For almost 200 years after the nation’s founding in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. could brag about having the world’s strongest long-term currency, with hardly any inflation until the 1960s, the decade when President Lyndon B. Johnson took silver out of our coins. Then, Nixon closed the gold window in 1971. This debasement of our currency was a natural outgrowth of excessive spending by LBJ and by every President and Congress of both major political parties in the 60 years since then. At the time of our nation’s birth, however, all of our major Founding Fathers spoke glowingly of gold and silver. They had struggled with inflation caused by paper “Continentals,” which flooded the nation then. At one point, in 1779, General George Washington wrote to John Jay, our future first Chief Justice, in a plea for sound money, “A wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon load of provisions.”   Meanwhile, the man most responsible for writing the Declaration was no less eloquent about gold. The Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson, said, “Paper is poverty … it is only the ghost of money and not money itself.” Later on, as President in 1802, he wrote to Albert Gallatin, his Treasury Secretary, saying, “Specie (gold and silver coin) is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war.” In retirement, during the War of 1812 and the inflation which followed, Jefferson became even more outspoken in his call for gold and restraints on banks. Writing to John W. Eppes in 1813, Jefferson said: “If the debt which the banking companies owe be a blessing to anybody, it is to themselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight or ten per cent on it. As to the public, these companies have banished all our gold and silver medium, which, before their institution, we had without interest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would have been our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which they have given us two hundred million of froth and bubble, on which we are to pay them heavy interest, until it shall vanish into air … The truth is that capital may be produced by industry and accumulated by economy but jugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks with paper.” After the war’s end, Jefferson didn’t give up the fight, as he wrote to John Taylor, in 1816, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around (them) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” John Adams was the man most responsible for convincing Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence and later, in 1787, Adams wrote to Jefferson in Paris, “All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.” Thomas Paine, famous for saying “Give me liberty or give me death,” also spoke eloquently about gold: “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. Man has no share in making gold or silver; all that his labors and ingenuity can accomplish is to collect it from the mine, refine it for use and give it an impression or stamp it into coin…. Nature has provided the proper materials for money: gold and silver, and any attempt of ours to rival her is ridiculous.” All these forces came together in our Constitution, drafted by James Madison, writing: “Congress shall have Power … To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” (Article 1, Section 8), and “No State shall... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” (Article I, Section 10). As our 250th national birthday approaches, maybe some politicians ought to look to gold, not paper! Dr. Mike Fuljenz, founder of Universal Coin & Bullion in Beaumont, Texas, is a leading coin expert and market analyst whose insightful writing and consumer advocacy have earned major honors from the ANA, PNG, NLG and the Press Club of Southeast Texas. McNeese State University awarded him an honorary doctorate of humane letters in 2015.

For those following NewsBusters’ coverage of the defamation cases brought against CNN (successful) and the Associated Press (on-going) by Navy veteran Zachary Young, one name should be familiar: Charles D. Tobin. A lawyer with Ballard Spahr, Tobin was part of the legal team that represented CNN and then the AP. As with the nature of defamation cases, both hinged on words and their interpretations. Tobin’s arguments before Florida’s First District Court of Appeal have repeatedly shown an aversion to holding the media to objective definitions. In the CNN case, the phrase “black market” was one of the contentious points Young successfully argued were defamatory against him. In an unsuccessful April 2024 appeal to the 1st DCA to overturn a ruling allowing Young to seek punitive damages, Tobin argued that a subjective use of the phrase be adopted (emphasis added): Here, we're on a question of actual malice, express malice, and outrageous conduct measured by objective standards. Under that criteria, your honor, regardless of what the meaning may be in the dictionary, which is an objective definition. What plaintiff needed to show is that subjectively CNN intended that meaning, otherwise there is no facts in the record to give rise to a reasonable jury question about actual [malice]. “So, these are lawyers and professional writers that, you know, are used to dealing with words and have dictionaries and know how precise – what words mean?” pressed Judge L. Clayton Roberts. Judge Thomas D. Winokur drilled down on the dictionary definition of “black market.” Tobin suggested it was simply just a “poor choice of words”:  WINOKUR: I hate to keep harping on this, but none of those things describe what could be commonly referred to as “black market.” I see Judge Roberts's point that “black market” clearly implies dictionary definition or otherwise, an illegal exchange of goods. TOBIN: Your honor. WINOKUR: That has nothing to do with those other descriptions in the chyron. TOBIN: If it was a poor choice of words, your honor, and at best, we argue that it was at best a poor choice of words, your honor. That may have an impact on the rest of this case below under negligent standard, actual malice.     Young’s lead counsel Vel Freedman of Freedman Normand Friedland LLP made swift work of CNN’s argument:  So, what CNN is claiming is they took a word from the English language that has one definition and they meant when they said “black market,” they actually meant “grey market,” but they said “black market” that has one definition. CNN can't get up there and say, “Hey, Mr. Young is a serial killer,” but actually mean that he was a good Samaritan, but they only knew that in their head. Fast forward to June 9, 2026, speaking to the same Judge Roberts on behalf of the AP, Tobin was argued that the AP’s stylebook - essentially their own dictionary - should not be looked to for the objective definition of the word “smuggle” which Young pointed to in his lawsuit (emphasis added):  ROBERTS: The AP publishes something called the AP Style Manual, correct? TOBIN: Correct. ROBERTS: And it defines “smuggling,” and the definition that the AP publishes for their reporters to use, and lots of other people use it, it says “smuggling” is an illegal activity. TOBIN: It says, “human smuggling” is an illegal activity, or “people smuggling,” the whole point of defining a term, Your Honor, we do this in our briefs every day, is to use the term consistently from case-to-case moment-to-moment within it as you're walking through a brief. The AP did not use the terms in its Stylebook. The Stylebook is inapt as, it is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case.   In a defamation hearing today, AP's lawyer argues to a panel of judges that their style guide doesn't matter. He argues that it's okay the AP didn't follow their own guidelines when they used a word their book gives a negative meaning that implied illegality to describe the… pic.twitter.com/vmVbu0ijtk — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 9, 2026   “We just heard the attorney for the Associated Press get up here and say that its stylebook, which is a handbook for journalists, for students worldwide, does not apply to this case, that its reporter should not be held to what it says,” Young’s counsel Lisa Glass proclaimed when it was time for her rebuttal. “Words matter. The AP created its own stylebook to ensure that.” Further, Tobin got philosophical about how to define words: And Your Honor, we haven't talked yet about Judge Winokur's question, which I think does drive the decision that the court should reach here, which is, how do you read something? What are the tools that the court uses to read something when somebody argues that they're all avail themselves of more than one meeting? “And what you do is you look to the context for the defamatory meaning question, you look to the context of the entire publication,” he answered himself. How the media defend themselves in court gives incite to how the media operate in their newsrooms and editorial meetings. Words apparently have no objective meaning; they have one meaning in their reports and other in the courtroom.

“Our officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families,” the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explained Friday, calling the mask ban signed by Democrat Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger “unconstitutional.” “To be clear: We will NOT comply with @GovernorVA’s unconstitutional mask ban,” DHS declared in a social media post thanking the U.S. Justice Department for filing a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones, and Commonwealth Attorney for Fairfax, Virginia Steve Descano. DHS officers are being targeted by “a coordinated campaign of violence” that has surged, DHS noted: “Our law enforcement officers are facing a coordinated campaign of violence including a more than 1,300% increase in assaults and an 8,000% increase in death threats. Our officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families. Thank you to @TheJusticeDept for continuing to stand with the heroic men and women of our law enforcement.” On Thursday, the Justice Department announced that it has filed a lawsuit challenging Virginia’s “unconstitutional attempt to regulate federal law enforcement officers by criminally prohibiting federal officers from wearing masks [and] requiring individual identifiers.” Virginia’s law threatens the safety of federal officers facing a wave of harassment, doxing and violence, the Justice Department release says. "Virginia’s anti-law enforcement policies regulate the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents. These laws cannot stand," Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. Gov. Spanberger signed the “Prohibition on wearing of facial coverings; penalty” into law on May 20, 2026. It is slated to take effect on July 1, 2026. In its civil action, the Justice Department’s complaint filed Thursday seeks declaratory and injunctive relief preempting the law. In February, Acting Attorney General Blanche issued a memorandum initiating an investigation into all state and local laws, policies and processes that “facilitate violations of federal laws or impede lawful federal operations.” Thursday’s lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits challenging such illegal activities, DHS reports. Thursday’s complaint asks the court to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Virginia from enforcing the state law threatening the safety of federal agencies and employees.

Before Sunday’s UFC Freedom 250 Fight at the White House, Friday’s CNN This Morning focused on what the fight and a UFC partnership with the State Department symbolized. MMA Analyst Luke Thomas argued the UFC was intertwined with politics, especially the Trump Administration, as he wondered why the mainstream media never made the UFC “pay” after the “UFC helped launder Donald Trump’s reputation after January 6th.” The segment led with news of a signed “memorandum of understanding” between the UFC and the State Department, where Marco Rubio called the UFC the “United Nations of fighting.” Fill-in host Erica Hill asked Thomas what the deal meant, which she described as a showcase of “the soft power tools of the US.” He remained skeptical and wondered about the “return on investment.”   On CNN This Morning, Luke Thomas, an MMA analyst who also runs a political YouTube channel, worried about the political entanglement of the UFC WH Fight and wondered why the mainstream media never made the UFC "pay" as, he says, the UFC helped "launder Donald Trump's reputation." pic.twitter.com/NpIG3TuTF3 — Nick (@nspin310) June 12, 2026   Thomas then wondered about Trump’s beliefs in soft power, “But in terms of like, I mean, if Donald Trump doesn't believe in soft power, it is very, very difficult for me to understand how this is a different but more enlightened version of it.” Hill then mentioned how cuts were made to USAID, “which was a major instrument in many ways of soft power.” It should be said, Thomas is not simply an MMA analyst. He also hosts a political YouTube page titled “Luke Thomas Gets Political,” where he has posted about the UFC and Trump, among other topics, such as a video titled “Graham Platner’s Support is Frying Brains of the Establishment." Here is just a taste of his Political channel, something CNN did not mention at all, which features a good amount of videos on Graham Platner and... Israel. pic.twitter.com/tg3TIHWXiR — Nick (@nspin310) June 12, 2026 Back on CNN, Thomas continued and hit on the way UFC made deals with worldwide governments to host events, as he cited deals in Serbia and Azerbaijan and complained how there was no deal with the government of Brazil, what he described as “one of the most important markets in MMA. Hill then asked what he thought the UFC White House fight had turned into, “What do you think, in your view, Sunday's fight has now come to symbolize, and is it what was intended, which we're told is a celebration of the nation's 250th birthday, which happens to fall on this president's 80th birthday?” Thomas called the fight, “something approximating the union of these two identities or brands or, you know, between the UFC and between the Trump administration.” He then wondered why the mainstream media did not hit the UFC for platforming Trump:  “What was very interesting was the UFC helped launder Donald Trump's reputation following January 6th, all the way through into 2024, when they helped boost his candidacy, and the mainstream media never made them pay for that. I was very, very surprised at the time.  He ended by calling the UFC political for “years at this point” and called the fight a “culmination of all those kinds of efforts.” With callbacks that referred to Trump’s views of soft power with reference to topics like USAID, the MMA YouTuber CNN platformed seemed to be more currently focused on politics than the UFC. The transcript is below. Click "expand": CNN This Morning June 12, 2026 6:26:18 AM Eastern (...) ERICA HILL: Mixed martial arts analyst Luke Thomas joins us now. Luke, it's great to have you here. So, as we point out, there's some two dozen sports, right? And envoys, you know, in many ways, this is sort of like a goodwill ambassador program, right? The showing the soft power tools of the U.S. Government.  So, how effective do you think with this new public-private partnership, UFC fighters and the sport could be in that role for the U.S.? LUKE THOMAS: I don't really understand exactly what the return on investment is. I mean, I sort of get the generic arguments that are made about the value of sport and building community, and cultivating good kinds of traits and character. I understand that, but I don't understand what the value is as it ultimately gets back to the shores.  I mean, if you look at the way in which soft power has been implemented in this country for basically decades, generations across multiple presidencies, both Democratic and Republican, it was some kind of effort at both giving something abroad that created better sympathies and had a material impact on the lives of those we were trying to affect, such that it created better sympathies for us or, you know, better bilateral relations. I don't understand exactly what this does.  You can make an argument that it is inoffensive. You can make an argument that, to your point, if the NFL is doing it well, you know, there's no scandal here in that particular sense. But in terms of like, I mean, if Donald Trump doesn't believe in soft power, it is very, very difficult for me to understand how this is a different but more enlightened version of it. HILL: It's an interesting point when you look at the cuts that were made to USAID, right, which was a major instrument in many ways of soft power.  You know, according to a statement, it's going to be used for joint educational content development, using MMA to teach English and leadership skills. What I think is remarkable, and I think you've noted this, is the areas where UFC is gaining ground. This is - or could be perhaps used because it's a really popular MMA market, a place like Brazil is not really the target of this program. THOMAS: Yeah. I mean, this is we'll have to see how it's implemented ultimately, right? We'll have to see how it's implemented. I think to me, the lesson I take from all of this is, listen, could there be some kind of benefit down the road? I suppose it's at least worth taking seriously on some level, but that's really not how I understand the nature of this relationship. That if you look at the White House lawn, and if you look at the way in which the parent company for UFC, it's called TKO, they also own WWE. If you just look at the way in which they do business every year seems to greet or bring with it a new level of entanglement in government now. Now not just local municipal government or even state or national government, but just sort of broadly. They do deals internationally with governments all the time.  I make this point, you know, why are they going this year to Azerbaijan and Serbia, and they're not going to Brazil. The most important market, arguably, one of the most important markets in MMA. It's because they're getting paid by the governments there to go. It's this enmeshing of the business between the public and the private in which they're talking about, but it extends well beyond this memorandum of understanding.  And I know for sports fans out there, you're saying, well, you know, government largesse isn't necessarily a new thing for pro sports owners. Fine. But it's at least worth having a conversation about the role that it plays. HILL: When we look at what is about to unfold on Sunday. Look, some people are really excited about it. Some people are not. There are very distinct camps, which I think are leading to certain stereotypes that are probably not accurate on both of those sides.  What do you think, in your view, Sunday's fight has now come to symbolize, and is it what was intended, which we're told is a celebration of the nation's 250th birthday, which happens to fall on this president's 80th birthday? THOMAS: To me, this is something approximating the union of these two identities or brands or, you know, between the UFC and between the Trump administration. You could even argue maybe that it's not so much a one-and-done kind of an event, although that's what they're suggesting. But that rather, it marks a new period of entanglement between them.  What was very interesting was the UFC helped launder Donald Trump's reputation following January 6th, all the way through into 2024, when they helped boost his candidacy, and the mainstream media never made them pay for that. I was very, very surprised at the time.  So, this is a thing that has been in motion for a very, very long time. I get asked all the time, do you think the UFC risks being seen as political? I'm like, risk is being seen? This has been an open thing for years at this point. This weekend, to me, is the culmination of all of those kinds of efforts. (...)

Vice President J.D. Vance was slotted to be a special guest on ABC’s The View next Tuesday, but in an appearance on their Behind the Table podcast on Thursday, co-host Ana Navarro was ungrateful that he was taking time out of his schedule to speak with them. She huffed about him there to only sell his book and didn’t what him to be able to create a viral “moment” when he was there. After a quick introduction to the show, host and The View’s executive producer, Brian Teta noted that Vance was “the third sitting vice president that we've had on The View. The first Republican.” Teta then looked to Navarro hoping to get an idea of what she wanted to talk about with Vance. Instead, she went off about how he was only showing up to help sell books. Without evidence, she suggested everyone knew they were really good at selling books for people: TETA: What do you want to hear from him? I think people are kind of surprised he's coming actually. So - NAVARRO: Well, it shouldn't be surprising. He's got a book. TETA: Right. NAVARRO: And I think that everybody, including Republicans, know that at The View, we are really good at selling books.   On The View's podcast, Ana Navarro whines about Vice President J.D. Vance being on the show next week. She gripes that he's just coming on to sell books and fears he's going to try have a "moment." AKA call them out on their BS: "I hope we get to have a constructive conversation… pic.twitter.com/iXdZJDkSst — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 12, 2026   Navarro eventually pivoted to sharing the topics she wanted to hit with him. Of course, she was hoping to drive a wedge between Vance and President Trump: NAVARRO: I think it's a very relevant time. And I want to ask him questions about Epstein. I want to ask him questions where - There's several issues where there's sunlight between him and Donald Trump, right? The war going into military action, all of these new wars. He seems to me to be a lot more tuned into the MAGA, man-o-sphere than Trump is, actually. TETA: I think that’s right. NAVARRO: And really works those relationships far more than practically anybody else in the White House. Echoing comments made by fellow View co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin on the podcast in November 2025, Navarro was fearful that Vance was going to try to create a viral “moment” with his appearance: So I don't know. I just, you know, I hope we get to have a constructive conversation about the issues that Americans care about and are on American's minds. And that it doesn't turn into some free for all for the sake of creating a moment for him so that he can go out and sell books, which is what often happens with Republicans. Just as with Farah Griffin, what they were actually concerned about was a guest that was going to embarrass them by calling them out on their nonsense, hypocrisy, lies, and conspiracy theories. You know, face actual push back and counter points. Seemingly sensing the need to do some damage control, Teta reiterated how much they appreciated Vance giving them his time and his hope for “passionate debate that's respectful”: I mean, there's obviously a lot of issues that you and other hosts of The View and the Vice President disagree on, but let's hear what he has to say about them. Let's hear his arguments for why they're right and you guys are wrong and back forth. Hopefully, it's passionate debate that's respectful. “And, you know, it's the Vice President. It's a big deal. So we're, we're excited to do it,” he concluded before abruptly shifting the conversation to Maine Democratic Party Nazi Graham Platner. NewsBusters will be covering the Vice President’s appearance live. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Behind the Table June 11, 2026 BRIAN TETA: All right. So we had a big announcement on the show today. We announced that Vice President J.D. Vance is going to be on the show next Tuesday. This is the third sitting vice president that we've had on The View. The first Republican. What do you want to hear from him? I think people are kind of surprised he's coming actually. So - ANA NAVARRO: Well, it shouldn't be surprising. He's got a book. TETA: Right. NAVARRO: And I think that everybody, including Republicans, know that at The View, we are really good at selling books. TETA: Yes. NAVARRO: I think it's a very relevant time. And I want to ask him questions about Epstein. I want to ask him questions where - There's several issues where there's sunlight between him and Donald Trump, right? The war going into military action, all of these new wars. He seems to me to be a lot more tuned into the MAGA, man-o-sphere than Trump is, actually. TETA: I think that’s right. NAVARRO: And really works those relationships far more than practically anybody else in the White House. So I don't know. I just, you know, I hope we get to have a constructive conversation about the issues that Americans care about and are on American's minds. And that it doesn't turn into some free for all for the sake of creating a moment for him so that he can go out and sell books, which is what often happens with Republicans. TETA: I mean, there's obviously a lot of issues that you and other hosts of The View and the Vice President disagree on, but let's hear what he has to say about them. Let's hear his arguments for why they're right and you guys are wrong and back forth. Hopefully, it's passionate debate that's respectful. And, you know, it's the Vice President. It's a big deal. So we're, we're excited to do it. (…)