Quote:
Originally Posted by pjorourke
Let me guess. You have about 20% of your assets invested in gold and canned goods right?  |
Not me
but I have taken to some foreign investment. It seems that as the dollar declines, some foreign investments soar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ANONONE
...Hamilton was amazing and if we had kept his pure form of the organization we would not have all these problems, but Wolcott (who was really a puppet of Jefferson and Madison) screwed the pooch and got us into our first pesky floating debts and the inflation cycle...
|
Hamilton was an agent to the Rothschild's in Europe. Jefferson et.al. were opposed to a national bank and Washington was duped into establishing the first "national" bank in 1791. Jackson, "killed the bank" as he stated on his death bed. Nathan Rothschild, of the Bank of England, then threatened, "Either the application for the renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.”
Jackson and the American patriots did not believe the power of the international moneylenders could extend so far. “You are a den of thieves-vipers,” Jackson told them. “I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out!” Nathan Rothschild issued orders: “Teach these impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to Colonial status.” His goal was to bankrupt the US and in 1812, England declared war against the US.
The second bank was established in 1816 bringing us back under foreign banking interest. Abraham Lincoln needed to fund the Civil War and was being forced to borrow money. He reread the Constitution and told the congress to do their job and issue "Green Backs" to pay soldiers. Conpiracy Theories abound here that Boothe, who was already upset about the Emancipation, was contracted by the bankers in Europe to assassinate the president.
There are some in the US that fought against private banks and monopolies for a long time. By it's very definition the Fed, a private bank, is a monopoly.
--------
To the original point of the post, I think women should do what they want. If they want to be a housewife it's their choice. if the want to be in the workforce, let them have parity.
However, if a woman chooses to be a housewife, there is nothing wrong with it and they should be treated with the same amount of respect as those in the workforce.
If circumstances drive a housewife into the workforce, then both husband and wife should share the responsibilities she took on as just a housewife.
Humans are to be cherished. Your definition seems sexist.
