Republicans and Democrats like to call each other Nazis, but how do their policies compare with German National Socialist policies? The National Socialist German Workers Party platform of 1920 recorded: “12. Considering the enormous sacrifices of property and blood which every war demands from a people, personal enrichment because of war has to be seen as a crime against the people. We therefore demand complete confiscation of all war profits.”
The Takings Clause in the Bill of Rights says “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” But Republican Richard Nixon in 1971 declared a “War on Drugs,” and Republican Ronald Reagan signed the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986 establishing the Department of Justice Asset Forfeitures fund and allowing forfeiture of “substitute assets.” Republican George H.W. Bush exported this notion through the U.N. Convention of 12/20/1988 and Switzerland and Canada were soon scrabbling for a piece of Banco Occidente Panama assets under the treaty and 21 U.S.C. 853. By March 5, 1991, President Bush Senior took to bragging in speeches how “asset forfeiture laws allow us to take the ill-gotten gains…” without once mentioning the Takings Clause in the U.S. Constitution or Hitler’s “war profits” plank.
In United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), the Supreme Court tossed out the takings clause to make room for asset forfeiture, and the Special Forfeiture Fund enacted that year was soon followed by the Kingpin Act, further entrenching looters-by-law. By December 2001 even the Netherlands, once occupied by a German National Socialist transitional authority, adopted the American policy of better looting through prohibitionism, and the Dutch Supreme Court rubber-stamped the procedure in 2005.
The final straw was the Equitable Sharing Fund bribing state governments with a share of the loot. Unfortunately, the resulting orgy of forfeiture looting, with homes still under subprime mortgages being sold at auction, collapsed the mortgage-backed securities industry, bankrupted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, wiped out many large financial concerns and undercut the value long-term investment nationwide during the George W. Bush Administration.
It is true that Nixon’s party was angry about hippies, not Jewish folks. Significantly, the GOP platform of 2012 breathes not a word about asset forfeiture and mentions the Takings Clause only in connection with eminent domain. Nevertheless, from this first comparison we gather that no good came of the Congress, Senate, White House and Supreme Court abandoning the US Bill of Rights “No Takings” Clause and adopting in its stead Adolf Hitler’s “profits confiscation” policy. The $15 trillion price tag was too high, and states are shifting from asset forfeiture payola to legalization of harmless hemp.
Fortunately for These States as a whole, Europe’s eager adoption of the idea of prohibitionism coupled with the communist manifesto income tax as justification for wholesale asset forfeiture also rendered their derivatives markets vulnerable to collapse. Foreknowledge of this causal connection put U.S. securities traders, Federal Reserve banks and Treasury officials in an advantageous position to recoup losses. They needed only to short European and Latin American futures and derivatives markets and currency exchanges before they too were overtaken by the expanding wave of asset-forfeiture-induced collapse.
Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is available in two languages on Amazon Kindle, each at the cost of a pint of craft beer.