http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekSxxlj6rGE

I think politics should be more like this...

I think Obama Girl won this round.

Actually he does have to be qualified, citizens are not allowed to break the law, which his actions were. Go out and buy drugs adj4u, get arrested and tell the cops you were trying to bust drug dealers, see what happens to you.
He has nothing to show his intent was truly to capture terrorist online.
Think this duck is a duck

adju4,
Nice of you to try and twist the words. In association or of the US does not make a difference. You are just trying to play on words.

Also nice of you to leave out thing... From your first link:

"The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense on official
documents, acts and/or laws; includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa."

"United States
controls: interstate trade, foreign relations and commerce, customs
administration, control of air, land and sea, immigration and emigration,
nationality and citizenship, currency, maritime laws, military service,
military bases, army, navy and air force, declaration of war,
constitutionality of laws, jurisdictions and legal procedures, treaties,
radio and television--communications, agriculture, mining and minerals,
highways, postal system; Social Security, and other areas generally
controlled by the federal government in the United States. Puerto Rican
institutions control internal affairs unless U.S. law is involved, as in
matters of public health and pollution. The major differences between
Puerto Rico and the 50 states are its local taxation system and exemption
from Internal Revenue Code, its lack of voting representation in either
house of the U.S. Congress, the ineligibility of Puerto Ricans to vote in
presidential elections, and its lack of assignation of some revenues
reserved for the states."

PR is not a state, I never said it was, it is a commonwealth of the US as the US governs it overall and it is bound by US Supreme court.
Just because the citizens do not pay federal income tax, does not change their status. They do not have the right to vote because of this, based on the foundation of our country, taxation without representation, however they are bound in all other aspects.
Again all people born in PR are also US citizens. They retain all rights of US citizens.

Thus PR is a commonwealth of the US, whether you like it or not.

Based on your logic DC is not part "of" the US because it is not a state or commonwealth.

Now, since you have nothing of substance to say about the original SMO post regarding the location of the IRS, I will assume your only purpose of these last few posts were to show you know something, just not anything relative.

"on you attacking and slandering me saying i am ignorant
plz refrain from personal attacks as they are against the rules"

Pointing out ones ignorance is hardly a personal attack, it is a logical observation based on the posts you have made and the lack of knowledge you poses on the subject. Your going and finding information that does not actually support your own statements does not show knowledge of the subject, just your ablility to find information afterwards.
Your lack of prior knowledge before your posts and making uneducated posts is ignorant.

adj4u,
In case you only believe not governmental sites..
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3684/history.html

adj4u a commonwealth does not have to be a state. Thanks for showing your ignorance of the topic.
You guys really should study up, this is not new news, it is 50+ years... You are really showing you lack of education which really makes you other claims more fantasy than anything else.

Keep digging, maybe you will find the pot of gold some day.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html

Smo,
You really crack me up with your ignorant statements.
The Federal Reserve Board is located in DC.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/virtualtour/tour.cfm

The IRS is located at:
1111 Constitution Avenue DC.

Even if it were located in PR, it would not matter as PR is a commonwealth of the US. People born in PR are US citizens, they have congressional representation etc...

There is really nothing to figure out, other than the fact you are duped by those that make stuff up an try to make other believe it to be the truth.

This purpose of this topic is clear, to propogate lies hoping that a small percentage will take it at face value.

More liberal spin with no evidence.

Great reply davinci, shows your true spirit of free speech.
How about, if you don't like my replies, don't post?
Sucks when your words show your true self.

Davinci,
Thanks for the good laughs on this Sunday.
I am going to relinquish my Freemasons membership now.

adj4u nice try again, taking things out of context. The regulator board is one part of the whole system.
Try looking at the whole Fed and not just the parts you want and think support your argument.

Let's pose the opposite question. Are regulated entities government owned?

adj4u,
Again, you pose speculation as fact, in which your one link contratdicted your own statements, which you selectively pulled out of context the part that would like like it supported your arguement.
Fact Lincoln was assasinated, I do not need proof of that.
However the claims made about the Fed, are just that claims, backed with no evidence.
Supposision does not make fact.

As for the nuclear regulatory committee questions, the committee is government operated, as I said with the truckers. However ownership of nuclear plants are open.
There is no "owner" of the fed as it is part of the government.
The nuclear regulartor committee sets guidelines on the running of nuclear plants etc. however the the Fed answers to Congress. Nuclear plants do not answer to Congress that have set rules they must meet in order to continue operation.

Either way still does not show whether or not the Fed is privately owned or not. Just inferences.
Some people see what they want even if it does not exist.
This is a hallucination, as is the concept that you and davinci are trying to pass off as fact.

Kid,
It is not much of a secret. There are those that would try to make it seem as such, but making accussations and false statements...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/fract/

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frseri.htm

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bios/

Again nothing of substantiating proof that the Fed is privately owned. As I said before there are member banks, that does not mean ownership.

And noting the source is not much stock other than to try and draw inference.
"Source: ** Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence ** - - Published 1976"

Do you have a link to a report from the Directors of the Federal Reserve from 1976 that supports the document?
Or is the title source some essay written and titled Federal Reserver Directors...."?

I am still waiting for evidence...

adj4u,
Thanks for leaving out the next line.

"Unfortunately, Mullins' source for the stockholders of the New York Fed could not be verified. He claimed his source was the Federal Reserve Bulletin, although it has never included shareholder information, nor has any other Federal Reserve periodical. It is difficult researching this particular claim because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders. The question of ownership can still be addressed, however, by examining the legal rules for acquisition of such stock. The Federal Reserve Act requires national banks and participating state banks to purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank upon joining the System, thereby becoming "member banks" (12 USCA 282). Since the eight banks Mullins named all operate within the New York Federal Reserve district, and are all nationally chartered banks, they are required to be shareholders of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. They are also probably the major shareholders as Mullins claimed."

As for stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks, again they do not have control of anything other than earning dividends and borrowing money.
There seems to be a lack of knowledge on the Fed here.


Davinci, foreign investors are fine because it is more money accessible to loans.

The control of the Fed is still congressionally controlled.

The Federal Reserve Banks are still only a part of the Fed and the article :
"An historical example may make clear that member banks do not control the Federal Reserve's policies. Galbraith (1990) recounted that in the spring of 1929 the New York Stock Exchange was booming. Prices there had been rising considerably, extending the bull market that had begun in 1924. The Federal Reserve Board decided to take steps to arrest the speculative bubble that appeared to have been forming: it raised the cost banks had to pay to borrow from the Federal Reserve and it increased speculators' margin requirements. Charles Mitchell, then the head of National City Bank (today known as Citibank), which was the largest shareholder of the New York Federal Reserve Bank according to Mullins, was so irritated by this decision that in a bank statement he wrote, "We feel that we have an obligation which is paramount to any Federal Reserve warning, or anything else, to avert any dangerous crisis in the money market" (Galbraith, p. 57). National City Bank promised to increase lending to offset any restrictive policies of the Federal Reserve. Wrote Galbraith, "The effect was more than satisfactory: the market took off again. In the three summer months, the increase in prices outran all of the quite impressive increase that had occurred during the entire previous year" (Ibid). If the Fed and its policies were really under the control of its major stockholders, then why did the Federal Reserve Board clearly buck the intent of its single largest shareholder?"

So thanks for praising that article that you obviously did not read Davinci.

The Closing Statement:
"It does not appear that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned, either directly or indirectly, by foreigners. Neither Mullins nor Kah provided verifiable sources for their allegations, nor did their mysterious sources agree on exactly who owns the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Moreover, their central assumption that control of the New York Federal Reserve is the same as control of the whole System is wrong and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the System's basic organizational structure. The profits of the Federal Reserve System, again contrary to the assertion of Kah and Schauf, are funneled back to the federal government, not to an "international banking elite." If the U.S. central bank is in the grip of a banking conspiracy, then Mullins and Kah have certainly not uncovered it."

I would venture to say that the Mullins or Kah could easily be replaced with Davinci in the closing statement.

adj4u you analogy with the trucks is incorrect. The truck is privately owned. The use of must meet certain guildlines, both federal and state, that control usages and safetly. The truck owner does not directly answer to the government.
Where as the Fed answers directly to Congress and is regulated through the Federal Reserve Act, which Congress can amend as needed to control the Fed.

Davinci,
Just because people write about things does not make them fact.
I ask for simple proof, not opinion.
The Fed is not privately owned as it is part of the government with congressional oversight. I have yet to see any evidence proving that it is privately owned.
There is inferences being drawn, that becuase there is a BoD and "stocks" issued for the 12 reserve banks that it is privately owned.
The BoD is there to perform the running of the Fed and was designed so that there is overlap of several administrations to prevent a single administration of changing the system.
To draw those inferences are nothing more than opinion.
The "stocks" are not a tradeable comodity, a requirement of membership. They hold no cash value.
You bring speculation and opinion and try to pass it off as fact. You hope the uneducated buy into your "facts". That is spinning.
All I ask for, just like any other post on here, is for evidence of peoples assertations. Oddly enough I do not get much.
You ask me for evidence, I am not the one trying to purport assertations, accusations and opinion off as fact, I am questioning those that do.
Continue with the liberal spin and stop paying your mortgage and get back to me in a year when the goverment has forgiven all your debt and given you your house for free.

After reading many posts on here I have noticed the large use of liberal spinning to try purport opinion as fact. Steve from ThreatsWatch has nailed this same example down with our media.

http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2007/07/honing-the-message/

Terrorist, the excuse does not add up. Additionally what would qualify him as a person to weed out terrorist on the Internet? What would he have been able to do if he had met with actual terrorists?
Typically people involved in these type of operations are known to intel community and working with them, there is no record of this guy.
He is nothing more that a domestic terrorist with a greedy agenda of trying to pay his past due child support, which he probably would not have paid anyways.
Probably would have gone down to the new casinos just outside of Wilkes-Barre and blown it.

Belushi,
The US has been poised to strike Iran & Syria since the Iraq invasion. If you look at a map of the region we created a triple offensive. Considering most of the terrorists filtered in from those two countries, it really isn't a far stretch for us to attack them. The key is the liberals have tried to deminish our military in the staging area.
We have divided, next is to decimate. That is one of the reasons Iran and Syria have been so backseat.
For 40+ years they have used the Palestinians for their warfare campaign. One of the key reasons there will never be a Palestinian state as this would end their proxy soldiers.
Iran and Syria have been attacking Israel through the Palestinians all along, just the liberals cannot see it.

Davinci, do you have any proof that the fed is owned by private people or is this another spin of yours?

The reserve is not the fraud, the people that do not understand how it works are the fraud. Misinformation is the key to the fraud.
SMO you provide a prime example with your gold example. If you knew anything of how it worked you would never make such an uninformed statement. Read what I wrote in my first post. We started leaving the gold standard in the forties, we were completely out of it by the end of the sixties. Thus the fed cannot owe anything based on gold since it is no longer our standard. The Fiat standard is the problem, money supported by investor value not backed value. Unfortunately most of the world has moved to the Fiat standard and abandoned the gold standard. Until we go back to the gold standard the problem cannot be solved. Not paying will not work, they will put you in jail one at a time. Additionally as I stated before, I am sure key information is missing from article. That key information is the real reason the bank lost, not the fact that the guy just did not feel he should have to pay.
Wake up and get a clue, the system is the one we live in and is far fairer than most systems in the world. How about a system where you own nothing, have no inheritance for your kids etc...
There are many of those out there.