Yep!. Because we are the government and have generally open access to its workings and proceedings we always have, and rightfully so, a lot to say about it. Major corporations answer only to their stockholders, and private companies answer only to their owners. If we could constanly "yell and scream" about the way Ford, Chrysler, General Motors did business on each and every issue of their operations wouldn't we really have a field day.

You are correct Mike, no law is of any effect unless it is enforced. So Support Your Local Sheriff, Border Patrol, and Game Warden. Laws and government are generally benign, in other words we are asked to follow the law "voluntarily" without a cop watching our every move. Most people stop at stop signs though there is no law enforcement in sight. I don't follow you "No Deer Crossing" line of reasoning either. "Deer Crossing" signs are placed to protect motorists and I don't believe they are placed by legislators but by police traffic control and highway departments. I will grant you that these people operate under laws, rules and regulations passed by legislators.

Dave there is 500 billion in circulation. A highly educated (engineering) friend of mine was under the belief that since the government is in trillions of dollars of debt and we have a meg trillion dollar economy then there must be mega trillions of dollrs in circulation. It is amazing what people think about money. And I don't understand anything that people are saying about legal tender and slavery cand credit slaves, etcetera.

Straight thinking Warren.

There is a new world order every time there is a new President. Reagan created a new world order when he called the Soviet Union an evil empire. Bush the first used the term new world order in a speech and the unlearned jumped on it as if it were some SciFi fascist/socialist all those words you use E. It don't mean any of that crazy stuff. An American governor is a member of a club of 50. When an American politician becomes President his aim in Foreign Relations is to bring his view point to the International Club of whatever the number of countries is 200 or so. It is a new world order. "World order" is no different that city order, state order etcetera. There is nothing new about "new world order" except that the current "new world order" is the newest one. I never said that all promoters of world orders were tyrants. I believe that America is good and not corrupt and that it wishes a world of "peace and goodwill towards men". What is wrong with that kind of world order. David Rockefeller is not a bad man or conspiracist. He is or was a man of substance who gave of his time, and talent to further the betterment of internationnal society. Tony Blair was just appointed to represent Russia, United States, and United Nations (how about that) as a broker, negotiator, for a peaceful solution to the Israeli/Palestinian thing. He is trying to create a new middle eastern order. Don't get your jollies off thinking that order is some kind of tyranny thing. NEW WORLD ORDER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FASCISM/SOCIALISM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. GET A GRIP!

HeyE. So you know something we don't? Care to say who the choice is or are you saying the choice has been made secretly even though none of us know who it will be? Thus all the polls and voting will be rigged to agree to this secret conspiracy. Of course now that we know it has been rigged since you are telling us it is not a consipracy at all. It is just something we accept year after year like sheep, I get it.

"Civilization" may end at the water line but certainly all of the crap it produces does not, and has an effect on the largest and smallest of the food chain.

The US Credit is still the best in the world that is why many world governments and citizens by US Bonds. But a persons or governments credit is only as good as is their current or future income prospects. Now the US owes a trillion to China, several trillion to Social Security and who knows who else. The US's current income, past "losses" - deficits - and projected deficits is not a pretty picture and could adversely affect its credit. Some in Congress currently worry what would happen if China stops buying our bonds. After all they are getting all of our money since they are making all of our stuff. In the '70's we bought Japanese cars and they bought our bonds. The deal works like this: instead of American citizens paying enough taxes to balance the budget we buy foreign goods. The foreign governments tax their companies and citizens who have received the American's money and then the foreign government buys US Government Bonds.

I typed in Google "Patriot Act successes" and got a whole list of reading material for you who are interested. Most of the info is from the DOJ so that some on this site will just consider it to be government propaganda. After all we all know that you cannot trust your friends and neighbors who work for law enforcement especially the Federales. I wonder who really are the "terrorists" among us? Do you have to actually resort to violence to be a terrorist or are there other forms of terrorism? You need to pick up on your deplomacy skills E. I have been in 'Bama one year, educatied in Pennsylvanina and spent 25 years in Illinois. Alabama people are wonderful. I especially admire you Sam for using the word "sincerely", I am not so sure how much of it really drives these discussions. This is great sport and debating is good for the mind. But yes I would like to see more sincerity and honesty also. All of the stuff I quoted today about the Trilateralist Commission, Ford Foundation etc, I got right from googleing it. I did not go to the Ford Foundation for info just to find out more about who they are. Yes Ford had a plant in Hitler, Germany what is your point Archer.

I am so heartend E to hear you refer to our nation as soverign (I think you mean USA). Between you and Mike I am not sure who most disclaims that the USA has any soverignity at all, always demurring in favor of the states. As far as NEW WORLD ORDER and the fear it casts into the psyche of the great unwashed it is a totally fraudulent fear born of lack of education. Let me educate you. There has always been a world order and many new world orders. We had the Greeks, then the Roman New World Order, the medieval new world order, Napoleon set up his European new world order, etcetera, their was a world order known loosely as the Vitorian Age (which my the way brought a long period of peace and prosperity, invention the industrial age etc.), Hitler tried to set up a new world order. The only thing about the New World Order, is that it is the newest of many. Has your wife ever sat you down and said "we need to talk, some things have to change around here" so we have a new order of things. The knee jerkers need to get a lfe.

I agree that it is a sad day when "we as the government" tell the individual how many kids to have. The Maoist regime jawboned the Chineese into mass pregnancies twenty years ago. Now their nation feels forced to reverse the trend. Sometimes Archer in order to get a point across to thick headed and thinned skin persons it is necessary to resort to the most absurd example. All I meant to say by picking on the Chineese example is that if they had pure freedom in regard to their procreation it would literally swamp their nation and the world. And I respectfully suggest that independence and freedom is a thing to be treasured and protected but is not somehow absolute and may even be lost by its own irresponsible hand. We don't have the freedom to trash the highways, feel free to trash your own backyard however. You have no right to be questioning any ones allegiance Mr Archer simply because I think freely. Allegiance is lock stepped adherence to a party line rather than free thinking. The propensity towards large or small families has ebbed and flowed with the times. Popular culture and social mores do have a subtle way of influencing these things as well as does economics. Farming families needed kids to do the chores etc. Independence and freedom requires responsible action towards each other and towards the planet and towards the future. Negative population will certainly require changes in the way we live and may result in deflation on the other hand do you wish to argue that in order to have a robust and growing gogo economy we must have an increasing and what is more increasing at a faster rate population to keep us all rich and satiated. Choose the position which you think is less sicko.

Sorry Sam. The quote is so ridiculous on its' face that I have to assume it is a tongue in cheek fyou response to this congressional investigator who was doing the investigation during the height of the McCarthy era. The McCarthy era was when this sicko Republican politcian from Wisconsin got his jollies off by calling every one a communist. Don't quote me on this but I would not be surprized if he did not have John Wayne labeled as a communist. Some right wing control freaks want to limit philanthropic organizations from the freedom and liberty to do with their money what ever they wish. There are thousands of such foundations in America and they make America great. My European wife said, "Not in Europe, the rich and the noble keep everything to themselves." McCarthy died shortly after they put and end to his witch hunt. I believe he had some kind of debilitating illness that effected his mental capacity.

Mike individual liberty and freedom in China for example would mean, "I can have twelve kids if I want to and I don't give a damn what anyone else or the government says or thinks." When enough individuals think and act that freely and independent of each other how much freedom and independence do you think one or two generations in the future are going to have. In this scenario freedom and independence are their own worse enemy. "Individual liberty and freedom gets in the way of itself"., to quote you Mike

What has happened since Mike? I understand there have been some arrests and some terrorism stopped by the Patriot Act. Basically the Patriot Act and the reorganization of government via the Dept of Home Land Security allowed defferent parts of the government to talk to each other. What non-philanthropic acts have the Ford Foundation (Henry Ford's money) now the Bill Gates Foundation, and thousands more been involved with that you dislike? What would you have these guys do with their money, give it to the government? You seem to stand in fear of anything bigger than the concept ME which attests to a psychological problem rather than anything else.

Nixon (God bless him) said, "Never negotiate in fear but never fear to negotiate." It seemeth to me that some folks trust not the government of these states to ever talk to, let alone negotiate with anyone, anywhere, at any time. Now that is naive and chikens**t.

The Ford Foundation at the time was the largest philanthropic organization in the world giving money for scientific and educational purposes. The Congressional Reese Commission was a committee charged with investigating Tax Exempt Organizations. 1954 was at the height of the McCarthy era and Eisenhower was in the White House. I have no doubt that Mr. Gaither made this remark to pull Mr. Dodd's chain. I have a similar feeling that Liberty Tree selects these quotes to pull our chains also. Some folks chains get pulled a lot easier than others. Mr. C the absurdity or merit does not matter, the Soviet totalitarian system is gone. Their fear of the west starting in 1917 was apparently much less absurd and had much more merit than our fear of them.

What in the heck are all of you folks talking about? The Council On Foreign Relations was started by a group of influential, scholarly and knowledgeable people (they do exist you know and always will) at the end of the WWI. (Thank God for influential, scholarly and knowledgeable people otherwise all of us would be running things, God help us!) Its' stated purpose was to inform public opinion on foreign affairs. Some of its' members were John Foster Dulles (later to be Secretary of State) Averell Harriman (later to be Sec of State) Herbert Hoover (ever heard of him). If all want to believe in conspiracy yes there is conspiracy behind every group, lobbyist and even voter to get his agenda and his way of thinking into the top levels of real policy makers. The Council On Foreign Relations is a top notch organization on this subject and any one can join. Archer what are you smoking today?

The Trilateral Commission was thinking created by Zibigniew Brezinski and financed by David Rockefeller to guide the industrialized world through new and developming times. This was seen by them as a time when balance of power politics would give way to cooperative world politics - the Tri stands for Japan, North America, Europe. This movement appears to see its' continuation in the G8 summit. Some labeled this idea as One World Government. Barry was interesting and an independent thinker was he not? It was most refreshing to see how he warmed up to William Jefferson Clinton.

I know full well that talking of and taking a risk for Brotherhood often brings criticisim and ridicule, it is a little like letting down your guard. I grew up with the phrase "brotherhood from Sea to shining sea" but don't seem to see that sentiment expressed much anymore in this day of the Individual. Two of the nicest men I have ever worked with were an Egyptian Muslim and an Orthodox Jew. When the Jew left work early every Friday he would say "Go with God". What I see among human beings (individuals) is a strong tendency of egocentrisism, that it is their arguments are always centered on themselves as the center of the universe. Since all persons see themselves that way if you could stand back and see the big picture you would realize how naive and stupid it is to view things that way. I was in a church once which had a banner which proclaimed "From our community to the world", I assumed this was a call to evangelize the universe from this little church, however, in the next town five miles away they had the same sign. This tendency is what has led to the conflicts of man down through the ages. This view of things is the same as the radical Islamists. There are good people everywhere Sam and most Muslims and muslim nations are not like the radicals. (Tiger Woods is building a golf course in Bahrain or the Emirates, what does that say about the complexity of this picture.) The UN came into being because of the failure of the Republican isolationists to join the League of Nations in the 1920's and the resulting unstopped buildup of Germany and then WWII 23 years later. No doubt many of the Republican arguments against the League are the same y'all are making now against the UN (aliens, commies, violation of American rights) All of the separate little mutual defense deals, many of them secret, between nations allowed these competitions to get out of control. In addition Hitler had at least one valid argument, and that is that the US, Britain, France, Netherlands, Portugal, all had empires so why should not Germany have an empire. During the war Roosevelt (and others I am sure) worked out the outlines of the post war world based on his four points speech. The thinking was for the US and Euro powers to divest themselves of empires and everyone cooperate via the United Nations. Thus in quick succession from '45 to '50, the Phillipines (US), India (UK), Indonesia (ND) etcetera gained their independence. In another quote I spoke of my service in Korea, we had Turks, Koreans, Thais, Brits and I don't know who else. The Swedes ran a big hospital in Seoul. All of this was under the UN. It is interesting to hear you guys bewail the rights of the United States over against the United Nations but when it is the United States against the States you don't give a damn about the rights of the Union. (I had a Hungarian/American friend who always argued with me about how much better the old country was to this one. When Hungarian friends came over from the old country for a visit he would tell them how much better America was to Hungary. He said what ever made him look better and more pompous.) Ain't human nature interesting.

I am in the VFW. Served 3 1/2 years including Korea in mid sixties. I served with Koreans, Brits, Turks and Thais. Have visited UN Village and Panmounjom. Many American policies have been advanced with the assistance of the United Nations. I agree with Lincoln if you will allow me to paraphrase "A World divided against itself cannot stand." Individualism and brotherhood forever. Most VFW members believe what we fought and/or served for was freedom: speech, worship, etcetera. This VFW Resolution was written in 1949 the UN was a couple of years old. I wonder what the history of it was and what the VFW positions on the UN are now. The UN has helped tremendously with "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, nuclear weapons issues in N. Korea and Iran. Where the hell would we be without the United Nations.

The history of man is the history of a rising population and closer proximity to each other, thus the natural and inevitable lapse of so called individuality and freeedom. Unity and cooperation with each other in ever larger organizations is not a choice but a necessity in an increasingly overly populated world. Isolationist Republican philosophy kept the United States from joining the League of Nations and kept the worlds eyes averted while they aided and abetted Nationalist (Deucthland UberAlles-German over all) Socialism in Germany. The US failure led to WWII and the establishment of the United Nations. The idea of the United Nations is no more idiotic than was the establishment by the colonies of the United States. And some day I feel certain there will be a United Federation of the Universe. Mike your provincialism is so apparent when you call people in other countries idiots, what exactly do you think their opinion is of you?

I have little doubt of where the regular commentaters will come down on this issue. Those that deplore the governing from Washington will even more deplore governing from the United Nations. They should pause for a moment and take a look at pictures of the planet that were taken from the moon or satellites and take a deep breath before winging into their "individualist mantra". History has shown the advantages of large, peaceful trading blocs ie the United States, the Victorian age ruled over by British Naval power. If the United Nations is about international brotherhood, health of the planet and its envirnoment I am all for it. The feelings of its impact on our national "rights", is no different than the states feelings about DC's impact on them and yes we all as INDIVIDUALS feel impacted by all of these governments. There appears to be a direct correlation between the distance from the individual and the seat of government and the dislike of that government. On the other hand I believe that the larger is the brotherhood and cooperation of mankind the better for the individual. ACT LOCALLY THINK GLOBALLY.

You are not being independent when you buy insurance. You are casting your lot with others in a social compact. According to Ken the founding fathers were not independent since they thought they needed a government. Actually I read that the reason they needed a strong central government is because things like Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and similar uprisings in other of the Article of Conferation colonies was threatening the structure of debt and property. The new centralized 1787 government was a conservative money interests defense against the radical working classes. I STILL IMPLORE YOU RUGGED INDIVIDUALSITS TO SHOW WHAT YOU ARE MADE OF AND YOUR SINCERITY BY GETTING OFF OF ANY SOCIALISTIC INSURANCE ROLLS YOU CAN.

I believe you are absolutely correct MIKE. The idea is that each of us are independent from each other because we each report directly to the man upstairs. The teaching was and is that we are independent as far as any hierarchy up or down goes but since we all report to the samd Top Guy we are therefore all equal in His sight and thus we are all brothers and sisters. ARCHER you are talking about the future some of us are discussing the quotations about the past revolution.KEN we are the way we are because it is the way we want to be. We have had a society without compulsory education. If education was fee for service and you opted to not purchase an education for your child where would that leave the quality of our society. Why do all societies have communal property, taxes, roads and street lites etcetera. Do you suggest an individual put a quarter in each street light as he walks down the boulevard? People have been paying taxes on incomes and wealth for thousands of years. Read the history of King Mathias of Hungary who raised taxes on the nobility and peasants alike built up the army and kept the Turks at bay. The bureau system of government was created in the late 1800's to free the government from the spoils system, political hacks and cronyism. I guess the best example of the benefits of the Bureau was Eiliott Ness and the Untouchables. Apparently Ken you would like to replace professional public servants with political hacks every four or eight years. That is what Condi Rice tried to do by demoting the Pro Richard Clarke and the AG Ashcroft tried to do by ignoring the Professional Aciting Director of the FBI. The result was 911. Good thinking Ken. Yes DAVE whether people believe or not Jesus and Judeo/Christian teaching is that we all have equality before God, but it follows in scripture as well as secular logic that since we are all equal we are all on the same level and that level is for the believers, "Brothers and Sisters" and for the secular, "Citizens". The concept of brotherhood and citizenhood is somewhat different than the concept of "individuality". I have read that all 6 billion of the worlds human beings could live in Texas on a parcel of land. I don't recall whether it was an acre or what (that is not significant). The issue is that it would not be sufficient for these folks to act as purely individual entities. They would not be able to move from their property. Could not travel without trespassing etcetera. I think you should be able to see how absurd is the no tax, no cooperation among peoples, no use of the the word "we" or "us" and the worship of the word "I" positions are. Freedom is only vaguely a philosophical proposition it is much more a practical proposition based on the population size. FINALLY YOU ARE ALL ON GOOD GROUND IN YOUR DEBATING BECAUSE PLATO AND ARISTOTLE SAID IT ALL SO MANY YEARS AGO: Plato said that all of the children belong to all of us, they are all our children. Aristotle said later that that is nonsense, everyone knows that we love our own children and families better. I don't think it has been resolved yet who was right. I don't think there is a resolution. I think there has to be a balance and there has to be WISDOM.

I don't know from solipsism but I am willing to wager that 99% of all "staunchly independent" persons and the anti socialist crowd all have their vast arrary of insurance policies so that others will take care of them when and if they need it. What does that say for the sincerity of the independent minded. Some live for themselves by trying to get as much from others as possible by hook or by crook.