Complete this thought, if you please, for shits'n'giggles (apologies to non-Americans):

In today's American culture, gays are being treated similarly to blacks of which time period?

1890's
1910's
1930's
1950's
1970's

The people who downvoted this sift did so because they are the segregationists of yesterday: separate drinking fountains, waiting areas, bus seats, etc. But here's the rub: the segregationists of yesterday were in the majority at the time (read: in the right). Just like today with gays. It's accepted that gay people should not have certain rights that straight people have.

There are those of you "heads of knuckle" who will try to claim that I'm saying you believe gays should be segregated. No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the likelihood that you would consider a gay person to be as much of a human being as a straight person.

You're free to dispute my premise but the fact is that public opinion changes very slowly. For instance, the American south is still wary of "northerners" because of the civil war and I'm not sure that'll ever go away.

During the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, it was decided, for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives, that slaves would count as three-fifths of a person.

So, to the downvoters, what ratio would you assign to a homosexual?

Two days ago this appeared in the Times-Picayune (my local paper). It is a law being considered by the Louisiana House of Representatives concerning the display of nooses. It was prompted by the "Jena 6" controversy and other incidents in Louisiana.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1212471060245400.xml&coll=1

After it's been known and even debated in the House of Representatives about the campaigns of media fraud to dis-inform the American public by the NeoCons in power and the Military Industrial Complex why in the world would anyone go along with official rebuttals such as this.. it's obvious the media campaigns are still in full-swing to coerce the American people to whatever they want you to think.

Look outside of their box to find the truth.

*promote c'mon ppl upvote for discussion of the NAU, SPP and Superhighway in the House of Representatives.

Active denial systems - OFF!!!

Love these guys. I'm sure you're aware that Peter Garrett (lawyer and member of House of Representatives) was named Australian Minister of Environment, Heritage, and Arts this past year.

>> ^J-Rova:
> "The Federal Reserve consists of an entire board - not just Ben Bernanke."

oooh. good thing we have an economist in our midst. were you honestly under the impression, that anyone here thought it was just one guy?

> "Hence, the guy in the video above is a nobody"

no. he's a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. and you are not.

> "anyone with background in economics knows that he sounds uneducated, possibly even ignorant."

most with a background in debate, know better than to make blanket statements like that.
and ad hominem attacks.

all that someone would have to do, in reply, is find 'anyone with a background in economics', who disagrees with you. then you've lost your credibility.

> "The Fed is a great idea, and anyone who supports dissolving it is simply incredibly misinformed."

simply because you tell me so? nothing you've said here, backs up that claim.

i suppose it's just as well, then, that you're "done here".

For anyone having difficulty with the links to the texts of the resolutions, try these:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-888

H. Res. 847 was the "Christmas Bill" which was ALREADY passed in December 2007. It resolves "that the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world."

Remember, this is not about the Religious vs. the Non-Relgious, this about the violation of the American Constitution and the core American principles therein. It affects everyone who does not prescribe to the specific brand of Christianity being peddled here. Even if you think you're Christian, the folks pushing this agenda could very well find you "not Christian Enough."

And if you're Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc... or for heaven's sake Atheist... well, let's just say you're not invited to the "I still have my freedoms" party.

These Fundamentalist-Christian-Bill-Pushers are organized. It's time the rest of us get that way too!

Read more about it here.
STOP HOUSE RESOLUTION 888 !
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/4/884/00472/895/430331

House Resolution Promotes Fake "Christian Nation" Version Of American History

Is House Resolution 888 a big deal, meaning - does it have a chance ? Well, consider that, on December 11, 2007, the soft Christian nationalist "Christmas Resolution", House Resolution 847 passed on a vote of 372-9.

So, this new resolution - which I'd characterize as "hard Christian nationalist" might just have a shot because Democratic Party politicians are terrified of being tarred as "anti-Christian" and they lack the political advisers who can tell them how to effectively deflect such attacks. So, they tend to vote as, at least, "soft" Christian nationalists regardless of their personal religious views.

Introduced by Congressman Randy Forbes December 18 in the US House Of Representatives, H. Res 888 claims to be about ""Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith."

Actually, the resolution is packed with lies - American history lies to be specific.

Chris Rodda - who just joined the Daily Kos and without whose diligence we wouldn't know about this story - tells me she suspects that the following four part "resolution" that follows the dozens of history lies packed into H. Res. 888 has been designed to pave the way for some sort of legislation that would advance fake history in some devious or crafty way and I wouldn't be surprised. Here's part 2 of the "resolved" section of H. Res. 888 :

Wow. Again with the long post. Because you quote me and end up calling me a troll, I’ll take the time and effort to go through each of your points. I realize that by now, no one but you and I are reading this so I’ll speak directly to you rather than attempting to make my comments applicable to others.
“What do feelings have to do with anything here? You're being patronizing. That's rude. And I don't see where you've asked me a question, by the way.”
Patronizing, maybe. I am attempting to show you that I do read and listen to the material pertinent to this discussion. I am not “speaking out of my rear” so to speak. I am informed and was letting you know that. My suggestion that it may or may not make you feel better is my attempt to signify that you may be glad to discuss this with someone who is reasonably well read or you may be upset because you were trying to teach me something by pointing out something of which I might not be aware. As to the question, glance up a ways and you will see this: “A strong stock market, driven by a steady influx of capital from "the rich" directly improves the lives of those totally dependant upon their pensions. Is that good? Or bad?” Personally, I think that this is a good thing.

“First off, you're attributing words to me I haven't said or implied with your "evil rich" quip.”

Granted. I apologize for lumping you in with those people who think that people with massive amounts of wealth are evil. All I have as a defense is the tone I have derived from your posts leading back to the original quip about taxing billionaires fairly.


“Secondly, your insinution that people of every level of wealth break tax laws and that it then follows that "the system is thoroughly and completely broken" is not supported anywhere in either article. But you imply as much, and then you go on to marshall this false premise to support your opinion. This is a form of dishonesty.”

So now I am dishonest? Interesting. I don’t see anywhere that I suggested that either article discussed people of every income level breaking tax laws. What I said was “That so many people (not just the evil rich) get away with cheating the tax system is a sign that the system is thoroughly and completely broken.” Please try to take this in the way that I mean it. I realize that you are not a US citizen and in my mind your attempt to label me as dishonest means that you are not aware of some commonly known facts about taxes in the US. I will simply say that there is a vast array of methods used by everyone including the rich to avoid paying taxes on income. It may be a waiter under-reporting his tips, a construction worker paying their nanny/gardener in cash, or a small business owner hiding income within their business expenses. This is not an exhaustive list, but all of these share a common thread: they require conscious thought and are a direct attempt to cheat on taxes. This is all illegal and yet it is done every year by people from the highest to lowest income brackets. I’m a firm believer in the rule of law and even though it is a tax code I do not agree with, it is the law and everyone should be made to follow it. Not just the rich. Everyone. This doesn’t even include the people who unintentionally cheat on their taxes because the tax code is ridiculously complex and nearly impossible to understand. Here (http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2003/09/04/NewsInBrief/Irs-Help.Centers.Gave.Incorrect.Information-457639.shtml) is an AP story that shows that 43% of the time the actual IRS help desk gave incorrect or no answer to tax questions. The actual people paid to help you do the right thing on your tax forms told you the wrong information or gave you no help 43 freaking percent of the time. That is truly insane. That is yet another sign that the US tax system is well and truly broken. To put it into numbers, the IRS estimated in 2001 that 15% ($353 billion) of taxes went unpaid (http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2007/307/essentials/p42.htm). It’s certainly not all because of intent to defraud the government, but that represents a sizeable chunk. In summary, my premise is not false. You read it as false because you inferred that I was only discussing the material in the two articles given. I was not. Facts support my opinion in this particular point. My premise was that everyone cheats. Facts show that rich people cheat, middle class people cheat, and poor people cheat. My opinion was that everyone who cheats should be punished.


“I take that as a compliment. But I'd not limit my efforts to the middle class of course; the marginalized and disenfranchised poor are at least as deserving of fairness as are the middle-class.”

It wasn’t really meant as a complement nor was it meant as an insult. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting that you would try and help the people as you thought best rather than helping yourself. I don’t know you, so I can’t judge your character. I was just listing my assumption before moving on to my next argument.



“The word "labour" is meaningless when we are talking about the uber-rich; the only fruits in question here are derived by the labour of others--for productive property accrues value on its own while owners sit idle or lobby their friends in government to manipulate legislation in their favour ie., for more welfare-for-the-wealthy.”

Here is where we dramatically different in outlook. I am not going to try and change your opinion, it would take quite a bit more than this forum to change either of our opinions I believe. But in any case, I am going to state mine more in detail and hopefully you will see some of the basis of my views. You state “uber-rich” like they appeared out of thin air as if through a miracle. I contend that this is not the case. As I see it, rich people in general (uber and non-uber alike) come from one of three places:

1) Inherited wealth. Inherited wealth exists and in some cases has been passed down for centuries. Inherited wealth did not appear from nothing however. At some point in time, someone earned that wealth and it has been passed down. That wealth is “earned” though the person holding it now is not the one who earned it. Income derived from this wealth is also earned in that the wealth itself must be risked in some fashion in order to generate income or the principal itself must be sold in order to realize a gain.

2) Earned wealth. Earned wealth is the most common form of wealth (at least in the US, read Tom Stanley’s the Millionaire Next Door). Earned wealth comes directly from the fruit of one’s labor. It may be an assembly line worker who has earned a good wage and invested wisely, a plumber who has worked hard and grown a business, or any of the five richest men in the world who all earned the greatest portion of their money within their own lifetime.

3) Obtained wealth. Generally, thieves. I lump in everyone from Bonny and Clyde to Ferdinand Marcos in this category. These people take the wealth of others through force, intimidation, trickery, etc. I have already stated my position on the law (see above).

You appear to believe that people become obscenely wealthy (and I use that merely as an adjective, not as a statement on their character) through idleness and massaging the system in their favor. That may be the case in some instances, but for the most part wealth comes from a good business plan and hard work. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are great examples of this. Yes they both started from somewhat privileged backgrounds, but their real wealth came from their hard work. They may not have built buildings or dug holes, but both of them are known for their incredible work ethics. They earned their money fairly and no one has the right to take it away just because they are wealthy. Just because there are fewer rich people than poor people doesn’t enter into it.


“And you know quite well that your consumption tax scheme is regressive and unjust.”

You claim to know what I know do you? Interesting. Somehow I doubt it. In this case, you are quite wrong. First, I don’t claim any credit for the concept of a consumptive tax. Let me quote Alexander Hamilton. “It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue.” He concisely stated what is self evident truth, i.e. that consumptive taxes are self limiting in that too much consumption tax reduces revenue by reducing consumption itself. But that doesn’t address your point. You suggest that “my” consumptive tax scheme is unjust and go on to list why it is without any benefit being given to “me” for forethought on the topic. You make assumptions, assign them to me, and then argue against them. Just for thought, I’ll list two possible scenarios which are neither regressive nor unjust. In scenario 1, consumptive taxes are placed on all goods except utilities, food, daycare, and healthcare. Thus, if you are at or below the poverty level and spending all of your money on just getting by you pay no taxes whatsoever. The more wealth you have, the more money you spend on things other than these items and the more tax you pay thus placing a “progressive” tax burden upon the wealthy. You can argue whether housing should be included in the exemption, but that is another discussion. Scenario 2 is a plan already in place and proposed before both the US Senate and House of Representatives. It’s the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org). In essence, it is also a sales tax except instead of making exemptions for certain goods it has no exemptions at all and instead gives taxpayers a “prebate” each month that makes up for taxes which would be paid on basic services. The authors make a good case why this should be so and illustrate how it means the middle and lower tax brackets either pay the same or pay even less tax while they do now but I don’t know that I am convinced that the bureaucracy created would be able process these prebates in a timely manner. Both of these cases use a national sales tax to totally replace corporate, income, capital gains, payroll, and estate taxes. In the case of the Fair Tax, extensive research has been done already to determine the effects of this on the economy as well as on taxpayers in different income brackets. For the Fair Tax at least, studies show an across the board reduction in overall effective tax rate with the greatest reduction (1.5% effective lifetime tax rate) for those in the low-income brackets and the least reduction (20.5% effective lifetime tax rate) in the highest brackets. So, in effect, everyone pays less taxes and yet the program is revenue neutral. And because of the prebate (or in scenario 1, the exemptions), it ends up retaining the “progressive” nature of the current income tax system.


“In other words "it is so because you say it is so--for no other reason but this." Except I don't buy it.”

Whatever. Let me reword it and see if you can buy it this way. If I attempt to force you to accept my views because I think they are right, it doesn’t change the fact that I am trying to force you to accept my viewpoint.


“You're transparent and you're predictable. Please put some effort into being interesting.”

I don’t believe that you mean any of it this way, but I take this as a complement even with you sticking smilies at the end of your sentences. I aim to be transparent and I have made no attempt to disguise my true opinions. And I’m glad you think that I am predictable because it means to me that I am being consistent. I shrug off the fact that you think you can “predict” me and yet you were 180 degrees wrong about what I “know” as discussed above.


“You weren't really. You just been trolling here.”

And finally, you resort to calling me a troll. It’s funny because I have made no aspersions as to your character and have in fact accepted your statements as true previously in this exchange. Since you can “predict” me, I don’t need to explain, but just in case anyone else reads this far let me explain to them. My original motivation behind posting this video and soliciting comments was simple. I accept that because of the way the US is heading, we are likely to institute some form of universal health care in the next ten years or so. Given that is true, I was looking for comments on how to ensure that a situation like that described in the video is prevented and discussion on how the US should construct a health care system. In support of this, I stated in the summary of this video the following statement “The dialogue is heavily slanted and there is a clear agenda to the message, but the underlying points are valid and worthy of discussion. If the US is truly going to attempt universal healthcare, how can we design a system so that something like this doesn't happen in the US?” At the very heart of the matter to me is the concern that American citizens won’t have access to the best possible care here in the US. In my mind, sending our citizens to some other country for health care that they can’t get here (or at least in a timely enough fashion such that they don’t die while waiting) is not an acceptable solution. The first few exchanges between us addressed the fact that money was the issue, not some other fundamental flaw in the CHA and this was directly related to the discussion at hand. The conversation took a downward turn around the time we started discussing the “fairness” of tax law.

FYI - Ron Paul just recently introduced the America Freedom Agenda Act to the House of Representatives listed as HR 3835:

HR 3835: America Freedom Agenda Act of 2007

Related articles:
Article by Naomi Wolf in the Huffington Post on this proposal
Article at Dailypaul.com

No, I'm saying that no photographic evidence of the interior columns being cut seem to exist (to the public).. specifically the one that is most known that we're referring to, it leaves one to wonder about it.

Par:
"Also, I would have thought that the "other halves" of the columns are not still in the pictures because they have been transported away. That was the reason for them having been cut, after all."
Then where is the crane that would have lifted the other piece... it's now shown and there was no sign of any scaffolding material or other equipment near the center column that the welders would have used because there was still too much debris all around that column when the photo was taken.

Par:
"Further, you seem to be implying that the photograph in question was supposed to have been officially repressed but has somehow slipped though the net In fact, it's been taken from a publically-available collection of photographs which document the clean-up operation."

Well that's your interpretation, not what I said. The photo in question does not clearly indicate that it was cut by welders after the fact or by thermate since they would look similar.. what I said is that they DID have to approve such photos from hitting the public. It's no secret that that specific photo and the other close up photos were taken by a limited number of photographers and the photo's WERE screened before their release.

While the steel was being removed from the site of the three largest and most mysterious structural failures in history, even the team FEMA had assembled to investigate the failures -- the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) -- was denied access to the evidence. The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation:

The BPAT did not control the steel. "The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence."
FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that "frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse."
The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents."
"The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."
Gene Corley complained to the Committee that the Port Authority refused to give his investigators copies of the Towers' blueprints until he signed a wavier that the plans would not be used in a lawsuit against the agency.

There SHOULD have been more photographs and immediate investigation of 9/11 - one of the most profound events in our history is my main point here. I don't know for certain one way or the other if the official story is true yet. The government has a known history in maintaining secrets from the public, blocking investigations, censoring information, subversion, intimidation and gag-ordering whistleblowers. With all of this going on it's no wonder that the evidence that does exist yet neither proves anything one way or the other becomes controversial.

The Liberty Amendment
On January 28, 2003 the Hon. Ron Paul of Texas introduced in The House of Representatives the House Joint Resolution 15:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.


Latest Major Action: 3/6/2004 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution
HJR 15 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.


HJR 16 has been referred to the House
An amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposing to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment . (Introduced in House for debate, 110th Congress 01/17/07)

From wikipedia:

"During the presidential campaign of 1800, the Federalists attacked Jefferson as an infidel, claiming that Jefferson's intoxication with the religious and political extremism of the French Revolution disqualified him from public office. But Jefferson wrote at length on religion and many scholars agree with the claim that Jefferson was a deist, a common position held by intellectuals in the late 18th century. As Avery Cardinal Dulles, a leading Roman Catholic theologian reports, "In his college years at William and Mary [Jefferson] came to admire Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Locke as three great paragons of wisdom. Under the influence of several professors he converted to the deist philosophy." Dulles concludes:

“In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day. ”

Biographer Merrill Peterson summarizes Jefferson's theology: “First, that the Christianity of the churches was unreasonable, therefore unbelievable, but that stripped of priestly mystery, ritual, and dogma, reinterpreted in the light of historical evidence and human experience, and substituting the Newtonian cosmology for the discredited Biblical one, Christianity could be conformed to reason. Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell; and so the whole edifice of Christian revelation came tumbling to the ground.”

Jefferson used deist terminology in repeatedly stating his belief in a creator, and in the United States Declaration of Independence used the terms "Creator" and "Nature's God". Jefferson believed, furthermore, it was this Creator that endowed humanity with a number of inalienable rights, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". His experience in France just before the French Revolution made him deeply suspicious of Catholic priests and bishops as a force for reaction and ignorance. Similarly, his experience in America with inter-denominational intolerance served to reinforce this skeptical view of religion. In a letter to Willam Short, Jefferson wrote: "the serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous."

Jefferson was raised in the Church of England, at a time when it was the established church in Virginia and only denomination funded by Virginia tax money. Before the Revolution, Jefferson was a vestryman in his local church, a lay position that was part of political office at the time. He also had friends who were clergy, and he supported some churches financially. During his Presidency, Jefferson attended the weekly church services held in the House of Representatives. Jefferson later expressed general agreement with his friend Joseph Priestley's Unitarianism, that is the rejection of the doctrine of Trinity. In a letter to a pioneer in Ohio he wrote, "I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its conscience to neither kings or priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian."

Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he had high esteem for Jesus' moral teachings, which he viewed as the "principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform [prior Jewish] moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state." Jefferson did not believe in miracles. He made his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting Jesus' virgin birth, miracles, divinity, and resurrection, primarily leaving only Jesus' moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible. “[The Jefferson Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw.”

However, early in his administration he attended church services in the House of Representatives. He also permitted church services in executive branch buildings throughout his administration, believing that Christianity was a prop for republican government.

Church and state:

For Jefferson, separation of church and state was not an abstract right but a necessary reform of the religious "tyranny" of one Christian sect over many other Christians - and of the interference of the state in affairs of religion. Following the Revolution, Jefferson played a leading role in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. Previously the Anglican Church had tax support. As he wrote in his Notes on Virginia, a law was in effect in Virginia that "if a person brought up a Christian denies the being of a God, or the Trinity …he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office …; on the second by a disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy …, and by three year' imprisonment." Prospective officer-holders were required to swear that they did not believe in the central Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

From 1784 to 1786, Jefferson and James Madison worked together to oppose Patrick Henry's attempts to again assess taxes in Virginia to support churches. Instead, in 1786, the Virginia General Assembly passed Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom, which he had first submitted in 1779 and was one of only three accomplishments he put in his own epitaph. The law read: “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

One of Jefferson’s least well known writings is: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world"- Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia.

Jefferson sought what he called a "wall of separation between Church and State", which he believed was a principle expressed by the First Amendment. This phrase has been cited several times by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause. In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and thanksgiving during his Presidency, yet he did do so as Governor in Virginia. His private letters indicate he was skeptical of too much interference by clergy in matters of civil government. His letters contain the following observations: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government", and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government". Yet, Jefferson advocated the influence of religion in abolishing the institution of slavery in America stating, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”

While the debate over Jefferson's understanding over the separation of Church and state is far from being settled, as are his particular religious tenets, his dependence on divine Providence is not nearly as ambiguous. As he stated, in his second inaugural address: “I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

Silver is an international commodity. I.e. - as the value of the U.S. Dollar goes down, it's value will seem to go up, because the amount of silver we have IN the commodities market does not change much. It is, therefore, a VERY good indicator(along with the prices of Gold and Platinum), of what the USD is doing relative to other currencies.

Concerning the Federal Reserve - the Board of Governors is an independent government agency. The President appoints the members of the Board, as well as the chairman, for a term usually exceeding his own term - and there are no processes within the government for audit of the Board - only a single reference to the ability of the President to remove a member "with cause" - also, the congress has no say in who gets chosen. The Board is required to provide a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives once every year, and that's it.

Why haven't they changed it? You ask a lot of interesting questions, but this one I will respond to with a question, hopefully maybe to get your interest piqued in economic literature - have you ever heard of an economic coup?

Before you dismiss that question as ludicrous, I would like you to read Milton Friedman's "Monetary History of the United States, 1867 - 1960." It's a 900 page book, but it's incredibly informative about how the financial systems of the United States are and have been run. I think you'll be surprised to find out how one country can rule over another without ever having gone to that country, especially if you think for a minute that the Federal Reserve is a government institution.

I'm not saying that it does not have ties with the government, but if you look at the structure of the Federal Reserve, and the people that helped to write the Federal Reserve Act, I think you may notice some things about it that you are incredibly misinformed about - I don't know who told you that the Federal Reserve had any responsibilities to the government of the United States, but I can only presume that they have not read the act that mandated it's formation, or paid attention to the structure of it - the 12 Federal Reserve Banks are owned by private member banks that make dividends off of the corporation's activity, from their own investments. Is it really that hard to understand?

A good reason for "Why haven't they changed it?"...from me, this is what you'll get - Dependency and apathy. Dependency on the part of the government because they owe so much money to the Fed, and apathy on the part of the people for assuming that "Federal Reserve" somehow implies that our central bank is a government agency or even has accountability to the government. These same people somehow walk past "Federal Express" trucks almost every day and don't even realize that the delivery company, "Federal Express," has more accountability to the people and the government than the corporation that is our central bank does.

Much of the FRA of 1913 insulated them from that accountability.

how the hell did people like him get up so high above the political tree? I guess we shoulda paid more attention to all those 'states with very little house of representatives' elections.