal Reserve is not obliged to tie the dollar to anything. It can print as much or as little money as it deems appropriate. There are powerful advantages to such an unconstrained system. Above all, the Fed is free to respond to actual or threatened recessions by pumping in money. To take only one example, that flexibility is the reason the stock market crash of 1987—which started out every bit as frightening as that of 1929—did not cause a slump in the real economy.
While a freely floating national money has advantages, however, it also has risks. For one thing, it can create uncertainties for international traders and investors. Over the past five years, the dollar has been worth as much as 120 yen and as little as 80. The costs of this volatility are hard to measure (partly because sophisticated financial markets allow businesses to hedge much of that risk), but they must be significant. Furthermore, a system that leaves monetary managers free to do good also leaves them free to be irresponsible—and, in some countries, they have been quick to take the opportunity.[18]
Debate over the Nixon Shock has persisted to the present day, with economists and politicians across the political spectrum trying to make sense of the Nixon Shock and its impact on monetary policy in the light of the financial crisis of 2007–08. Conservativecolumnist David Frum sums up the situation this way:
The modern currency float has its problems. There is no magical monetary cure, monetary policy is a policy area almost uniquely crowded with trade-offs and lesser evils.
If you want a classical gold standard, you get chronic deflation punctuated by depressions, as the U.S. did between 1873 and 1934.
If you want a regime of managed currencies tethered to gold, you get regulations and controls, as the U.S. got from 1934 through 1971.
If you let the currency float, you get chronic inflation punctuated by bubbles, the American lot since 1971.
System 1 is incompatible with democracy, because voters won’t accept the pain inherent in a gold standard.
System 2 is incompatible with the free market economics I favor.
That leaves me with System 3 as the worst option except for all the others.[19]
its not that we love the idea of the dollar being tied to one commodity... is what is better than what we have suffered and will continue to suffer.
By the way I note... that I don't endorse what Frum wrote (because I think the Federal Reserve has overdone the printing and looted the middle and non crony upper class and purchased Congress... but his opinion at the end of this article is worth noting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock
Later ramifications[edit]
The Nixon Shock has been widely considered to be a political success, but an economic mixed bag in bringing on the stagflation of the 1970s and leading to the instability of floating currencies. The dollar plunged by a third during the '70s. According to the World Trade Review's report "The Nixon Shock After Forty Years: The Import Surcharge Revisited", Douglas Irwin reports that for several months, U.S officials could not get other countries to agree to a formal revaluation of their currencies. German mark appreciated significantly after it was allowed to float in May 1971. Also, the Nixon Shock unleashed enormous speculation against the dollar. It forced Japan’s central bank to intervene significantly in the foreign exchange market to prevent the yen from increasing in value. Within two days August 16–17, 1971, Japan’s central bank had to buy $1.3 billion to support the dollar and keep the yen at the old rate of 360 Yen. Japan’s foreign exchange reserves rapidly increased: $2.7 billion (30%) a week later and $4 billion the following week. Still, this large-scale intervention by Japan’s central bank could not prevent the depreciation of US dollar against the yen. France also was willing to allow the dollar to depreciate against the franc, but not allow the franc to appreciate against gold (Page 14 Douglas). Even much later, in 2011, Paul Volcker expressed regret over the abandonment of Bretton Woods: "Nobody's in charge," Volcker said. "The Europeans couldn't live with the uncertainty and made their own currency and now that's in trouble."[2]
In 1996, liberal economist Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, 2008) summarized the post-Nixon Shock era as follows:
The current world monetary system assigns no special role to gold; indeed, the Federal Reserve is not obliged to tie the dollar to anything. It can print as much or as little money as it deems appropriate. There are powerful advantages to such an unconstrained system. Above all, the Fed is free to respond to actual or threatened recessions by pumping in money. To take only one example, that flexibility is the reason the stock market crash of 1987—which started out every bit as frightening as that of 1929—did not cause a slump in the real economy.
While a freely floating national money has advantages, however, it also has risks. For one thing, it can create uncertainties for international traders and investors. Over the past five years, the dollar has been worth as much as 120 yen and as little as 80. The costs of this volatility are hard to measure (partly because sophisticated financial markets allow businesses to hedge much of that risk), but they must be significant. Furthermore, a system that leaves monetary managers free to do good also leaves them free to be irresponsible—and, in some countries, they have been quick to take the opportunity.[18]
Debate over the Nixon Shock has persisted to the present day, with economists and politicians across the political spectrum trying to make sense of the Nixon Shock and its impact on monetary policy in the light of the financial crisis of 2007–08. Conservativecolumnist David Frum sums up the situation this way:
The modern currency float has its problems. There is no magical monetary cure, monetary policy is a policy area almost uniquely crowded with trade-offs and lesser evils.
If you want a classical gold standard, you get chronic deflation punctuated by depressions, as the U.S. did between 1873 and 1934.
If you want a regime of managed currencies tethered to gold, you get regulations and controls, as the U.S. got from 1934 through 1971.
If you let the currency float, you get chronic inflation punctuated by bubbles, the American lot since 1971.
System 1 is incompatible with democracy, because voters won’t accept the pain inherent in a gold standard.
System 2 is incompatible with the free market economics I favor.
That leaves me with System 3 as the worst option except for all the others.[19]
If you can't control the price of the standard you haven't accomplished anything. That's an essential component of a currency standard. The dollar is still the reserve currency. Gold and other commodities are priced in dollars. Their price fluctuates with the dollar and demand. If you want to use a commodity as a currency standard you have to get control of the commodity price. That is not a realistic possibility in a global market. Fiat currency makes the most sense today for the currency that is the reserve currency. Others can peg their currencies to the dollar if they like, and in so doing maintain a constant ratio. In a global economy, It is only the ratio that matters whether you have a gold standard or not. The forex market determines the ratio. That is a much better system than a commodity standard.
We don't have a hard currency standard because we can't have one. That's what these folks blathering on about going back to a hard standard can't seem to absorb.
Last edited:
the review below is mild compared to the real poisons we have had to swallow.
( our wealth and standard of living has been looted. Our industries have been extracted and we have lost control of our political system. )
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charles...al-monetary-error-the-verdict-40-years-later/
...
Domestically, we were promised that the manipulation of quantity and value of a paper dollar would avoid costly recessions, provide high employment, and produce strong economic growth. Internationally, we were promised that the devaluation of the dollar would reduce our trade deficit and improve the international competitiveness of American workers and businesses. And, because trade was only one-tenth of the U.S. economy, all of this could be done while maintaining price stability.
Each and every one of these promises has been broken.
Since Nixon killed the gold standard, the unemployment rate has averaged over 6% and we have suffered the three worst recessions since the end of World War II. The unemployment rate averaged 8.5% in 1975, almost 10% in 1982, and has been above 8.8% for more than two years, with little evidence of any improvement ahead.
This performance is horrendous compared to the post World War II gold standard era, which lasted from 1947 to 1970. During those 21 years of economic ups and downs, unemployment averaged less than 5% and never rose above 7%.
Growth, too, has slowed. Since able men and women were given the power to manipulate the quantity and value of the dollar, real economic growth has averaged 2.9% a year – more than a full percentage point slower than the 4% growth rate during the post World War II gold standard era.
A 1% difference may not seem like much, but in reality it is the difference between prosperity and austerity. A growth rate of 3% creates just enough jobs for all new workers. A growth rate of 4% yields higher employment and a decline in the unemployment rate.
In addition, when compounded over 40 years, 1% slower growth under the paper dollar system has had a mind-boggling impact on all things that depend on the overall size of the U.S. economy. At 3% growth, the U.S. economy is about $8 trillion smaller than it would have been had we continued to experience the average growth rate prior to Nixon severing the link between dollar and gold. That implies that median family income today would be about $70,000, or nearly 50% higher than it is today.
( our wealth and standard of living has been looted. Our industries have been extracted and we have lost control of our political system. )
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charles...al-monetary-error-the-verdict-40-years-later/
...
Domestically, we were promised that the manipulation of quantity and value of a paper dollar would avoid costly recessions, provide high employment, and produce strong economic growth. Internationally, we were promised that the devaluation of the dollar would reduce our trade deficit and improve the international competitiveness of American workers and businesses. And, because trade was only one-tenth of the U.S. economy, all of this could be done while maintaining price stability.
Each and every one of these promises has been broken.
Since Nixon killed the gold standard, the unemployment rate has averaged over 6% and we have suffered the three worst recessions since the end of World War II. The unemployment rate averaged 8.5% in 1975, almost 10% in 1982, and has been above 8.8% for more than two years, with little evidence of any improvement ahead.
This performance is horrendous compared to the post World War II gold standard era, which lasted from 1947 to 1970. During those 21 years of economic ups and downs, unemployment averaged less than 5% and never rose above 7%.
Growth, too, has slowed. Since able men and women were given the power to manipulate the quantity and value of the dollar, real economic growth has averaged 2.9% a year – more than a full percentage point slower than the 4% growth rate during the post World War II gold standard era.
A 1% difference may not seem like much, but in reality it is the difference between prosperity and austerity. A growth rate of 3% creates just enough jobs for all new workers. A growth rate of 4% yields higher employment and a decline in the unemployment rate.
In addition, when compounded over 40 years, 1% slower growth under the paper dollar system has had a mind-boggling impact on all things that depend on the overall size of the U.S. economy. At 3% growth, the U.S. economy is about $8 trillion smaller than it would have been had we continued to experience the average growth rate prior to Nixon severing the link between dollar and gold. That implies that median family income today would be about $70,000, or nearly 50% higher than it is today.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/15/forty-years-ago-today-nixon-took-us-off-gold-standard.html
John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, once wrote, in "The Economic Consequences of the Peace":
“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
Some presidents have such reservoirs of good popular will that, even if caught out, they can survive intact even impeachment by the House of Representatives. William Jefferson Clinton, notwithstanding certain misbehavior certainly unbecoming of his high office, was so esteemed for the prosperity his free trade, welfare reform policies had engendered that he was able to weather impeachment and achieve acquittal.
But not Nixon. Why might that be? It was almost as if he were hexed. Was he?
Thomas Paine was the visionary, and some might say prophet, who precipitated the American Revolution and in his continuing writings gave it inspiration, direction, and meaning: liberty, dignity and integrity. Paine is remembered for writing phrases such as "These are the times that try men's souls," and "Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered."
Paine also wrote an almost unknown tract 1786 collected as "Dissertations on government, the affairs of the bank, and paper money." For example:
“Gold and silver are the emissions of nature: paper is the emission of art. The value of gold and silver is ascertained by the quantity which nature has made in the earth. We cannot make that quantity more or less than it is, and therefore the value being dependent upon the quantity, depends not on man. …
“Paper, considered as a material whereof to make money, has none of the requisite qualities in it. It is too plentiful, and too easily come at. It can be had anywhere, and for a trifle.
…
“Money, when considered as the fruit of many years' industry, as the reward of labor, sweat and toil, as the widow's dowry and children's portion, and as the means of procuring the necessaries and alleviating the afflictions of life, and making old age a scene of rest, has something in it sacred that is not to be sported with, or trusted to the airy bubble of paper currency.”
Paine savagely indicted paper money.
“It was horrid to see, and hurtful to recollect, how loose the principles of justice were left, by means of the paper emissions during the war. The experience then had should be a warning to any assembly how they venture to open such a dangerous door again. ...
“But the evils of paper money have no end. Its uncertain and fluctuating value is continually awakening or creating new schemes of deceit. Every principle of justice is put to the rack, and the bond of society dissolved. The suppression, therefore, of paper money might very properly have been put into the act for preventing vice and immorality.”
Paine called for the strongest penalties for an official who might connive at going off the gold standard:
“As to the assumed authority of any assembly in making paper money, or paper of any kind, a legal tender, or in other language, a compulsive payment, it is a most presumptuous attempt at arbitrary power. There can be no such power in a republican government: the people have no freedom — and property no security — where this practice can be acted: and the committee who shall bring in a report for this purpose, or the member who moves for it, and he who seconds it merits impeachment, and sooner or later may expect it.”
“… [M]erits impeachment, and sooner or later may expect it,” wrote the prophet of the American Revolution.
And now you know the rest of the story. If only Richard Nixon had credited Paine’s prophecy and left the gold standard in place he might have finished out his second term and left office with his dignity intact.
Ralph Benko, an attorney and former junior Reagan White House official, is the senior advisor, economics to the American Principles Project’s Gold Standard 2012; editor of The Lehrman Institute’s definitive gold standard website; weekly contributor of “A Golden Age” to Forbes.com; proprietor of Facebook’s Gold Standard page, and is a Tea Party Patriot. He is the author of the award-winning cult classic on Web-based advocacy, The Websters' Dictionary.
John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, once wrote, in "The Economic Consequences of the Peace":
“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
Some presidents have such reservoirs of good popular will that, even if caught out, they can survive intact even impeachment by the House of Representatives. William Jefferson Clinton, notwithstanding certain misbehavior certainly unbecoming of his high office, was so esteemed for the prosperity his free trade, welfare reform policies had engendered that he was able to weather impeachment and achieve acquittal.
But not Nixon. Why might that be? It was almost as if he were hexed. Was he?
Thomas Paine was the visionary, and some might say prophet, who precipitated the American Revolution and in his continuing writings gave it inspiration, direction, and meaning: liberty, dignity and integrity. Paine is remembered for writing phrases such as "These are the times that try men's souls," and "Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered."
Paine also wrote an almost unknown tract 1786 collected as "Dissertations on government, the affairs of the bank, and paper money." For example:
“Gold and silver are the emissions of nature: paper is the emission of art. The value of gold and silver is ascertained by the quantity which nature has made in the earth. We cannot make that quantity more or less than it is, and therefore the value being dependent upon the quantity, depends not on man. …
“Paper, considered as a material whereof to make money, has none of the requisite qualities in it. It is too plentiful, and too easily come at. It can be had anywhere, and for a trifle.
…
“Money, when considered as the fruit of many years' industry, as the reward of labor, sweat and toil, as the widow's dowry and children's portion, and as the means of procuring the necessaries and alleviating the afflictions of life, and making old age a scene of rest, has something in it sacred that is not to be sported with, or trusted to the airy bubble of paper currency.”
Paine savagely indicted paper money.
“It was horrid to see, and hurtful to recollect, how loose the principles of justice were left, by means of the paper emissions during the war. The experience then had should be a warning to any assembly how they venture to open such a dangerous door again. ...
“But the evils of paper money have no end. Its uncertain and fluctuating value is continually awakening or creating new schemes of deceit. Every principle of justice is put to the rack, and the bond of society dissolved. The suppression, therefore, of paper money might very properly have been put into the act for preventing vice and immorality.”
Paine called for the strongest penalties for an official who might connive at going off the gold standard:
“As to the assumed authority of any assembly in making paper money, or paper of any kind, a legal tender, or in other language, a compulsive payment, it is a most presumptuous attempt at arbitrary power. There can be no such power in a republican government: the people have no freedom — and property no security — where this practice can be acted: and the committee who shall bring in a report for this purpose, or the member who moves for it, and he who seconds it merits impeachment, and sooner or later may expect it.”
“… [M]erits impeachment, and sooner or later may expect it,” wrote the prophet of the American Revolution.
And now you know the rest of the story. If only Richard Nixon had credited Paine’s prophecy and left the gold standard in place he might have finished out his second term and left office with his dignity intact.
Ralph Benko, an attorney and former junior Reagan White House official, is the senior advisor, economics to the American Principles Project’s Gold Standard 2012; editor of The Lehrman Institute’s definitive gold standard website; weekly contributor of “A Golden Age” to Forbes.com; proprietor of Facebook’s Gold Standard page, and is a Tea Party Patriot. He is the author of the award-winning cult classic on Web-based advocacy, The Websters' Dictionary.
But she's got the lesbian vote sewed up and Blacks still think she's here to help themHillary is a sword-swallowing cunt who will get her ass handed to her when the real debates start. The Clinton legacy is myriad in illegality. Benghazi was a total fuck up. And her email server which oops is a Federal indictment charge. And she's a nobody, with no real ideas or solutions. Just a bitch with a cunt. First bitch with a cunt in the white house. That's what shes running on. A novelty with no credentials. Like Obama.
thank you for that information. I didn't know you had inside info from lesbians and blacks. Tell us more what the "Blacks" you talk to have to say about Hillary.But she's got the lesbian vote sewed up and Blacks still think she's here to help them