48 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brent Eamer
Brent Eamer
12 years ago

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

William
William
12 years ago

Spot on about Chik-Fil-A.
I had been thinking the exact same way.
That is what makes America great. We can have different opinions.
Chik-Fil-A is a great company, does tons for the communities they are in, does right by their employees. I do not agree Mr. Cathy’s personal opinion on gay marriage but he certainly has the right to have it.

Hippiesteader
Hippiesteader
12 years ago

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. =)

damon Brooks
damon Brooks
12 years ago

I don’t care about anyones personal views on sexual orientation, I personally just do not live to giving my money to people who give said money to groups that support what I believe to be hateful.

That being said, I’m not a fan of fast food unless its Sonic 🙂

Raymond "Shorty" Butler
Raymond "Shorty" Butler
12 years ago

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.

thewarriorhunter
thewarriorhunter
12 years ago

i typically never give money to panhandlers. growing up i used to see the same guy in one of three different spots depending on his mood. it was laughable to me. he would change off ramps around the same intersection and be there almost daily.

i think jack had it dead on – there are people that legitimately need help, but the amount of people abusing panhandling and doing it as a profession ruin it and hurt the rest.

TrekFanDan
TrekFanDan
12 years ago

—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. 😉

TrekFanDan
TrekFanDan
12 years ago

America WAS founded on Christian beliefs.

And as such, our laws were and are supposed to be based on, and reflect those beliefs. (Why did our founders come here in the first place?)

“Endowed by our Creator ” is THE critical factor of where our Constitutional rights come from.

What Creator? Our founders knew. The Creator was clear, but, it was, and is mankind that strays and disobeys.

The Bible is clear , slavery is wrong -period, and has nothing to do with what I said, or inferred.

Murder, theft, homosexuality, rape, ect. Are clearly against the same “Creators” will.

Picking and choosing which page of the Bible, (or the Constitution ) we choose to ignore , is the sin nature of man- there enters the ” FREE WILL ” factor.

According to “our Creator”,
Just because we “can” have slaves ,”should” we? NO!
Murder, rape, theft -should we-NO!
But homosexuality is OK?…hmmmm. sorry , no.

Not because I say so. Because the Creator says so.
How can two men, or two women, stand in a church, spit in the face of the “Creator” and take sacred vows (marriage) against His creation ?

30 years ago, I stood before the same “Creator”, spoke my vows, and Married my wife.
And I will honor those vows to the best of my ability. According to His Word and His will.

lisapaintergirl
lisapaintergirl
12 years ago
Reply to  TrekFanDan

Jack-
I appreciated your comments about the Chick-fill-A issue (even though I was already tired of hearing about it too). As a woman who is in a committed relationship with another woman for 11 years now- I agree completely- Mr. Cathy has the right to his beliefs and the Mayor of Chicago should not keep out a business based on personal beliefs. If anyone wants liberty, they cannot then deny someone else liberty.

Trekfan- the biblical definition of marriage is:
one man- seven women…
Please at least know what you are supporting.

I am the person God created me to be- and that is a good thing- in my eyes and in the eyes of the Creator.

William
William
12 years ago
Reply to  TrekFanDan

I respect your opinion but don’t forget that a lot good Americans are not christian. You say that American was founded on christian values but that is not entirely true. Jefferson and some other founding fathers were deist, not christian. Freedom of religion IS one America’s core value – there is no disputing that. If that is true, we cannot revert back to saying we must all abide by “christian values”.
Morality and religious values are mutually exclusive.

damon Brooks
damon Brooks
12 years ago
Reply to  TrekFanDan

Slavery in the bible immoral? I assume you’re joking?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

TrekFanDan
TrekFanDan
12 years ago

Never give cash to panhandlers or beggars.
Give them a job, or buy them food and watch them eat it. That’s what I have done.

michael
12 years ago

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

Jay
Jay
12 years ago

You talked about Panama, reminds me of the time I was there: There was a mall outside Panama City, my wife and I always shop there, a small boy came up to us and asked for money for food. He said that he was hungry and hadn’t eaten lately. Instead of giving him money we invited him to eat with us. He did. During our meal he told us the story of the way he lives, it tore my heart out. Anyway, we gave him money to take home to his grandmother so that everyone else could eat. Whether his story was true or not, really doesn’t matter. Lesson: give into the heart sometimes.

kaywil
kaywil
12 years ago

Jack,
I like your program and it is your opinion. That being said I really don’t like the phrasing you chose when responding to trekfandan. To be exact “people like you” and stating because he does not agree with the homosexuals he’s a “homophobe”. Your line of reasoning is illogical and goes against your “libertarian” bent. Just because someone does not agree with your line of reasoning it is NOT all right to make assumptions and accusations against them or there character.
I for one do not want to “get over” this issue. The reason our country is in the crapper is the loss of moral values. And by the way it is not about homosexual getting the same rights, but special rights. What is next “marriage” between children and adults (like third world nations, NAMBLA would love that) or how about animals, or group marriages. And it does infringe on my rights when the schools promote this as normal, that is why I home educate my children so they can reason for themselves and not be spoon feed from public educator. However, that is a different issue.
Thanks for putting out shows everyday and keep up the good work. I really do enjoy the show, nobody’s perfect or has all the right answers. I just had to comment.

sburkey
sburkey
12 years ago
Reply to  kaywil

I knew that it was only a matter of time until someone brought out the “marriage to animals” argument.

kaywil
kaywil
12 years ago

I don’t think you regarded my original statement about using they old “bigot” or “hick” line of reasoning. I never stated the state has a right to force values or moral on anyone. However, as stated before the state does enforce their beliefs on my through the public school. I was hoping for an answer on why you turn toward making rude comment about a person. I thought you handled the Chick-fila very well on the pod cast. I hope I didn’t offend you by saying nobody is perfect. This is a true statement and I think everyone has a right to their own opinion. I never stated once that I wanted government, national, mandate this issue. It is best left to the state to define this matter for themselves. I am for government to have less power over the people not more. We are being ruled to death. I do feel political people on both side use this very issue to divide people and to continue the petty arguments so we can’t consecrate on pressing issues. I do not trust any political party and do not feel I I’m being lied to without my knowledge. I know they lie! How do you answer the fact that the public schools do force their beliefs on children, even when going against the parents? Every person believes in something: God, gods, themselves, the nation, mother earth. It is nearly impossible not to impose your beliefs on others. Also where in the Bible does God say to have seven wives? It is an honest question not being sarcastic. I know many people in the Old Testament had multiple wives, but I can’t recall where God spoke this. That seems to be another way to put down the dumb old Christian hick that doesn’t know any better. I am really sick of all the name calling. That is a sure fire way to stop a logical debate.
Thanks for commenting on post, however not the way you answered. I was not expecting a response that put me and my character down. Hopefully, we will just agree to disagree.

kaywil
kaywil
12 years ago

Thanks for your reply!!! Listening to the podcast on Audit the Fed I was good.

kaywil
kaywil
12 years ago

I meant to say it was good.

Brandon
Brandon
12 years ago

Jack, something you missed on the politicians and Chick-Fil-A…all the ones that attacked CFA completely support Obama and had no problem allowing Obama into their cities a few months ago when he had the same position as Dan Cathy…and Chicago’s mayor, the day after attacking CFA, embrace Louis Farrakhan..wbuts tracked Obama when he switched and started supporting gay marriage..but I didn’t see that hypocrisy pointed out anywhere except for a couple blogs…it’s sad that the average citizen doesn’t even notice these things..

I’ve been saying the same thing as you on this issue everytime it’s come up anywhere, online of real life. As long as he does nothing illegal, he can have, and say, any oppinion he wants. If you don’t like it, feel free to vote with your dollar, but the extreme this was taken to..personal attacks, death threats, hateful comments when CFA’s PR guy died last week, etc is disgusting. As someone working towards starting a small business, it scares me to see us in a world where I can treat all races, ages, sexual orientations, etc equally, but still receive death threats for a personal opinion. Scary.

AngusBangus
12 years ago

$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… $$$.

Shasta Ron
Shasta Ron
12 years ago
Reply to  AngusBangus

@Angus I agree. This is one reason why I don’t give cash to panhandlers too. We had this agressive one who claimed to make up to $500.00 daily. All he got was probation. AnhwYs you can read it here…http://www.redding.com/news/2012/aug/01/aggressive-panhandler-placed-probation/?preventMobileRedirect=1

Voluntary Joe
Voluntary Joe
12 years ago

Pocket Veto

Jack, you’re correct that when the DBag in chief does not sign a bill it will become “law.” There is a nuance to this though; if congress has adjourned–making it effectively impossible to return the bill to congress for the time being–the bill will be effectively vetoed if the DBag does not sign it. If congress is in session, and the bill remains unsigned, it becomes “law.”

Article 1 Section 7

“… If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

Great show, as usual, Jack. Keep up the good work!

🙂

Back2Basics
Back2Basics
12 years ago

What this country needs are more unemployed politicans-Edward Langley

admin
admin
12 years ago

I am so tired of hearing about the Chik-fil-A item too. Obviously this was blown way out of proportion by the liberal media. Dan Cathy was merely stating his own opinion and belief. It’s not like Chik-fil-A as a company issued a corporate policy against gay marriage.

Seriously people get your panties out of wad!

The comment regarding the biblical definition of marriage is incorrect, or I don’t which book lisapaintergirl is reading.


the biblical definition of marriage is:one man- seven women…”

The Christian faith primary follows the New Testament. In Mark, Jesus says

10:6 But from the beginning of creation he 12  made them male and female. 13  10:7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, 14  10:8 and the two will become one flesh. 15  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The Sage of Monticello
The Sage of Monticello
12 years ago

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.

William
William
12 years ago

This.

admin
admin
12 years ago

Keep in mind, I’m no preacher guy. I do encourage those wanting to learn more, to just open up the Bible and read for themselves.

From the beginning, the design according to Genesis was 1 man and 1 women. It goes further to state that ‘God saw that it (the relationship) was good’. This was before the fall; in the garden of Eden.

For a brief period of time (200~300yrs) during the Old Testament years, it appears that a few of the Jewish kings choose to take on more than one wives. God didn’t say that it was ok. It was just another mistake that the Jewish kings made. The Jews made a lot of mistakes during the Old testaments, and God punished them several times with invading armies. Honestly, its only by God’s grace that they are still on the Earth.

That was Old testament. New Testament, which covers Jesus’ teachings reasserts that people are to stick with the original 1 male & 1 woman design of marriage.

Regardless of people’s choices, we are to be loving and non-judgmental toward other people. I have 2 gay friends, we get along just fine. It’s the non-judgmental part that some believers forget about.

It’s in there people, open the book and read it.

William
William
12 years ago
Reply to  admin

The 10 commandments were in the old testament too.
Should we throw those out too or fight about whether to put them in front of the courthouse?
If the New trumps the Old, that’s fine but Christians can’t pick and choose when it suits their fancy.

lisapaintergirl
lisapaintergirl
12 years ago
Reply to  admin

admin:
Since Jesus NEVER spoke on the topic of homosexuality- why is it such a hot button issue for his followers? (Check out a red-letter bible. He never did.)

I am also a christian, by the way.
The Creator gave us 10 laws, Christ gave us 2.

The rest of those rules in Lev. and Deut. are a bunch of crap written by man. They don’t even make sense. Why does God care if you plant a field with 2 kinds of seed, or wear clothes with two different materials, or trim your beard, or sleep with your wife while she is on her period, or if a priest is a dwarf? (you think I need to read the bible? – I have!) I reject those 2 books as scripture, they do not describe the God I know and love.

And, yes most of the Patriarchs had multiple wives- this is never condemned in scripture. It is purely a cultural thing right now to say one woman-one man, not scriptural.

just my 2cents.
But the main point is: everyone has the right to believe what they believe and not be forced by the majority, or the state to live a certain way. If one wants liberty and freedom of religion then they must also accept liberty for all- even those they disagree with.
If I want to stand before God and get married that is between me, God, and the one I make the vow too. Period. The state can’t (and shouldn’t) force a church to conduct such marriages if they don’t want, but there are plenty of churches that will. And thankfully, God is my judge, not man.
Peace!

Willow
Willow
12 years ago

@Jack

As for as your claim about religious opposition to gay marriage being.

“That exact same argument was at one time used to keep blacks enslaved and later to regulate them to second class citizens. What people like you seem to miss is two gay people that want to be married are absolutely NOT in anyway intruding on you and your definition of marriage. It is you and others that intrude on theirs.”

How did that keep Blacks enslaved? In this day we obviously need a definition of what marriage is. Too bad it takes the government’s involvement. They seldom get anything right. If you hold to the biblical definition: it is one man + one woman…period. If you agree with what some in our culture are trying to redefine it as – well, then, it’s definitely open for revision. Our children will suffer (are suffering) for lack of direction.

In response to your statement that….

“I am actually shocked that a person with your mind would make that claim. What harm could anyone saying we are married do to you. Seriously people get over your homophobia.! We do not have the time for such bullshit from either side. Seriously!”

Really? “Homophobia?” – We had better have time for such “bullshit” – it’s a red hot topic that won’t go away (even if you close your eyes and plug your ears) and if we don’t address it now,we’ll have missed the opportunity – sort of like the dichotomy you were talking about with Chick-fil-a. A missed opportunity…then what? Again, our children will suffer.

Charlie
Charlie
12 years ago

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.

Charlie
Charlie
12 years ago
Reply to  Charlie

Thanks Jack for the thoughts. That was what I was thinking. My thought process was along the lines of how The Free State Project is trying to influence government for more liberty. I was running with the idea of, if you like a state move there, if you dislike…move away. Such as make/create laws that would adhere to a certain peoples belief standard (ie. religious) and if you agree with these views live in that state, if not move. It seems cut and dry, but I wanted to understand the legal complications like you mentioned of ignoring the Constitution. I’m not saying that this is a good or bad idea, just an idea for thought. In early America some of these ideas abounded, but have went to the wayside as the 20th century rolled around. So, if a group of like-minded people wanted to create a ‘closed’ society, including government, it really can’t exist in These United States of America under current law, correct?

Again thanks for the time and effort.