We need good numbers not just buoyant statements. Until then we just hide and wait.
Food, water, ammo, good firearms... later it will be more PM focused.
What would the unemployment picture look like if all those that have been incarcerated for victimless crimes were freed?
I think it will hinge on the level of decline in dollar denominated transactions. Now that countries no longer especially need the dollar for oil purchases, and likely other commodities truth be told, the paper money hegemony scheme foisted on the rest of the world has taken a swift kick in the groin.
As Americans we should be very concerned about the repatriation of the huge amount of dollars that have been used to export inflation all these years. After all, they will have a greater perceived value here and that migration is sure to be in the offing if it hasn't started in earnest already. With Chinese and others buying up American real estate and maybe now even federally owned forestland, the flood could well be started. Eventually the government won't be able to pull the wool over anyone's eyes about the inflationary pressures that will result.
ITEM FROM ZERO HEDGE: The PetroYuan Is Born: Gazprom Now Settling All Crude Sales To China In Renminbi. I WROTE ABOUT THIS POSSIBILITY SOME TIME BACK AND GOT FLAMED. lol. lol. lol.
Do those that live under totalitarian systems not hate, too? For my part, I prefer the tempestuous sea of freedom and all that it entails... like idiots not trying to tell everyone how to live, behave, eat, drink, smoke... whatever—no one-size-fits all mentality, comrade. Frankly speaking, as long as you adhere to the non-aggression principle, we can coexist, but I might not like you at all. And if you don't adhere to that non-aggression principle, God help you.
I think I have an admirer, lol. Everything I post garners at least one such rating. I'm guessing I know which it is because I've read several of their posts in other venues and they are nothing more that sour grapes with a bad attitude. Sucks to be them.
That's almost in line with what the Aden sisters believe. I read an article from them indicating that JP Morgan is now wildly long SILVER and is stockpiling the actual metal, too.
They demonstrate that they could beat that horse on a monthly basis. Each such positioned "threat" roils the market and especially the PMs. Trading can be treacherous.
Your argument falls flat on it's face with a quote from your own post:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."
Obviously you are entirely unaware that the "United States" is NOT the same thing as the "United States of America". Things that are similar are not the same.
There's a desert involved here, but it consists of poor understanding and probably a dash of unwitting behavior.
I would AGAIN ask you to review both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, both of which make provision for those that CHOOSE NOT TO BE GOVERNED. Why do you suppose the provision for "free inhabitants" was created? What do you actually think 'consent to be governed' actually means? Know, too, that these documents are part of the ORGANIC LAW of the country and stand as immutable testaments to the ideas I present.
You should know, too, that the 14th Amendment actually only applies to second class citizens: those that are or unwittingly call themselves US citizens, which Black's defines as a federal citizen* (words mean things). And as I have pointed out previously, the US State Department issues passports to those that stipulate that they are NOT US citizens, but are instead American Nationals. Why do they provide for that if what you assert has any relationship to reality?
It seems that your limited exposure to the reality of the situation has served to function as blinders or perhaps in your case has caused severe myopia.
These truths are not taught in school purposefully—the system is desirous of serfs not educated individuals— but they remain truths nonetheless and the truth is discoverable. One must, however, look outside the box that is purposefully constructed to make you believe that you are something less than your birthright endows, even a slave.
* Are you a federal employee? Do you live on federal territory? Do you mistakenly claim that you are a US citizen?
If we're all equals under the law, then obviously "labor laws" violate that principle. I never consented to be bound by them. Did you?
Government in the main is nothing more than a criminal scam. If you lack sufficient cognitive dissonance, you should go to youtube and watch the short video entitled "Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion". You are obviously one of their choir boys.
Where does government derive the authority to compel people to do what they deem to be morally reprehensible if we're all equals and no one has any more power than the next and can only delegate the authority that they themselves have? You are promoting the scam if you believe otherwise, but importantly you lack a legitimate argument to even substantiate your assertions because you keep sidestepping the issue of lawful authority.
If by that you are attempting to invoke some sort of arcane logic, let me nip it by stating that under the law a contract that in of itself deals or attempts to deal with something illegal to begin with, i.e., murder for hire for example, or is predicated on an otherwise illegal action, the contract could never be deemed valid or enforceable.
What we are actually discussing here is the very idea that someone can be compelled to enter into a contract against their will ostensibly mandated by the state that cannot legitimately give itself that authority in the first place, which, on the face of things, (at least for a considerable amount of this country's history) could never have happened. A contract foisted upon a party that did not want to be a party to it in the first place is absolutely no different than being made to do something under duress. Duress has always nullified such contracts.
So, doesn't the real issue here require determining of when the state acquired the lawful authority to force one, under duress, to do something that they find morally reprehensible? Since we're all equals under the law, each with no more power or authority than the other and government only wields the limited authority that we can choose (by consent) to delegate it, the legitimacy of being so compelled is easily called into question. Not only can I not find any legitimacy, but it seems also to be immoral on its face and that immorality smacks of a state instituted religion run amok.