Gold has been valued at one ounce of gold for every one ounce of gold since time began.
What you are actually saying is that fiat currency is 7% away from its all-time low.
What you are actually saying is that fiat currency is 7% away from its all-time low.
First, China is NOT China, China is the CPC.
Second, if they tied the yuan to gold they'd have to balance Federal, state and local budgets and banks would have to close off unprofitable businesses, that is foreclosures. That requires a requisite level of honesty that you will NEVER get from a communist.
Third, if you think the FED has been irresponsible since 2008, look at the PBOC....the bank of the CPC. They have created, out of thin air, 10 times moar currency than the FED has in USD equivalent notes. It's breath taking what they have done, makes the bank of Japan look like Pikers.
CPC tying the yuan to gold? Paper cults backed by deception.
Jefferson would of shot these pricks locally already as would of Jackson.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the ... on-clause/
Dollar is the measurement of risk and the democrats have gone over the line.
The defunding of the Police is a known step to treason since the SCOTUS already ruled on duty clause.
The Office cannot detach the Dollar. That is the Treason to whit. Fiat serves one purpose. That is not us, a Taxpayer.
Duty of care. The first element of negligence is the legal duty of care. The deferment of the City's is criminal of intent.
As nouns the difference between deferment and deferral is that deferment is an act or instance of deferring or putting off while deferral is an act of deferring, a deferment. The current agenda is clear.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution is not a source of any affirmative obligation on the state or its subdivisions to protect its citizens. Since "the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them." The Court did note that when "the State takes a person into custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes on it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being…The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." In Joshua DeShaney’s case the Court noted that the county had done nothing to create Joshua’s predicament or to make him more vulnerable to it. This note by the Court left an opening which some courts have used to find liability based on a violation of due process.
The Deshaney case, decided in 1989, remains the controlling law on the duty of government actors to protect citizens who fall prey to harm by third parties. While the law seems clear, there have been some cases where court’s have found that law enforcement agencies have breached a duty of care to person’s who have been injured or killed at the hands of third parties. These cases fall into two categories that are closely aligned, specifically the case involve those where law enforcement personnel have done something to enhance the danger to the third party or where law enforcement personnel have done something which has created the danger to the third party. Cases from several circuit courts provide a good example of how the courts are interpreting the law enforcement duty to protect.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the majority had relied on rules to the exclusion of justice.
Judges need a "degree of discretion, thereby providing oil for the rule-based gears,"
As always by that time your already dead. Domestic violence and third party is a key point, again.
Antifa is a element of third party foreign to common law. It is correct if they do not form a party they are hosted belligerents
which is already known. Ask the Senator with his head kicked in.
