Could This $3 AI Stock Make You 100X Richer?
Sponsored
Based on our research, we are at the starting point of the “Next Big Thing.” Bigger than 5G… electric cars… streaming media… and crypto. COMBINED. We're talking about a far BIGGER, $150 trillion opportunity. Folks like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett are singing the praises of Artificial Intelligence. And while everyone is talking about ChatGPT and NVIDIA… The real opportunity centers on an under-the-radar $3 AI Wonder Stock no one is talking about. We have reason to believe its share price could go ballistic in the coming days and weeks. Will it go up by 10… 25… even 50 times? Time will tell. Click here to get our No 1 AI investment recommendation of the decade.
P.S. Don't invest another dime in NVIDIA, Microsoft, Google, or any of the other big boys. This one has the potential to be 100x bigger than all those – COMBINED. Click here for the full story.
This is a partial transcript of a recent interview with Jim Rickards
HOST: If you thought Watergate was bad, and a lot of people did, they thought that was as bad as political corruption can get, you have not seen anything yet. Heading into 2024 with the election here, we've got huge moving pieces, and we want to dive into one of the biggest stories right now.
It has to do with the 14th Amendment and the possibility of Trump being disqualified off ballots. But I want to make sure I introduce the man of the hour, our own Jim Rickards here at Paradigm Press. He is a former CIA adviser, a former adviser to the Pentagon, and he's been around DC politicians, seeing and looking from the side at what's going on there in Washington, he was around when the Petra Nixon and the Petra dollar were crafted, so this is a man on the scene that knows what's going on politically, and I want him to get to the bottom of it. So, Jim, thanks so much for joining us. Things could get crazy here in 2024. Get everyone caught up, what do they need to know?
JIM RICKARDS: Well, I think crazy is the right word, Matt. You put your finger on it, and it's happening across the country, what we're talking about specifically is section three of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Now, there's a lot else going on, there's redistricting cases where, you know, you have to draw, you have to redraw the Congressional Maps every 10 years.
Well, 2024 is one of those years after the 2020 census that's being contested in, in state legislatures and so forth. But the big one, the one that's kind of dominating the news, that's got everyone spun up is this, again section three of the 14th Amendment.
Let me, read it, it's pretty short. I should let our viewers know that in addition to being an editor and a writer and a bunch of other things, I'm also an attorney. I took constitutional law, back in the day, back before the law schools got, you know, as messed up as they are today. But anyway, let me read, section three is pretty short, and it says the following:
“No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of the president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States, or a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the US, of the United States, shall have engaged in Insurrection or Rebellion against the same, or given Aid or Comfort to the enemies thereof, but Congress May by a vote of two-thirds of each house remove such disability.”
So, that's pretty straightforward, but in plain English, it says if you were an officer of the United States, or they specifically mentioned Senator, member of Congress, presidential elector of VP, and you took an oath to, you know, uphold the Constitution, but you betrayed that Oath by engaging in Insurrection or Rebellion, that were giving Aid and comfort to the enemies, which is treason, basically, then you disqualified from holding office under the United States government or any state government.
So, what's the background here? Where did this come from? Where did the section three come from? Well, it's part of the 14th Amendment. The 14th amendment was passed in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War, which was over in 1865. It was part of reconstruction, obviously, the Civil War was the most traumatic internal event in US history, forget the exact number killed, but it was it was 300,000 or more. That's six times the number of casualties in Vietnam, for example, I believe more than World War II, there were certain battles with 10,000 people were killed one day.
Then the question was, how do you put the country back together, how do you reconcile the South and the north, Etc? So, the immediate steps, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery. A lot of people think it was the Emancipation Proclamation that Lincoln signed. Emancipation Proclamation was a big step in that direction, had to do with Southern slaves who escaped and made it to the North, they were then deemed free, but it didn't apply to all slaves across the board. 13th Amendment did, just abolish slavery, period, full stop. So, that was good. The 14th Amendment actually established due process of law at the state level. The Fifth Amendment, which goes all the way back to the Bill of Rights, established due process of law for the federal government, but now that was being extended to the state government.
So, again, with a view to getting slavery behind us, upholding rights of all citizens, but obviously with specific reference to, black citizens, former slaves, that were going to get due process of law, but everybody, it applied to everybody.
And then and there was a couple other amendments around the same time, they were all sort of passed in a matter of a couple years. But the section three was meant to deal with Civil War Southern officers or members of the Confederacy, members of the confederate government, the the army of Northern Virginia, the Confederate Army, you know, Robert E Lee on down, Etc., all those people had engaged in an Insurrection. It was a civil war, but no one disputed the use of the word Insurrection, and they were disqualified from holding federal or state office because they had betrayed their oath, if they had taken an oath in some capacity, and it could be military, political, Etc.
So, that's what that was. It was very specifically, it was Civil War timed, it was part of reconstruction, it was aimed at Confederates, and said they couldn't hold federal or state office because they had engaged in a rebellion, where the amendment uses word in Insurrection.
Okay, so that's the background has it ever been used, and the answer is, it has not been used since 1876, except in one case. It was one case in 1921, and this is the first progressive era, the height of anti-socialism, and not long after, Woodrow Wilson, who was sort of a bit of a Neo fascist in his own right, there was a lot of Hysteria about communism at the time, and there was a guy running, for House of Representatives as a socialist, and, they, meaning the relevant authorities in the case said he violated the Espionage Act because he was pro-socialist, and he should be disqualified under section three of the 14th Amendment, that's what we're talking about.
That case went to trial, and the plaintiffs lost, and the defendant Berger, Victor Burger, won. He then ran for office, he won, he was reelected three times. So we only have one case, just one, since 1876, and the government lost the case, and the guy got wass elected, and none since.
So, that's over a 100 years, 102 years since there's been one case, there basically been none in 102 years, and then even prior to that, you have to go back to 1876, there were very few cases. Now, it was used in 1868 to 1876 to prevent senior Confederate officials from running for office, but in 1872, Congress passed the amnesty act, and this wasn't again an effort, you're in this traumatic post Civil War period where the nation had been torn apart, now efforts are being made to bring it back together and reconcile, and they basically disabled the section three, which is what we're talking about, they said we're, we're going to remove that prohibition for everyone except for a few top Confederates, we'll leave it in place for some of the top, Confederate officials, but that was it.
Then it was broadened even further in 1898. So, the Congress to the extent they acted at all, they were diluting the impact of Section 3, saying well, doesn't apply to this group, doesn't apply to that group, they were specifically by Statute narrowing down the application.
So, you have something again, hasn't been applied for over 100 years, and then when the Congress was addressing it in the 1870s and the 1880s, they were were diluting the impact, it went so far that they removed the disqualification for Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis. Robert E Lee was the commander of the Army in Northern Virginia, which was the main Confederate military force, and Jefferson Davis was the president of the Confederate States of America, and Congress said you guys can run for office too. So, it was very limited in scope, it was meant to be a post Civil War remedial measure, Congress immediately took steps to dilute it and water it down. I can't as a lawyer, I can't quite say it's a dead letter, but it's as close to a dead letter as you can get, nobody thought this would ever emerge. Well, guess what, it has, and this is something the Democrats call lawfare, like what's lawfare?
Well, it's two words, law and warfare, mushed together. So, basically, you use law in ways that were never intended, unprecedented, novel theories, but you're using everything possible to attack your enemies or in this case destroy Trump. Now, we're talking specifically about the section 3 case, I'll get to Colorado in a second, but you, you got to go back, look at Trump, what happened on day one with Trump, the Russian dossier, the Hillary Clinton Russian dossier, which is complete lies. That was investigated for two years, paralyzed Trump for two years, but it was completely made up, completely false, that was all Robert Miller found nothing.
The Inspector General found nothing, special prosecutors found nothing, but it was two years of paralysis. What happened when that was finally over, it's like okay, the whole thing was folks, boom, here comes impeachment. What was the first impeachment trial about? Trump made a 15 minute phone call to Zelinsky, who's the president of Ukraine, now independent of what you think of Ukraine or politics, Ukraine is ranked by the World Bank as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, not just Europe, it's the most corrupt country in Europe. But it's like one of the four or five most corrupt countries in the world. I've been to Nigeria and some of these places, they're pretty corrupt, Congo and elsewhere, but Ukraine's right on right on the top of the list.
A 10,000% Dividend?!?
Sponsored
Have you seen this strange oil investment? It's NOT a stock, bond, or private company… It has NO age requirements… You do NOT need to be accredited to participate… And you can get in for as little as $25. Yet this secret is so powerful that one man used it to build a $100,000 income stream from just $1,000. And he was collecting this income even 50 years later! That's like earning a 10,000% dividend year after year! In short… This is easily the #1 Oil Play for 2023 and beyond. My short presentation reveals everything:
