My initial reaction to the Audit the Fed was that if it had some momentum/footing; and if it were to be taken seriously and they did an actual audit, it would expose how devalued the currency is , and a subsequent rush to metals would happen out of fear. I am not well versed in how a Bill gets passed in the U.S, but as you outlined, does not sound like it will amount to much at this point. I am however watching Silver creep up again over the last few weeks. My sweet spot is anything under $30

I just don’t get all the hub-bub over Chick-Fil-A, etc.

Someone’s sexual orientation is completely irrelevant unless you want to sleep with them. =)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#Cavalry_charges_and_propaganda

September 1 – Battle of Mokra – 19th Volhynian Uhlan Regiment took by surprise the elements of German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic.[5][8] During the charge, lances were used. In fact, the cavalry charge in the traditional sense was neither planned, nor executed. The mounted infantry rode over behind the attacking German armor in behind the tankettes with the tank men throwing smoke grenades to cover the approach. Indeed, the mounted infantry did repel the German support infantry and forced part of the German armored regiment to continue to advance while deprived of the infantry support.

—The following is “one man’s opinion”—

I guess the “safe” way to approach the marriage issue would be “I don’t care”.
And,
As a Libertarian, I don’t have a problem with “free will”.- We ALL have been granted “free will” by God-
OR, if you prefer,
Nature, ( if someone happens to be an athiest, which is also a “free will” choice.)
But,
“Marriage”, as founded in America, has always been according to the biblical understanding- or a “nature’s god” view (i.e. a man + a woman = children.)

I personally look at the attempted distortion of traditional marriage the same way I look at a “Girl” wanting to join “Boy Scouts”-… or…, play on the boys football team. Or visa versa.
To me, it is simply an intrusion for the sake of intruding.

Live together and call it something else. -maybe, civil unions- (with the same lousey governmental dictated rules and regs.)

Now I just wish I had a resturant chain. 😉

Jack,

Re: Chick-Fil-A

I agree that–so long as no violence is initiated–sexual orientation is the business of the individual and no others. It may be true, like you said, about the gay community missing an opportunity in an attempt to find a common ground, but I think you’re missing the point that “gay rights” or even “marriage rights” aren’t about Freedom, liberty, or any “American” virtue to begin with. Many of these issues are about statists attempting to grind the axe on people who disagree with them; this is how Americans are raised to think now. Does somebody disagree with you? You need to use the violence of the State on them.

Both sides of the issue have perplexed me for a long time, until I let go of the assumption that the issue itself had anything to do with any real virtue or ideal (such as equality). In some states, gay people have access to domestic partnership which is basically equivalent to Marriage (Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada), and they know that the “other side” disagrees for “religious reasons”, so if the issue was truly about “equality”, they’d just push for domestic partnership to have the universal same rights. Nobody would have to argue about the terms, or the intrusion on religion, and all the same civil status could be conferred. The only reason I can imagine this doesn’t take place is because it’s not about “equality”, it’s about some sort of revenge. We’ve been held down by the State, so now we want to use the State to force people to do as we say”.

On the other side of the issue, I have yet to hear of an authentic argument against domestic partnerships not having equal rights as marriage. What perplexes me about these people (in general, christians) who disagree with the government allowing gay marriage–why do they never come to the conclusion that government has no legitimate authority over marriage in the first place? Show me in the Bible where the “Justice of the Peace” is involved in the sacrament between two people and God. However, christians–good statist puppets that they are–are so used to using the violence of the state in the attempt to force people to live like christians that they miss the point of christianity or freedom altogether.

If there was any actual virtue or ideal at stake, both sides could unite in the separation of terms (yet identical legal status), or even unite under the banner that the State has no part to play in the discussion at all. What does the State have to do with a gay relationship? Not any more than a straight relationship…. yet both sides want to force the other side to behave as they do. Equality, Freedom, or any other virtue is not at stake here–only which side will use the violence of the State against the other.

This is the essential evil of government itself (except when it adheres to the principle of Freedom): it forces people into one of two choices; that of the master or the slave. If you do not use the law against somebody else–force them into your way of living–they will use the law against you. You’re either the master or the slave.

This issue–like most political issues-is not about any virtue or ideal. It is only about who is going to be the master and who is going to be the slave. Which side will control the violent arm of the State (through law).

For full disclosure, I am a christian, but I do not believe that christian principles are congruent with State violence.

M

$3 is a panhandling sweet spot on the street according to a man I know who used to effectively do this for a living here in Mississippi. He gave a few reasons, which, I suppose, are about as scientific as the theories of alchemy, but here’s what he said (fancied up so you can read it in English).
– Most folks don’t have $3 in their pocket, they have $1-2, $5, $10, or $20. $3 is low enough and exact enough to sound as if there is something specific for which I need the money and not high enough to be off-putting. [My marketing translation: the request is anchoring that they need more than $1 but not anchoring so far away from a potential price as to foul up the deal.]
– If you ask for $1, you get it easily, but so easily you know you could’ve gotten more. If you ask for $5, folks just walk on by. But asking for $3 gets you $5 a lot of the time. [My marketing translation: You bait and switch them based on what you know most folks carry on them and their unwillingness to do things like get change vice hand over extra money.]

My thoughts: exactly like the other listener said, when this happens we’re thinking about a) safety, b) is this a legit request, and c) do I have $3. Once we’re past safety, the specificity of the request makes it seem more legit, regardless of how screwed up the appearances may be. The fact that we’re thinking about making change and whether or not it’d be easier just to hand over a $5 or even a $10 means the strategy of the battle is already lost for us. When I lived in DC I was often panhandled. I refuse to give people money. If they want help, I’ll offer it I reasonably could based on the situation – pay for a bus fare, buy them a hamburger (something good can come from McD’s), give them my “doggy bag” from a restaurant – even if it took an extra few minutes. Many times my real and material aid wasn’t accepted, which unfortunately confirmed my suspicions. But my humanity demands I attempt to help. My humanity also demands that I don’t pass off an attempt to ignore the problem with the same fix that my Uncle Sam uses… $$$.

Jefferson and some other founding fathers were deist, not christian.

This is not an absolute and continues to be debated among liberal and conservative historians.

In fact, many historians would argue Jefferson was in fact Christian and believed the Bible as the word of God.

First off I want to say I agree with the fact about the government getting out of the marriage business…but let me pose a question…

Would it be possible for a state to ‘impose’ a theocracy upon their citizens, in our current forms of state and national governments, if such laws were voted on by it’s citizens. So in other words, the citizens want to live in a theocracy. Would that even be legal or possible? If not, how would that play out, secession?

Thanks for the show and the time to respond.