Archer or anyone can you answer the following for me. I hear some talking about the government paying it's bills by simply turning on the printing presses. Can anyone tell me of a time when this ever happened. Give me a date when gobs of greenbacks were printed and used to lower the deficit or public debt. Why do we have a Bureau of Public Debt if they can and do just print more green and use it to pay ever one off. Thanks in advance.

The National Debt is approaching $9 trillion. The US was in worse shape in 1931 as far as national debt as a percentage of GDP. The Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter got the debt from WWII almost eliminated. (I think the '50 recession screwed up Eisenhower's budget) (Note: That is four democrats and two republicans.) Every President since then except for Bill Clinton increased the national debt tremendously (Reagan and Bushes). The $9 trillion is owed as follows: $3 trillion to SS, $2 trillion to medicare, $2 trillion to foreign interests (Chineese, Japanese etcetera) $2 trillion to "the man on the street Americans" hell they owe me $000,000 six figures. So I don't know Archer these figures leave little or zero owed to the Federal Reserve as you say. Write this down and put it under your pillow, "the next Administration will increase taxes and work to reduce the deficit and pay down the debt". Just last week Alan Greenspan said that the Bush/Chenny tax cut was the wrong thing to do. Archer if you want to continue talking about the Federal Reserve my direct email is mroybruce@msn.com

The current debt is due to Bushes tax cut. Did you not hear Greenspans mea culpa this week. When Republicans say they are going to cut taxes they are also saying we are going to sell bonds (debt). The rich who got the tax cut bought the bonds. (They had rather loan it to the government than give it; wouldn't you?, that way they not only keep ownership of their capital in the form of a bond but they get interest also.) When Reagan took over in like '80 or '82 he cut taxes on income but raised taxes for social security. Thus the working person paid more taxes and the wealthy paid less. These SS taxes were used by Reagan to fund his cold war military equipment build up and Star Wars Campaign (SDI) initiative. Reagan and Buses have run up our debt tremendously and our foreign trade deficit to the Japanese and now the Chineese comes back to us when they buy are bonds with the dollars we give them. It is irresponsible I tell you, and they do this for their rich friends becasue the rich friends then finance the Republican campaingns. We have a representative government with money on one side, workers, and many other interest groups even though the representatives are elected by geographic region rather than actually by interest group directly. But you two guys wow! all I can say is if you had your way we would be a "dictatorship of the ignorant class". This site may be about Liberty but I think you guys are about something else. You know the NRA gave hunters and gun owners a bad name, I have relatives who were life long members who quit when the NRA went off of the deep end. I think you guys are giving Liberty a bad name with your stupid opinions about not obeying law and lack of knowledge about money and banking. I may not be radical enough for you guys, I think a lot of things need to be tweaked, society, government, institutions need constant monitoring and reforming. But I am not ready to "throw the baby out with the bath water like you guys are". I believe you are wrong about the two classes. Their were partiots and loyalists in both camps even as today. Warren Buffet is a registered Democrat. I don't know about his best friend Bill Gates but Bill Gates is on the record of supporting the Estate Tax, some rich probably consider them traitors to their class just like FDR was. The American Revolution and the French one had much support from the rich and nobility. Ever heard of the Marquis de LaFayette. On the other hand I read that the rich politicians, Washington (richest man in America), Madison, Jefferson, Adams etc designed and supported the Constitution to protect property from a growing populist movement by the the poorer classes. Study Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts during the Articles of Confederation days and I understand some similar unrest in Virgina. Again Hitler set up the German people with ten years of propaganda calling Jews rats and vermin etcetera. I told a German friend "Hitler used the German people." I was shocked when my friend (he lives in SW Germany) said "No! No! the German people used Hitler." It was both I am sure. But Hitler climbed to power on the backs of Jews, so to speak. It reminds me of a speech Bush the first made in Springfield, Illinois in his first Presidential campaign. (You know and I think in so many words you have stated it, that the IRS is the most hated thing in America.) Well in his Springfield speech Bush said, "And another thing we are not going to have the IRS on your backs all of your life." The crowd went wild just like Hitlers crowds went wild when he attacked Jews and bankers. Hitler was a gutter politician and so was Bush. Both Bushes would and did say anything to get elected just like Hitler. But I cannot abide Mike's "compelled compliance" crap nor your money crap. You guys think you espouse liberty but you are not free yourselves. Your intellect is all wrapped up and warped. Ciao

Mike I had to give you one more I think important thought. What killed the Jews was thousands of years of conditioning of failing to stand up for their civil rights, by them and by "christian" society throughout Europe. They were in a sense doomed way before Hitler because of this failure. Guns would not have saved them nor would resistance at the time of Hitler. The denial of their rights was predicated upon the false teaching that "The Jews killed Christ" and they were called Christ killers. This was the teaching of "the Church". Now David in St Louis says "democracy" killed Christ. A little knowledge and false knowledge is a terrible thing and can cause severe damage to society and the individual. The clear teaching of the Gospel is that I and you killed Christ by our sins and sinful nature. The problem Mike is subjective knowledge rather than objective. You stated in one of your comments that you and I see things differently because of different experience, undoubtedly that is partly true. But the great equalizer and what will bring us together is common knowledge, books and learning. Don't stay stuck in your subjective experience get and education on these things. I think Archer is totally beyond learning. If you cannot be more objective by learning then look at what most people are doing or thinking, don't follow that 1% fringe (Archer and Dave on money, you on law etc) at the extremity of rationality. I have unsubscribed to this site because of you and Archer's "mental deficiency amounting almost to total absence of understanding caused by non-development" (aka idiocy).

You should live in Argentina. My Spanish teach said the people will not obey mechanical traffic fixtures. If there is no cop they don't obey. Your example has some interesting complications because of the accident. You are suggesting that no prosecution should occur if there is no accident? You failed to comment on the British driving example. Lets make it easier, even without signs I believe littering the highway or roadway is a violation of law. Let us assume there is a sign with a stated penalty, are you of the position that requiring (compelling) your compliance is a violation of your freedom or rights. Voluntary compliance with law equals no law at all or an outlaw society: Funk and Wagnalls "law: 1) A rule of conduct, recognized by custom or by formal enactment, which a community considers as binding upon its members." Mike Alabama has a lot of Compelled Compliance. I would stay clear of this state if I were you. I am seriously thinking of staying clear of this site because of the mentality, thought processes and knoledge level of you and Archer. I really think I should have better things to do with my time. Unlike the Jews you should have enough sense to know when and when not to resist. You state an absolute that compelled compliance to law is immoral. If you cannot judge good law from bad law I suggest yes that you should refuse to obey any law. You may very well wind up in the nut house.

Dave I think if you ask around you will find that your sin (and mine too) is what killed Jesus. Plus he wanted to die for you. Deocracy and politics has nothing to do with it.

In your world Michael who decides when a stop light does or does not safely regulate traffic? Who decides if and when it is safe to drive in the left lane (British style) on a two lane street? I believe a person can leave or enter the conutry with as much currency as he pleases as long as he declares it. If you consider filling out a form duress I guess it is duress for you at least but the same thing happens if you deposit or remove $10,000 or more from your bank. Thank you for responding and really I am trying to understand you. I have to be careful of saying or writing too much cause I might get evicted from the site. My understanding is that all compliance with law is voluntary as long as you comply. So when a Peace Officer (cop) says you are under arrest you are supposed to comply. Failure to do so is resisting arrest and your status gets worse. So you had an opportunity to voluntarily comply. The choice is yours. Did you not ever have compelled compliance as a child and were you never penalized as a child for failing to comply voluntarily to your parents instructions. I believe your progam/agenda or mantra would be better served if you stated these examples more often than saying "compelled compliance" like a robot.

Mike what is compelled compliance in your mind. It is such a big phrase can you stop using it and say what you mean? Is stopping at traffic lights compelled compliance etcetera. I am a resident of Bama, I do not speak for Bama or anyone else, I speak for myself. "Gun control" was not a national issue until Clinton decided to do something about Uzis and street sweepers and drive by shootings. Bush the first would not address the issue. The NRA went ballistic. After passage of a law restricting such weapons retired Reagan said "such a law is just common sense" and retired Bush also acquiesed in a positive attitude towards the new law. Clinton remarked that he was the only one who was man enough to stand up to the NRA while in the White House unlike Bush. It was only LaPierre and the NRA that went on a holy war. There has been gun control in the forests for years. Most states only allow three cartridges in a deer rifle etcetera. Ain't it strange that some folks accept forms of gun contol and law when targeting animals but detest any restrictions when the target is people.

Absolutely! One persons civil right is the everyone else's and the governments civil obligation. I know my bill of rights but I am going to look up what my civil rights are. It is interesting to note that we did not always have or at least did not know about civil rights. Two Texans were important in the Civil Rights Act 0f 1964. Lyndon Johnson led the charge that required equality of treatment and service in interstate commerce and in housing. George Herbert Walker Bush as a congressman voted against it. Go figure!

The word is stronger than the sword (gun). We should all speak up upon infractions of our rights. Anyone waiting to use guns is dreaming a pipe dream. Guns won't do it! Guns are not for attacking your democratically elected republican form of government. That is a lie fostered upon us by the gun manufacturers through the NRA.

Very well said fra59e.

Apologies to one and all for categorizing anyones knowledge in an insulting manner but we all of course are ignorant about different things and at different times. Robert and all interested if you would like the laws and history of militias (which is now the National Guard) go to Wikipedia. You will find that the NG is a 100% US Government operation and has become even more so since Sen Warner's 2007 bill. States cannot refuse deployments of the NG for any reason.

Armed take over of a village, town, city, state or the US Federal government has to my knowledge never been attempted let alone consumated in this country to my knowledge but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. What does this fact (if it stands) so about the quality of our democratic institutions in this country in which a republic (back to the people) form of government is guaranteed. According to Wikipedia the National Guard is a 100% US Army Operation under the federal National Guard Bureau. In the last several decades a federal law established the concept of State Defense Forces. The difference is that the SDF cannot be nationalized and although they are recognized and cooperate with the Feds they are not under Fed control. Just this year Senator John Warner sponsored and enacted legislation that took away Governors as Commanders In Chief of the National Guard within their states. The 50 state governors wrote a letter protesting this law but the law remains. The NG now is under a dual Commander In Chief of Governor and President. Another law prohibits states from refusing or stopping deployments of the NG for any reason. In any event their is no right, responsibility or possibility under law for the NG or State Defense Forces to be used against government. Y'all may read it for yourselves at Wikipedia.

Here is your answer Mike as to why I percist on this site. "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on CERTAIN occasions. It will OFTEN be exercised when WRONG but better than not at all." I don't mind taking a few hits if I can have the opportunity to set you and Archer straight who OFTEN are WRONG. It may be just a drop in the bucket but it is a start "in defense of the liberties and Constitution" of our country. I will do my part.

How did Mr. Schultz ever get to be founder of such an organization if he did not know the answer to this question? You would think he at least should know his own mind on the subject? It sounds like that Greek play by Aristophanes where a guy goes around talking to the clouds.

Domestic foe is your attacking neighbors. The right to bear arms is no where defined as a right to attack your freely chosen democraticaly elected republic form of government. That is treason, I believe. Obedience to and respect for law is the hallmark of a free people as well as the acceptance and submission to the will of the people as long as your rights are not violated by the majority. If your rights are violated then go to court not to guns. The states are guaranteed a democratic republic form of government by the constitution. The USA via the FBI investigates political corruption, vote fraud, graft all of the time in cities and states all of the time. For more information on how the USA works to insure better government in cities and states review the operation Graylord Cases in Chicago.