Episode-801- Listener Feedback 12-12-11 — 45 Comments

  1. @Jack,

    By what means do you believe Ron Paul would be able to accomplish what you discussed today? I’m not saying he wouldn’t move in that direction, but I don’t see how the President has the Legitimate power to do such things, and I don’t see President Paul “finding” new powers as other recent Presidents have.

    I think there is a lot he can do, but most of these things would require legislation. I think the most he can do is shut down (through legitimate executive action) a lot of the nonsense that the Bureaucracy does, which isn’t nothing, but I doubt he can dismantle our entire system.

    • @KAM one thing a president can do is dismantle things. Rescind orders, veto spending, etc. I firmly believe Paul would close down the IRS the day he took office by executive order and if the congress over rides it they can answer to the people.

      To me President Paul (dare I dream) would have more power then any recent president. His very election would serve notice to the congress that the world for them is over as they know it. (part of why I don’t believe it will happen).

      Ron would be a president with the balls to do what is described here, he would tell the people they have a “bought congress”.

      Further Ron Paul would be the first president ever who’s goal was mostly to undo things vs. do things. Sure Slick Mit and The Newt say they want to undo Obamacare but that is one thing and one thing only, the power of the President lies in the Veto. It is a remarkably negative power.

      Again with Executive Orders we see this power, issuing one always draws into question constitutionality right? Well if you remove a standing order the very fact that a prior president did it means a new one can undo it.

      More negative power, how the hell do you enforce an income tax if a president issues a preemptive pardon to all non payers and then tells his people, don’t pay your income tax make these clowns cut spending and work with the 127 taxes they still collect. How do you use the TSA at the airport if the president vetos the budget that funds them. How do you keep us in foreign wars when the commander and chief orders the troops home. How do you prosecute people for anything if a president says, “I will be pardoning anyone convicted of this, twice a year”.

      I mean I really don’t know what exactly the man would do these are just some ideas and frankly I know Ron is a smarter man that I am. What I do know is he is 100% consistant.

      • @Jack,

        I agree with you in regards to Executive Orders. That, he can do quite easily. He can shape HOW Executive agencies enforce the laws on the books, but he cannot change what those laws are.

        I’m not so sure that vetoing NEW spending bills will take care of all of these issues however. Also–don’t get me wrong, I’d LOVE To see a President who played that sort of Hard-ball. “You do this or I’m not agreeing to that Bill, PERIOD.”

        That being said…this only goes so far. The Congress in sufficient numbers can ignore a Veto–and its not like it hasn’t been done before. President Paul would have plenty of opponent Republican and Democrat, and I’m guessing they could pass plenty of things right over his Veto. The Veto only works if you have at least 1/3 of Congress on your side.

        Could he Order all of our Troops Stationed overseas home? Definitely–that is totally within the power of the President.

        Could he Preemptively pardon people not paying taxes? That’s getting a bit shaky. I do believe that the power of Pardon is pretty much unlimited, but I also know that the President Can Be Impeached. If you have a President Pardoning people for not paying taxes, you can be DARN sure that A Statist Congress who is very happy with the way things are will find a way to Convict him on an Impeachment charge.

        Plus, as much as I’d like to see the IRS dismantled, the Income Tax IS constitutional–it was legally amended into our Constitution (with a lot of BS and lies but still). If you have a President encouraging people to break the law with the promise of a pardon, don’t you think that will tend to have some other negative effects?

        I think the exact same thing that makes me Respect Dr. Paul (on most things) is what would prevent him from accomplishing what he wants, and that is he DOES play by the rules, and Respects the Constitution. I’m not sure that he would agree that the President has the power to essentially override the16th Amendment, even if he is opposed to it.

        Even a consistent Principled Constitutionalist isn’t going to be able to turn things around overnight. No doubt he can make a difference, but even if he did get elected, he could only do so much.

        • @KAM, first Paul promised long ago to “eliminate the IRS on day one”, I have no reason to doubt that.

          Second, actually the 16th amendment according to the supreme court “gave the congress no new power to tax” I believe the decision was in 1922, I know it was simply ignored. The income tax is an unapportioned tax and no amendment ever changed that it is absolutely unconstitutional. If you look this up it will shock the shit out of you.

          Again I think the problem here when you are talking about 1/3rd of congress etc, is that you don’t get what it would take from a President Paul to exist. The landscape would have to change to the point of pretty much neutering congress. If you elect a president who promises to eliminate the income tax, he wins, he does it and you impeach him, what the hell do you think would happen next.

          This is why I don’t think Paul can win, I don’t have faith in the people to make it happen. God willing that I am wrong though!

    • I believe that IF a PRESIDENT would stand up and publicly veto in a press conference and show the country why this is being done that PRESIDENT could then hog tie the whole shootin’ match. Most people DO NOT understand what a bill entails by the time it becomes a law. A bill is streamlined and form fitting, but by the time it becomes law the poor thing has become a blimp with all the riders from every idiot who wants a favor. The presidents we have had are not strong enough to imagine the true strength it gives to live in the open. If my education, I have received here at Jack’s Place, has proven correct, I understand that the government was supposed to operate with no walls, however, we have allowed the GOVERNMENT to build mansions of secrets. The very act of a secrete gives leverage and leverage takes away equality or even the possibility of true Americanism. By the way what’s wrong with that (this question in no way is directed at anything you have said, but rather,a realization that has just hit me)? Building what you need, being there for your neighbors, strong community. It seems that I am hearing from the general public “the GOVERNMENT will step in, they have to”. Our ancestors refused help from governments, today we beg for it. They would put everything on hold to help out when a hard time struck their area, the general public looks out the window and complain the (in)action of GOVERNMENT organizations. I think that Jack was more right when he said that the country isn’t strong enough, but I do believe that the coming generation will be as my Dad was after the GREAT DEPRESSION, so frugal that after his death he had piles of wood, aluminum, steel, copper, and so on allowing hid wife to bury him in a very proper manner and live till her death very comfortable. We have to live in the light as well. We have taken the dark side and built credit, relied on the GOVERNMENT. We have to come into the light and vote responsibly, become reliant on ourselves and responsible to our neighbors.

  2. Hi Jack,

    The rational no hype attitude that you presented in today’s show is better than a fear based approach and I do remember a phrase you have stated in some previous episodes; “Never attribute to malice what can be explained through incompetence”. Slowly it seems the line between malice and incompetence are getting blurred. I do think that we have to temper our reactions to “hyped” media (Alex Jones), however we have to wonder what is going on here? What’s the end game? and How far will it go? Why all this crazy legislation that is outright unconstitutional?

  3. The govt might not be able to indefinitely hold US citizens without charging them. The fact that they can hold anyone indefinitely without charging them is wrong. Our constitutional rights are not rights given to us by the govt, but are rights given to us by our Creator. If you believe it wrong to suspend your rights to Habeas Corpus, then the same should hold true for all people.

    I am not saying we should enforce that right across all countries, just that we should not violate that right, because someone is from another country.

    • @Steve, you are a little fragmented there. If what you are saying is that the Constitution applies to humans not citizens and this bill is wrong period even for foreigners, I actually agree. The problem with the argument though is there is a track record of it being done in the fields of terror and war and thus far has been upheld by the courts. The rights of a Citizen to the constitutional protection however, thus far, has been mostly preserved. That is the battle for now. It will take a while to convince most people that a honest to God terrorist from a foreign nation is entitled to constitutional protection. Right now instead we must convince the average Joe that their own right to such protections are in jeopardy to preserve them. Kind of like if your house is on fire and so is your neighbors you get yourself and your family out then see if you can help them. Make sense?

  4. Thank you for fighting for the truth and keeping us on board with your interests. My trust is with you Jack and will stand behind you. Got to get me some of those TSP mugs with the French-press. TY

  5. @Jack,

    Sorry I couldn’t get the “reply” button to work on the thread above.

    About Ron Paul’s potential election. Well, I’m starting to think that it COULD happen, because of the way the whole field has been shifting. It has leapt from one candidate to the next. Bachman had a surge which was immediately blunted by Perry, who flopped, and then it wallowed a bit, then Cain started to Surge then he blew up, then Gingrich has surged…what happens if he flops too? Paul is running a decent 2nd in Iowa. He’s actually not in a horrible position. If he does well there, and Bachman, Santorum, and Huntsman can’t keep going, then they’ve got just 4 Left–Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Paul.

    Not saying it WILL happen, but strange things CAN happen, and this whole race is starting to get a real chaotic feel to it, despite the best efforts of the media and party power players trying to force things one way or another. What that’s telling me is that they don’t have near as much control as they’d like. The “Tea Party” or people who are thinking that way, but don’t go out to rallies have been relatively quiet, but I’m not sure they’ve gone away.

    The right pieces fall into place, and I think we could see a President Paul. I wouldn’t bet on it, but I think the odds are better now, than they’ve ever been.

    I’ll read further into that 1922 Supreme Court Decision.

  6. Where can I buy the Urban Permaculture DVD in the US? I can only find it for sale on a Australian website.

  7. Jmtc but I think Jack was a little off target in regards to S. 1867. As an appropriations bill. it originated in the House as HR 1540 which was voted on back in May, passed OVERWHELMINGLY with the “questionable language” that could impact American citizens. So now it’ scheduled to go to conference committee to resolve differences. Rep. Alan West in an interview today said he thinks it will go to a final vote within a week to 10 days, not massive opportunity.
    And as far as guaranteeing that this IF passed and “if” enforced would go to the SCOTUS, what about the poor SOB(s) that could be held, uncharged in the meantime? No. This needs to be nipped in the bud, by all means necessary, and maybe with the uproar that has occurred, it will. Rep. West says he won’t vote for w/o the amendment. Make your voice heard to ensure yours won’t either or lean on his/her colleagues on the committee to do the same

    • Brian,

      Thanks for posting that — I also have been following S1867, and I had the same thought when Jack got to that point in the program: it’s already passed the House. While not a done deal, it’s a lot closer than some folks think.

      I think Jack is minimizing the danger here. The problematic provisions (1031 and 1032) authorize the military to detain indefinitely those individuals suspected of being terrorists, or cooperating with terrorists. Earlier in the bill, the U.S. is defined as “part of the battlefield” (a big part of what S1867 does). Together, the changes brought about by this bill give the military more latitude in addressing “domestic terrorism”. Why this change? Why bring the military into essentially domestic law enforcement functions?

      Remember that the PATRIOT Act was supposed to only be used for terrorism investigations, but the DOJ has admitted they are used often for routine drug investigations. The government will abuse any powers it is given, and all legislation ought to be seen with an eye towards that possibility. In the case of S1867, the potential for abuse is real and the consequences dire — I think the Alex Jones Brigade may have a better read on the dangers here than Jack does.

      Just my 2 cents.

      • @Mike, fine say you are correct. What else other then what I suggested (call your clown tell the not to support it and tell them if they do let it in they better make a US Citizen exemption part of it at a minimum) would you suggest that people do. People always say, “we need to really fight this one”, fine, exactly what does that mean though?

        Also again, Obama has vowed a Veto on this. Could he flip flop? Sure but it is still something to be considered.

        The key is all the damn hype (Much like the Food Safety and Modernization) is based on complete fiction.

        “The bill says……”

        The dots of course are a representation of many things the bill doesn’t actually say.

        • The suggestion to contact your congresscritter is sound.

          My objection stems from the way the issue was presented in the program. It is very easy for people to go back to sleep, so to speak, if given half a chance to do so: “The tinfoil hatters are at it again. Don’t pay attention to ’em.” My concern is that such a delivery will be interpreted as: “It’s not that big of a deal, no need to worry.”

          This bill is exceedingly dangerous, and I think the energy that the AJB brings can be useful. Instead of dampening that, we should be leveraging it: “This is a very bad bill. We need to kill it. This is important: drop what you’re doing and get on the phone, send an e-mail, or send a letter to your Congressclown. Do it today.” No tinfoil hattery, no “Red Dawn” chest-beating, just a sense of urgency commesurate with the potential for abuse of this legislation.

        • @ Jack – if PBO had vowed to veto this pos bill because he “will not tolerate these assaults on our guaranteed rights”, that “might” be one thing, but he didn’t. As you said, he’s against it because his advisers say “it puts burdensome restrictions on federal law enforcement”. A wholly different animal that is NOT about our rights. As you agreed this IS dangerous.
          Remember, this is the guy whose DOJ wants to track you via GPS w/o a warrant. He is about more .gov power, not our protections. Sorry, but I don’t trust PBO & his “vow” anymore than I trust being able to smell a fart in a tornado.
          So what exactly what does “really fight this one” mean though??
          For a start: Here is a list of the conference committee members:
          If your Rep. or Sen is on this list, pressure them by any/all legal means necessary, call, email or go to their local office and do not stop until you get a commitment to vote against unless amended. If your Rep is not on the list, pressure them to lean on their colleagues that are. We cannot trust this President, & we sure as hell can’t wait for the SCOTUS or trust in their ruling(s) either. Who know who could be on that panel by the time this proposed law and its potential for injustice could get there.
          Then, look at the voting record for these bills. If your Congressman or Senator voted “For” this HR 1540/S 1867, they need to be replaced at the next opportunity. Because, if these bastard(s) voted for this crap this time, chances are they will do it again on the next shady bill. Don’t threaten them with this, just do it.

    • Aaron:
      Thanks for posting this follow up. This article you linked to is just discomforting! I had no idea we were so lacking in capacity for the Coast Guard. It’s pretty sad.
      (eriko on the forums)

    • Also, what was left out of the MSNBC story was the plan was for Three deliveries. However winter started early up there this year along with several severe storms prevented all but one (heating oil which is a priority) was sent.

      Add in that the EPA has blocked any back line (oil comes out but a back line would send refined product back) and is trying to ban wood burning.

      They have a back up plan…fly in the fuel like they do in Afghanistan.

  8. Good show.

    I agree with the outlook about recent events, the Ron Paul campaign, etc. I am not losing sleep over any of that negative stuff, but share concerns that something is definitely wrong with this country if they are even having this DEBATE in the first place.

    I liked your list of what one family was able to do for prepping within a year. I’ve been in a bit of a rut lately and thought it would be a good idea to put together a list of all the things I can think of today that we did in the last year to improve our situation like that other listener did.

    No, we are far, FAR from being able to buy a freakin’ house with CASH, well… we could move to Detroit, but that is probably not in our future plans so no, we can’t buy a house with CASH right now LOL.

    However, we’ve done quite a bit from what I can see as I try and think about it all at once. I will post a list on the forum and see what everyone else has done at a high level and how much people really can do in a single year’s time.

  9. OK Jack, Time for me to be disagreeable 😉

    RE the 2012NDAA bill. There are several misconceptions that you seem to have about the bill that I’d like to clarify.

    1) The Feinstein Amendment. Feinstein submitted two separate amendments. The first failed, the second passed. This is very important. Her amendment is worded very carefully and DOES NOT protect US citizens from indefinite detention, prosecution by military or any such thing. Her amendment, as passed reads;

    ” Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
    The first thing to note is that the amendment does not say the bill does not apply to US citizens, it says that it does not change existing law regarding such detention.
    The second thing to note is that the amendment applies ONLY to sec 1031 of the bill and NOT sec 1032, the part of the bill that REQUIRES military custody of detainees.
    Don’t believe me that her amendment doesn’t prevent detention of US citizens? Here DiFI is in her own words concerning her amendment;

    “The sponsors believe that the Supreme Court’s Hamdi case supports their position, while others of us believe that Hamdi, by the plurality opinion’s express terms, was limited to the circumstance of U.S. citizens arrested on the battlefield in Afghanistan, and does not extend to U.S. citizens arrested domestically. And our concern was that section 1031 of the bill as originally drafted could be interpreted as endorsing the broader interpretation of Hamdi and other authorities.

    So our purpose in the second amendment, number 1456, is essentially to declare a truce, to provide that section 1031 of this bill does not change existing law, whichever side’s view is the correct one. So the sponsors can read Hamdi and other authorities broadly, and opponents can read it more narrowly, and this bill does not endorse either side’s interpretation, but leaves it to the courts to decide.”
    Remember that DiFi is quite literally in bed with the military industrial complex (her husband). Her amendment is nothing more than an attempt to ram the defense spending bill through by providing a superficial toothless amendment that appears to address civil liberty concerns.
    Here is the text of the bill;

    What this means is that the bill Does allow detention of US citizens under the authority of the Hamdi Decision or any other legal justification for detention of US citizens in the war on terror. The Obama administration has already “determined” that the Admin has the authority to detain US citizens as enemy combatants;
    It is important to note that the bill redefines the US as the “battleground” so whereas before the admin justified killing US citizens (anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son in separate drone attacks) if OVERSEAS, now the US is the battleground, expanding the presidents powers to the “homeland”.

    So, carefully crafted words that do nothing. That is what the amendment is.

    Speaking of the president, and his “ill veto it”. It is very important to point out that the president has no intention of vetoing the bill, and more importantly, did not threaten to do so on the basis of civil liberties. To the contrary, the complaint of the administration was that the bill LIMITED presidential powers by REQUIRING military detention.
    Nowhere was concern for civil liberties mentioned. Here is the official “Statement of Administration Policy”;

    “The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s operations and detention practices. ”

    This is perhaps the most frightening aspect of this whole thing… I strongly suspect that the admin objects to mandatory military detention because they would prefer that detainees be subject to detention by other organizations, namely the CIA. We’ve seen the preference for CIA detention, rendition, etc, in the past. And we know what the CIA does with Detainees. But nonetheless, it is clear that not only does the admin not object to civilian detention, but they have no intention of vetoing the bill;

    “Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or remove it entirely, as the Administration and the chairs of several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs the President to develop procedures…..”

    In terms of this not passing, I think its important to remember (and its no coincidence) that this was put in the NDAA. It is practically political suicide to veto a military funding bill, particularly leading up to an election cycle. Obama is very unlikely to veto this bill, and congress will likely pass it with expedience. Nobody wants to be seen as “putting the troops in harms way” by not giving them funding. And thats the complaint when anyone ever questions military spending.

    I’d just like to add, sorry about the caps, I’m not shouting, just trying to draw attention to specific words in legal language. They can be awfully deceptive.

    • @Shannon More, find great as I said before to the last commenter, what exactly OTHER than what I already recommended do you suggest people do. People lather shit, they say, “we really have to fight this one”, but do tell me what that means.

    • @Shannon Moore you will like what you here from our guest tomorrow. Just finished the interview and it does have even me taking a deeper look at Fukushima though he really didn’t have an answer to my rebuttal about setting off bombs in the desert in the 50-60s other than they didn’t realize the effects back then. While true it doesn’t really counter the effects themselves or lack there of. My basic take on Fukushima, is it isn’t as bad as most of the alarmists say, it is a LOT worse then CNN and the like tell us and it could be a lot worse if something else occurs.

      That said, again I ask, well what are you doing about it if you think it is worse then I say?

    • “What to do”

      Well, regretfully, there isn’t a lot one can do. Apart from eating more seaweed I suppose.
      The thing with the NDAA and Fukushima isn’t so much that I’m advocating flipping out or anything. I just think that an accurate grasp of what happened/is happening, not only “keeps the map matching the terrain” it also informs future decision making.
      A “no big deal, nothing to see here” attitude, perhaps exemplified by Ann Coltiers response to the fukushima incident of “radiation is good for you in small doses” sets people up to make more bad decisions, like electing presidents on Hope and Change, allowing John McCain draft legislation, or continuing to think that nuclear power is a good solution for our energy problems.

    • I still say “coverup”
      “An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima”

      Actual text;

  10. Disagree with Jack Day, Part II


    Jack, I hate to say it, but Jones was right. Following the Fukushima disaster noticeable increases in radioactive activity blanketed the west coast, and was recorded at radiation stations all over. I followed the readings at these stations personally, as I live in the Ca Bay area. We had Cesium in the rain water in Berkley. As well as in the food, grass, milk etc.

    Sure, they say its safe, but you know, thats what they tell the people in Fukushima too.

    Of course, what you would do to find out for sure is look for an Indicator. A “canary in the coalmine” Something that responds to environmental toxins more readily than the average human…..
    Northwest sees 35% infant mortality spike post-Fukushima
    Medical professionals publish report highlighting post-Fukushima mortality spike.
    The CDC reports just 10 weeks after the Fukushima disaster infant mortality (in the direct path of the radiation cloud) climbs by a third. Of course, prenatal babies are highly susceptible to environmental toxins like radiation.
    I’m going to go with the CDC.

    The effects of radiation on adults are much more slow moving. Time will tell.

    • Just looking at that guys plot lines are whack. Just look at the spread north of the line Vs south of it before and after the incident. Like I said, I’m going with the numbers, and the direct evidence of contamination, rather than some guy fussing with things till they look O.K.

    • @Sannon, the problem with all the CRAP and it is CRAP about the danger of Fukushima as it relates to us in in the US is it ignores physics and above all history. The radiation released by detonations of atomic weapons in our own deserts in the 50-60s dwarfs ANYTHING that could be seen as a threat here from Japan.

      Turn AJ off for a bit dude, the guy is entertaining and he breaks some really important shit at times but he absolutely is a hype/spin artist.

    • See, but that gave tens of thousands of people cancer;

      The Fukushima disaster is a rated 7 nuclear incident, the highest on the scale. The same level as Chernobyl, which released 400 times the radiation as the Hiroshima bombing. Or, 1/100-1/1000th the radiation from the blasts you mentioned. Fukushima is only 10,000km away from california, yet Chernobyl covered 100,000 sq km

      I’m not saying to freak out or anything, but it just seems incredibly improbable that with radiation showing up in the food, water, rain, etc. all over the west coast, and that there was a marked increase in prenatal deaths at the same time radiation started showing up from one of the biggest nuclear disasters in history, that “everything is fine, nothing to see here”

      Occams razor says its much more likely that it either has, or is going to kill some people (although not in the apocalyptic way AJ would like to sell it) . And honestly, “pay no attention to the radiation in your rain” Doesn’t assure me.

      Anyway, I think it will, you think it won’t, and neither of us can do much about it anyway..So…
      Speaking of Fukushima and the Tsunami, heres a SHTF for an entire state that you may have never heard of.

    • Imagine what 20 million tons of (radioactive?) trash will do to Hawaii’s tourism, shipping, ecosystems when it hits the shore…

    • The spread is with in a single standard deviation. But the point is the authors of the “babies are dying” cherry picked data to prove the need to panic. just the four weeks before, just the 8 cities – picking one that is further away and behind a mountain range rather than two others closer and of the same size.

      All this implies data fixing. If they were to do it right, they would take the 10 weeks before and after the event. The ten weeks before give you a mortality rate of 15.3, the ten weeks after give you a mortality rate of 12.7. Which to use bad logic would argue that Fukushima has lowered infant mortality by a “significant” number. (if going from a 9.7 to 12.5 is significant proof of death and doom, going from 15.3 to 12.7 should be reason to break out the party hats.)

      Fukushima is a bad situation. But these number tricks used to sell fear just undermine any rational attempt at mitigation and preparation.

    • @Me, not surprising. I guess doing one damn thing in defense of the Constitution was too much to ask for.

  11. Hi Jack,
    Just wanted to say, nice delivery and content in the speech at the end of the show. Really quite hits it.
    Thanks too for standing firm and putting yourself out there amongst the naysayers and ridiculing people roaming about.

  12. Jack,
    Re; What do we do about it. Good question. I’ve got to say I have reached the point of zero faith in the vast majority of elected officials. People that are willing to do this sort of thing, do we really think they are going to listen to a few phone calls? In the era of “The constitution is just a god damn piece of paper”? I suspect calling them is about as effective as me calling the Zetas and asking them to try being nice to people for a change.

    I was just pointing out that rather than the story being “lathered” its actually being understated with apologetics.

    I guess “what to do about it” would be to understand the extent of what is actually going on and use it as a reference point for where we are going, and following that, prepare accordingly.

  13. Re: update on progress from a listener

    Listener indicated they are actively using a circa 1880 safe to secure their valuables. I also have a safe from that era, but I do not actively use it to secure anything important.

    The reason is not the security of the safe itself, it is the potential failure of a 100+ year old lock. It may work fine today, but even the slightest tampering by a thief may permanently damage the lock – and permanently secure your valuables inside.

  14. Jack,
    Some years ago I met with my local congress critter at one of his lightly attended local office meetings. He was a good guy, but was redistricted out of my area. The one thing he told me that stuck, was that contacting him was best done through the local office. He said that the two women who worked for him locally had nice jobs as long as he remained in congress and that if he was replaced at some point, they would most likely be out of work. This tended to make them extremely vigilant in getting information and opinions of constituents to him. His claim was also, that the DC staff was good, but the people were perhaps not as vigilant, because if he were replaced they would most likely be able to get work with one of the new incoming reps or senators. Just a thought.

  15. I was listening to news interview about a couple living on $20,000/yr and doing well. The interviewer clarifed to the audience, “now they are off-grid, but they do have heat.” And I, being confused by her statement, wondered if mainstream people thought that living “off-grid” meant living without.

    Also, here is the undisputed evidence that Tweety Bird is the inside man at Ford.

  16. As much as I would love to see Ron Paul be the next POTUS, it’s obvious that won’t happen. He challenges the establishment too much and, more importantly, he just doesn’t have that presidential aura about him that we’ve come to expect and therefore the public won’t vote for him. Maybe he could be a good VP or even consultant?

  17. Hey jack- great episode! I had this episode sitting on my iphone, but kept listening to the new episodes & finally listened to this one a month late. So of course it turns out you read an email from me! I’m the guy with the list of improvements my wife & I made in our lives last year. I know most people would not be able to buy a place with cash like we did, but due to loss of my remaining parent we had the ability to. And I wanted to make a point about being debt-free. We had been saving for down payment, but are grateful everyday that now we don’t have to worry about the payments. I could have quit my job and lived on the cash for a while, but I decided to keep working for now & use cash for our mini-urban-homestead. When life hands you lemonade….. Everyone said ‘get a mortgage, rates are low, tax deduction, you’ll make more in the market holding the cash that you’ll pay in interest, etc. But I decided it would be better to not care about ever being underwater, or possibly loosing the cash in market & being stuck unable to pay mortgage, because with my job I could never afford the size of a mortgage this place would have. Now, i don’t care what our place is worth – because it is priceless to us.

    Also, you mentioned that the savings from our move probably paid for many of the purchases listed. You don’t know how right you were! We’re saving a couple hundred a month [no mortgage] – but even more important is that we got paid to move out. The lower East Side is so trendy that the landlord will be jacking up the rent on our old apartment 200% – 400% [yes-double to quadruple what we paid]. That ‘buy-out’ was part of our planning.

    So keep up the good work. I’m spreading the word here in the People’s Republic of New York about prepping, your show, and Ron Paul. With people like you Jack, there is real hope for our country. Many far lefties like me relate more to libertarianism than modern “American liberalism.” I still consider myself a ‘good liberal’ – and will vote for Paul with a write-in if I have to.

    Thanks again!