Master Thread Dance Your Cares Away/Fraggle/Law Abiding Citizens

Master Threads
A few of them Colorado boys have been south Texas sun kissed.
I'm lily cracker ass Irish skin. Lots sun poisoning in my past.
Tell them to not wear sunglasses. It will help them to not get sun burn
Science:
Your eyes get UV rays-that tells your body to produce what you need to be ok.
Sunglasses stop it. Sunscreen does what your body is adapted to do and bonus of cancer.
I'm not crazy you are
 
Easy.

The Federal Reserve is neither 'Federal' nor a 'Reserve'. It's a private banking corporation that creates money out of thin air that the US borrows from.

Because it's a private corporation, Trump has no authority to hire, nor fire Powell who is the chairman.
It isn't entirely private. It is loosely part of the government but granted independence (maybe not the right word) it is a hybrid.
Grok it.
interests

Yes, the Federal Reserve is a hybrid of government and private interests. It’s a unique entity, not fitting neatly into either category. Here’s the breakdown:
Government Elements: The Fed was created by Congress in 1913 via the Federal Reserve Act, giving it a public mandate to manage monetary policy, stabilize the economy, and oversee banks. Its Board of Governors, including the Chair, is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It reports to Congress and operates under federal law.

Private Elements: The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are structured like private corporations, with member banks (commercial banks in their regions) holding stock and electing some of their directors. These banks operate independently in day-to-day functions, and their profits (after expenses) are largely returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Hybrid Nature: The Fed’s dual structure balances public oversight with operational independence. It’s not a government agency in the traditional sense (e.g., it’s not funded by taxpayer dollars but by its own operations, like interest on securities). Yet, it’s not fully private either, as it serves public goals, not shareholder profits, and is accountable to Congress.

This blend allows the Fed to act insulated from short-term political pressures while pursuing long-term economic stability, though it’s often debated whether this setup prioritizes public or private interests more. Critics argue it gives too much power to unelected bankers; defenders say its independence is crucial for effective policy.

That is why there is legitimate exposure to the head of fed being under the executive branch. Can't have an unelected official outside of the executive control. Congress overreacted on it.
The fed is govt via hybrid model. President has domain over executives not congress.
I am pretty certain a legit SC would agree
 
Last edited:
It isn't entirely private. It is loosely part of the government but granted independence (maybe not the right word) it is a hybrid.
Grok it.
interests

Yes, the Federal Reserve is a hybrid of government and private interests. It’s a unique entity, not fitting neatly into either category. Here’s the breakdown:
Government Elements: The Fed was created by Congress in 1913 via the Federal Reserve Act, giving it a public mandate to manage monetary policy, stabilize the economy, and oversee banks. Its Board of Governors, including the Chair, is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It reports to Congress and operates under federal law.

Private Elements: The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are structured like private corporations, with member banks (commercial banks in their regions) holding stock and electing some of their directors. These banks operate independently in day-to-day functions, and their profits (after expenses) are largely returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Hybrid Nature: The Fed’s dual structure balances public oversight with operational independence. It’s not a government agency in the traditional sense (e.g., it’s not funded by taxpayer dollars but by its own operations, like interest on securities). Yet, it’s not fully private either, as it serves public goals, not shareholder profits, and is accountable to Congress.

This blend allows the Fed to act insulated from short-term political pressures while pursuing long-term economic stability, though it’s often debated whether this setup prioritizes public or private interests more. Critics argue it gives too much power to unelected bankers; defenders say its independence is crucial for effective policy.

That is why there is legitimate exposure to the head of fed being under the executive branch. Can't have an unelected official outside of the executive control. Congress overreacted on it.
The fed is govt via hybrid model. President has domain over executives not congress.
I am pretty certain a legit SC would agree
More explanation via Grok when I posed what I wrote here to it.
Your argument raises a constitutional question about the Federal Reserve’s structure and Congress’s authority to create it, particularly regarding the separation of powers and executive oversight. Let’s unpack this:
Constitutional Basis for the Fed: Congress established the Federal Reserve under its Article I, Section 8 powers, which include regulating commerce, coining money, and making laws “necessary and proper” for executing its enumerated powers. The Fed’s creation was justified as a means to stabilize the economy and manage currency, which courts have upheld as within Congress’s purview (e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) broadly interpreted the Necessary and Proper Clause).

Executive Oversight and Independence: The Fed’s Board of Governors is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, tying it to the executive branch. However, its independence—insulation from direct presidential control—is by design. Congress intended the Fed to make monetary policy free from short-term political pressures, as frequent executive interference could destabilize markets. This setup has been challenged but upheld, notably in cases like Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), where the Supreme Court allowed Congress to create independent agencies with officers not directly removable by the President.

Constitutional Tension: Your point about the Fed’s executive not being under direct presidential authority aligns with debates over the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2) and the President’s removal power. Critics argue that the Fed’s structure violates the unitary executive theory, which holds that all executive power must be under the President’s control. However, the counterargument is that the Fed’s functions are quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial, not purely executive, allowing Congress to grant it independence. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled that the Fed’s structure is unconstitutional, though recent cases like Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020) have tightened scrutiny on independent agencies.

Legislative Sanction as Sole Check: You’re correct that the Fed’s primary accountability is to Congress, which can amend or repeal the Federal Reserve Act. This legislative check, combined with congressional oversight (e.g., semi-annual reports to Congress), is the main mechanism for control. However, this can feel insufficient if one views the Fed as wielding unchecked executive power, especially since repealing or amending the Act is politically and practically difficult. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly require all executive-like entities to be directly answerable to the President, but it’s a gray area that fuels debate.

Constitutional Dictates: The Constitution doesn’t explicitly address independent agencies like the Fed, which emerged in the 20th century. Critics, like you, argue this setup undermines the separation of powers by creating an entity that’s neither fully accountable to the electorate nor the President. Defenders counter that the Fed’s independence is a pragmatic necessity, not a constitutional violation, and that Congress’s authority to delegate such powers is well-established.

In sum, your view that Congress overreached has merit in the context of strict constitutional interpretation, particularly regarding executive accountability. However, the Fed’s structure has been legally sustained under broader readings of Congress’s powers and judicial precedent on independent agencies. The debate hinges on whether one prioritizes the Constitution’s original framework or accepts evolving governance structures. If you believe the Fed’s independence violates the Constitution, a legal challenge would likely need to persuade the Supreme Court to revisit its stance on independent agencies—a tall order given precedent but not impossible given recent rulings.
 
GtnL4JUWEAAKllN.jpeg

I wonder if things are getting Dicier than anticipated. Second article down in link is Bibi praising Trump and begging for help to end transgressions. Let's see what happens
 
Last edited:
It seems like America could sell the bunker buster bombs and a few B52 bombers to Israel.

We already sell them F35 fighter jets and just about every other bomb.

Let Israel do the work. Just like Iran uses Hamas, Hezbola, and Houthis.

America and Iran have always been in a a proxy war.

Ukraine is also a proxy war.
Bunker bister is a 30k bomb iir. A 15 ton bomb.
 



What would be the implications of a network being exposed by those files that includes him?

Why not?

Wasn't he the one that said he wanted to join the CIA?

Wasn't he the one who asked Hunter Biden to pay for his kids school?

Didn't Tucker Carlson have VIP status at Comet Ping Pong?

I think people are in for a very rude awakening that none see coming.

This is why I think Elon Musk attacking D. Trump by accusing him of being on the list was a very calculated chess move.

This opened up the conversation in a way that would exonerate D. Trump.

How?

Given that he is the US president with immense executive power his detractors would say he got his named scrubbed off the list if it dropped under his administration.

But if Iran dropped them which is currently considered a open enemy due to their supposed nuclear capability then it takes away the argument of tampering by his administration.

Are you all following me on this?

This makes me very pleased that the J. Epstein files were not released under Donald Trump.

Do you think this is the Trump Card?

Do you think this is Checkmate?

At this time I wouldn't be surprised if this will upend every one in congress who are pretending they are not compromised assets.

Thomas Massie being one of them.
 

em from Babylon.

While some of these newly installed priesthood families were half Israelite, many were proselytes. That is, they had converted to JUDAIC RELIGIOUS PRACTICES but they were not themselves Israelites.

These proselytes, who were not ethnic Israelites, later produced THE TALMUD, beginning about 1,200 years after Moses wrote the Torah, and 200 years following the death of Christ. The Talmud, which Orthodox/Hasidic Jews place above the Torah written by an actual prophet, is generally thought to have been written between 200 and 500 CE.

Yes, you are fully expected to believe that THE TALMUD produced by a lot of Babylonian Gentile converts to the Israelite religion, more than 1,000 years after Moses wrote the Torah, was transmitted ACCURATELY for 1000+ years until someone finally started writing it down.

And wouldn't you just know it, the Orthodox/Hasidic branches of modern Judaism hold the TALMUD over the TORAH.

Ever read the Talmud and compared it to something a divinely inspired PROPHET like Moses actually wrote? There's some EYE-OPENING stuff in that Talmud, lemme tell ya.

Now, let me COMPLICATE THIS EVEN MORE, OK?

A modern nation called ISRAEL was created by a bunch of super rich British elites and a lot of Orthodox/Hasidic Jewish people settled there - for very understandable reasons following World War 2.

And today American Christians are **deliberately taught** to conflate the ethnic Israelites from the 12 tribes Isaac fathered...with the modern secular government of Israel.

You have to approve, endorse, and support whatever the secular government of Israel does because if you don't, you are
 

em from Babylon.

While some of these newly installed priesthood families were half Israelite, many were proselytes. That is, they had converted to JUDAIC RELIGIOUS PRACTICES but they were not themselves Israelites.

These proselytes, who were not ethnic Israelites, later produced THE TALMUD, beginning about 1,200 years after Moses wrote the Torah, and 200 years following the death of Christ. The Talmud, which Orthodox/Hasidic Jews place above the Torah written by an actual prophet, is generally thought to have been written between 200 and 500 CE.

Yes, you are fully expected to believe that THE TALMUD produced by a lot of Babylonian Gentile converts to the Israelite religion, more than 1,000 years after Moses wrote the Torah, was transmitted ACCURATELY for 1000+ years until someone finally started writing it down.

And wouldn't you just know it, the Orthodox/Hasidic branches of modern Judaism hold the TALMUD over the TORAH.

Ever read the Talmud and compared it to something a divinely inspired PROPHET like Moses actually wrote? There's some EYE-OPENING stuff in that Talmud, lemme tell ya.

Now, let me COMPLICATE THIS EVEN MORE, OK?

A modern nation called ISRAEL was created by a bunch of super rich British elites and a lot of Orthodox/Hasidic Jewish people settled there - for very understandable reasons following World War 2.

And today American Christians are **deliberately taught** to conflate the ethnic Israelites from the 12 tribes Isaac fathered...with the modern secular government of Israel.

You have to approve, endorse, and support whatever the secular government of Israel does because if you don't, you are

Interview is extremely pompous. If I was interviewing someone and spitting off random questions, and the person being interviewed is able to generalize an answer then I can accept that.

Cruz is extremely smart. So is Tucker.

However, Tuckers an asshole and the laughing throughout the interview is infuriating.
 

well-thats-not-good-eugene-levy.gif
 



stfu Bill
 


 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom