Why do you declare the author a moonbat?
Well, for one thing, it's a rabid Goldbug writing on a site for rabid Goldbugs...that's in-and-of itself evidence of Moonbatism.
They're not just people advocating that people invest some of their money in Gold as a good investment.
Goldbugs basically sell a fantasy of imminent complete economic collapse, and have been for decades, and they've been wrong over and over again.
Fans of these sites imagine setting themselves up as warlords with all the Krugerrands they've got stashed under their beds after complete anarchy and social breakdown sweep the country after "fiat money" becomes worthless.
Why do you ask me why I think the author is a moonbat when I posted the sentence that I think shows the author to be a moonbat right above my assertion? How much clearer do I have to be? Obviously the author is implying that we invaded Iraq, knowing full well that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, because what we were really concerned about was that Iraq was going to switch their oil economy from dollars to Euros. That is an ignorant, paranoid, moonbat position, as far as I am concerned and about as obvious as the nose on your face, but apparently it went straight over your head. Why do you think we went into Iraq? To protect the dollar?
As you see in posts 7 and 9, the Goldbugs have allies in Moonbatism in Buchananite protectionist twits; which is why it always cracks me up when good economic news is posted and people start posting how the Democrats are "deeply saddened"...there's quite a large contingent of "conservatives" who are always frustrated by good economic news and are disappointed day after day when the economy doesn't collapse as they're hoping.