Why Asset Confiscation and Worse are Real Possibilities
Rahm Emanuel, said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before,” and that could include asset confiscation.
With the financial crisis in Europe and Greece, the rejection of the dollar by Australia and China, and the bankruptcy of a number of American cities, a financial crisis is on the horizon that will most likely be deeper and more extensive than the one in 2008.
In order to remedy a financial crisis, the president could call for asset confiscation or at least asset limitation.
California is in debt to the tune of $127 billion. Parts of Detroit like like some post-World War 2 cities.
Trending: ‘Socialism for Thee but not for Me’
When the next bubble bursts again, the people are going to call on the President to “do something.” The majority of Americans stood by as President Obama shut down car dealerships, confiscated the stock of GM that is now owned by the U.S. Treasury, and passed out political favors to the unions. The taxpayers will lose big when the stock is eventually sold sometime in 2014.
A president did something before when America was in a crisis, and few Americans protested. They, too, thought it was best for the country.
Japanese American citizens were interred and their property confiscated. Dr. Gary North writes:
“On April 1, 1942, California announced the order for the arrest and deportation of Japanese citizens in California. They were sent into internment camps — read: concentration camps in Idaho. . . .
“President Roosevelt signed an executive order on February 19, 1942, authorizing the program. Congress never voted on this. The program was implemented by Secretary of War Henry Stimpson. The only major figure in Washington to oppose this was J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI.
“The prisoners were released in early 1945. They were given $10 and a train ticket back home. But they had no homes to go to. Most of their homes had been sold, along with their possessions and businesses, at bargain basement auctions in 1942.”
When people are desperate, they will agree to almost anything. There are enough people who will support President Obama because they have little property and not much money saved. Obama and company will go after the “rich,” and there won’t be enough rich people to make a difference at the public opinion level. They are a voting minority
It’s the lambs and wolves scenario. Five wolves and a lamb are discussing the nightly menu. They take a vote. The lamb votes for some nice juicy grass. The wolves vote for lamb.
There’s more to the history of the crisis of the Second World War that doesn’t make it into the history books. If Obama decides to act because of a crisis, there will be government actions that we won’t know about.
It was agreed to by the delegates to the Mexico City Conference on the Problems of War and Peace that “‘any person whose deportation was necessary for reasons of security of the continent’ should be prevented from ‘further residing in this hemisphere if such residence should be prejudicial to the future security or welfare of the Americas.’”
Did you catch that?: “any person . . . for reasons of security of the continent.”
Could this refer to “radical” Tea Party members? People who oppose same-sex marriage? Those who support the Second Amendment? The people who “cling to their guns and religion”? Surely they are a danger to the country. At least the wolves think so.
A newly passed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty says so:
“The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday signed off on a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade, brushing aside worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry and disrupt the American gun market. . . . [and] it includes ‘small arms and light weapons;’ in its list of weaponry subject to international regulation.”
Don’t ever say it can’t happen here. It did happen here.