The American Ruling Class

[aljhoa]

Ben Swann Reality Check breaks down the Affordable Care Act ruling by the Supreme Court and
looks at why the determination that the law is a tax, may make it invalid
Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid? - YouTube


Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look the expanse of drones over U.S. soil and
how they will affect your 4th Amendment right
Reality Check: Government Drones Over U.S. Soil Violating 4th Amendment Rights? - YouTube


Al

[dutchdivco]

My (Limited) understanding

Forget what O'bummer said to George, or what the MSM said, or what the 'Legal experts' said in opinions prior to the SCOTUS ruling.In written and oral arguments, in Lower courts and before SCOTUS, 2 arguments as to the Constitutionality of the mandate WERE presented; Under the Commerce clause, AND under the Constitutional authority of Congress to TAX; Scotus could use EITHER argument.

Beyond that, there is much that STILL isn't clear; this 'tax', or penalty, is goin to be collected the following year, when you file your income taxes. Suppose you only get health insurance for some PART of the year; are they going to 'pro-rate' the 'fine'?

If they initially take the attitude that the 'purpose' of the fine is to motivate people to get insurance, then they probably won't charge you the 'fine', if you get it SOMETIME during the year; so, what happens if someone GETS insurance on Dec. 23rd. and cancels it on Jan. 5th?

As currently written, the fine cannot exceed 2.5% of your income; is that 'gross', or 'net'? Even if its gross, there are many with 'modest' incomes, where the fine will be significantly less than the cost of the insurance premiums, unless you really believe premiums are going to drop, considerably, as a result of this law.

WHAT kind of policy coverage, is necesary, in order to NOT get the fine? For example, what about a 'high deductible' policy? Is THAT considered 'sufficient'?

If someone is on Medicare, is THAT considered 'Health Insurance' that 'qualifies'? If NOT, "Hold it; you mean the 'health insurance' the Gov't gives to Seniors, and the Disabled, DOESN'T 'qualify'? WTF?

Then there are all the 'unintended' consequences of this Law, some of which may not be so 'unintended'. Will employers decide paying the penalty is easier and cheaper than paying premiums, and en mass stop offering health insurance to their employees. Was this actually the agenda of those writing the Law, who were WANTING a 'single payor' plan; First get employers out of the equation, then thru price 'fixing' force private Insurance companies out, so that by de-facto we are left with a Government run single payor plan?

That may not be so 'unintended', at all. But, there are always REAL 'unintended' consequences of any Law, and the more broad and all encompassing, more 'comprehensive' the law, the more broad and encompassing the truly 'unintended' consequences will be.

At any rate, they are going to have to come up with more than a 2.5% fine, in order to 'force' me to pay an insurance premium; they will 'collect' such a premium when they pry the check from my cold, dead fingers! (at which point the whole issue will be kind of moot, don't you think? For ME, at least!)

By the way, Rick; I 'clicked' on the previous link, about 'Drake'; and read it and closed the window, and came back to this thread, to try to post this responce; I proceeded to get bombarded with at least 30-50 'warnings' one after the other, saying this 'window' or whatever, contained 'possible security threats' and asking me if I was SURE I wanted to proceed. Supposedly from 'Internet Explorer'. Don't 'usually' have this problem, on this thread ?Jim

[rickoff]

As currently written, the fine cannot exceed 2.5% of your income; is that 'gross', or 'net'? Even if its gross, there are many with 'modest' incomes, where the fine will be significantly less than the cost of the insurance premiums, unless you really believe premiums are going to drop, considerably, as a result of this law.

Actually, Jim, the taxed fine would be 2.5% of annual income (and the feds always use the gross figure) or $695, whichever is greater. So actually $695 is the minimum taxed fine. This means that if a person earns less than $27,800 per year they will be paying out a higher percentage of their income than the person who earns $27,800 or more. Is that fair? I'd say not. For example, a person who has a meager income of $10,000 per year would be paying a tax fine equal to nearly 7% (6.95% actual). No matter how this would be worked out, the greatest burden would fall upon the lower middle class, whom Barry promised he would not raise taxes upon. Promise broken, just like all the rest. Lies, lies, and more lies.

You are right, in that administration lawyers did present the Obamacare mandate as being a tax, or more specifically a tax penalty. It is rather interesting to listen to the actual words spoken by Corporation U.S. solicitor general Donald Verrilli in answer to a question from "justice" Elena Kagan, who had asked if a person could be considered to have violated a federal law if they did not purchase the insurance, and opted to pay the penalty instead. Verrilli's answer was, "No. If they pay the tax then they are in compliance with the law." To this, justice Stephen Breyer then said, "Why do you keep saying tax?," after which several of the justices immediately laughed out loud. Upon this outburst of laughter, Verrilli then qualified his statement by saying, "If they pay the tax penalty then they are in compliance with the law." So in other words, everyone seemed to agree that the fine for failing to purchase insurance is a tax penalty, not a tax. And it is clearly understood that you pay a tax penalty when you fail to pay a tax that is due. So then what is the actual tax that is involved? In Obamacare, the cost of healthcare insurance is the tax that is paid. That has to be the tax, as no other cost is involved other than the cost of the healthcare insurance, or the penalty for not buying it. But wait a minute, in all other issues regarding tax payments, even though someone pays a tax penalty, they still owe the amount of the tax itself, and I doubt that this scenario is any different. If you are expected to pay a tax then you don't get out of it simply by paying a tax penalty that is due for not paying, or paying late. I think people would find out later on that they still owe the original tax (healthcare insurance cost), plus any additional penalties that accrue until the actual tax amount has been paid. Of course no one in Washington, or the mainstream media is going to talk about that at this time, because 2014 is still a ways off, and no need to get people riled up even more than they already are. Those who assume they will come out ahead by simply paying the tax penalty are probably in for a big surprise, imho.

By the way, Rick; I 'clicked' on the previous link, about 'Drake'; and read it and closed the window, and came back to this thread, to try to post this response; I proceeded to get bombarded with at least 30-50 'warnings' one after the other, saying this 'window' or whatever, contained 'possible security threats' and asking me if I was SURE I wanted to proceed. Supposedly from 'Internet Explorer'. Don't 'usually' have this problem, on this thread ?Jim

Yes, that seems to be more of the same thing I was talking about earlier, even though I was talking about e-mail message contents being blocked for the reason that the e-mail provider (hotmail.com by Microsoft) termed the messages as looking "suspicious." I don't use Internet Explorer any more, as it is too slow to load up and slow to surf with. Instead, I use Firefox, which is much faster and less trouble prone.

[rickoff]

Your thoughts do you think this is for real, is the Excrement about to hit the rotating ventilator, or is it just another false alarm? In any case we apparently will not have to wait long to find out.

Notes for Drake Call of 6/27/2012 » The Global Voice

Hi MS,

The "notes," although disclaimed for not being posted by personnel from that website, do seem to mirror what "Drake" actually stated, and a great deal of what he talked about is right on the mark, and in line with my own postings here. On one point, he was incorrect in stating that Audit The Fed had passed unanimously in the House. In actuality, it only passed in the House oversight committee, and has not yet been voted on in the full House. Even if it does pass a full House vote, the Senate will surely strike it down, or water it down as they did last time around by passing the very limited version offered by self-professed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Aside from that, I agree with most of what "Drake" is saying, but am more than somewhat reluctant to believe that "Drake" has been chosen by ET's to deliver this news to us, or that the US military is preparing to carry out a coup d'etat against the Corporation U.S. government sometime between now and midnight tomorrow, which would be the timeline if it were to occur "this week," as "Drake" had stated.

Now, with that said, I do believe that the US military (or at least most of it) understands that Corporation US is no longer a valid government, and that the Constitution which military personnel swear an oath to uphold and defend is being trashed by those in Washington. You may remember that, in a post I wrote several months ago, I quoted Eric Madsen, who had spearheaded the effort to restore our constitutional, original jurisdiction state and federal governments. I will re-quote him below, as what he said does thoroughly support the idea that the military will in fact stand behind the people if an effort to restore an original jurisdiction government is completed successfully and lawfully. Note that Eric ran for, and became, the first original jurisdiction governor several years ago, and since that time has become an original jurisdiction US Senator, appointed to that office by the original jurisdiction Colorado governor who followed up his term. Currently there are original jurisdiction governors lawfully serving terms in nearly every one of the 48 original jurisdiction states, and the effort for full restoration is expected to succeed this year, especially if true American patriots will get behind the effort and do what is needed to ensure complete success. Anyways, here is what Eric said about his role, and the military response to it:

I lawfully accepted the election and was seated in the original jurisdiction Governor’s seat. At that same time, Roy Romer was elected as Governor of the more commonly recognized private corporation known as, “The State of Colorado” (Corp. State). The Corp. State courts then started to subpoena me to come and testify as the Governor of the original jurisdiction Republic State. I responded to most those subpoenas and so testified. After finding it next to impossible to beat us in court, the Corp. State’s sub-corporation, Arapaho County, determined that if they could get funding from the United States Congress they could possibly beat us. On review, Congress sent the matter to the National Security Council who handed the matter over to the Military’s Joint Chiefs for review. About two weeks later, the Chief of the Joint Chiefs responded, “What Governor Madsen is doing out there in Colorado is legal, lawful and correct; and, if they accomplish what they have set out to do we will recognize that President of The United States of America as the President of The United States of America, Commander in Chief of the military and give them full military support.” Though the National Security Council is purely an advisory committee, having no legislative or judicial effect; the fact remains, they recognized the truth and responded with it to Congress who sent the supplicants away without funding; after that, the Corp. State started to leave us alone. The Corp. State and its courts, the United States 10th District Court, the United States Congress, the United States National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of the United States of America’s military all recognized, reviewed and accepted my election as the original jurisdiction Governor of Colorado. - Eric Madsen

Some of the major points concerning what will happen once the restoration effort is completed are stated by Eric as:

The results will be: All federal personal and corporate income taxes will cease! We will go back on the gold and silver monetary standard (which the nation never left but Corp. U.S. did). The alleged National Debt will be ended and what is owed to us will be returned. The Fascistic Regime operated by Corp. U.S., which they call a Democracy, will be peacefully and lawfully ended in favor of our national Republic’s Laws. This will happen when Corp. U.S. is brought back into our nation’s ownership and control. The real national government will be reset on our Constitution. All of your rights will once again be recognized and secured. Private Land will once again be secure to the individual sovereign nature of the people as their own private kingdoms. And, we will have our nation back! - Eric Madsen

[aljhoa]

John Arthur Taylor Jr.
is a member of a group of 'sovereign citizens' looking to rewrite the Wyoming constitution.
Interview by CS-T's Tom Morton.
at Vmix : 'Sovereign citizen' John Arthur Taylor Jr.


Al

[aljhoa]

Propaganda is a 1928 book by Edward Bernays. It argued that the scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in society:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. [...] In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons [...] who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)

Born 1891 in Vienna to Jewish parents, Bernays was a double nephew of psychoanalysis pioneer Sigmund Freud. His father was Ely Bernays, brother of Freud's wife Martha Bernays. His mother was Freud's sister, Anna.[3] In 1892 his family moved to New York City, where he attended DeWitt Clinton High School.[4] In 1912 he graduated from Cornell University with a degree in agriculture, but chose journalism as his first career. He married Doris E. Fleischman in 1922.[citation needed]

Bernays, working for the administration of Woodrow Wilson during World War I with the Committee on Public Information, was influential in promoting the idea that America's war efforts were primarily aimed at “bringing democracy to all of Europe". Following the war, he was invited by Woodrow Wilson to attend the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.
Edward Bernays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



2008 Mitt Romney vs AP reporter Glenn Johnson
Another Romney gotcha. The main stream media put this moron as leading the GOP lineup. I say "Ron Paul 2012" and do away with all these idiots in both partys.
Romney loses cool with reporter that catches him in a lie - YouTube

Newt Gingrich: Frankly, not Mitt Romney's biggest supporter. - YouTube


Al

[dutchdivco]

Maybe

John Roberts did us all a favor? In calling a 'spade' a 'spade'; he called the penalty a tax; so, first of all, any Politician who is in favor of it, is in favor of imposing a tax; not a 'GOOD' thing, if your wanting re-election.
Beyond that, I heard a little bit of a speach by Reagan in an old movie. It was 'classic' Reagan, he was pointing out how this country was founded by a revolution over TAXATION, and specifically taxation without representation.

If Congress passes a 'tax', that over 50% of the population are against, even 2 years later, that sure sounds like 'taxation without representation', to me!

There are a LOT of 'details' and ramifications of this abominable 'act' which will only come to light over time, assuming its not repealed. And I for one am not at all convinced it will be repealed, if Romoney 'wins', and becomes figurehead Pres. of Corp. US.

Ironically, they did NOT write it into the law, that if you refuse to get insurance, you are in violation of any Federal law; the IRS IS 'empowered' to collect the penalty, by witholding from your 'return', or even 'siezing' your bank accounts, but they CAN'T prosecute you for anything.

So, if you wanted to be really 'hard core' about it, set things up so you owe tax (at the end of the year), and pay all but the 'penalty'. And, do without bank accounts; AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, the IRS would have little recourse. Of coarse this can be changed, by amending the law, and probably few will be willing to go to such extreme measures. Actually, they may even be 'able' to address this in the future thru IRS regulations, rather than by Law.

Liberals in favor keep saying 'they' didn't do a very good job of selling the unaffordable healthcare act, which is incorrect; the problem is, the product they are trying to 'sell' is SH*T! And it doesn't matter how you package it, or how much you try to use fancy gimmicks, SH*T is STILL SH*T, and no one wants to buy it!

Like everything else, we'll just have to see what happens. I find it very hard to fathom that, like Social Insecurity, this Unaffordable Healthcare Act will stand the 'test of time', and still be in place in 10,20, or 50 years.Jim

[rickoff]

John Roberts did us all a favor? In calling a 'spade' a 'spade'; he called the penalty a tax

You're still not quite getting it, Jim. The "tax" is not the penalty. The tax is the amount that people must pay to buy health insurance in order to comply with the mandate, and the penalty is what is assessed against people who do not pay the tax by purchasing the mandated healthcare insurance. This 51 second video should make that quite clear. And as I said earlier, as with all other taxes, you will not be in compliance with the mandate until you do pay the insurance premium, and even though you pay the penalty assessed for not paying the tax on time, you will still continue to owe the original tax amount (cost of healthcare insurance) plus any and all penalty fees that continue to accrue until the tax is paid. This should be obvious to taxpayers, since this will be treated no differently than any other tax - if you owe a tax then you must pay it at some point in time or continue paying penalties until the tax and the penalties are paid in full.

Ironically, they did NOT write it into the law that if you refuse to get insurance, you are in violation of any Federal law; the IRS IS 'empowered' to collect the penalty, by withholding from your 'return', or even 'seizing' your bank accounts, but they CAN'T prosecute you for anything.

Not quite right, Jim. Prosecution, imprisonment, and fines for non-compliance are all clearly written into the law. A person will not be breaking the law, and cannot be prosecuted, as long as they pay the penalties when they are assessed by the IRS, and within the short time period the IRS allows for compliance, but if an individual keeps avoiding the payment of the tax then eventually the compounding penalties will amount to more than the original cost of buying the insurance, and then each following year the next insurance (tax) payment will be due and a further round of penalties will begin to add up, being piled on top of the tax and penalties you already owe, and so on until the person can no longer afford to pay assessed penalties as scheduled, at which time the IRS can and will prosecute, and take charge of whatever assets the non-complying individual has left before (or after) sending him to prison. Think about it, everyone. This should be as plainly seen as the nose on your face. The O'bummer administration isn't going to disclose this until after the November election, of course, and probably not until 2014, and I don't see this being talked about anywhere else than here, but people need to be made aware of the truth about this devastating and sinister plan.

[Mad Scientist]

Right on.
Bit by bit and little by little many people are slowly being reduced to nothing more then castrated slaves who will only do what their master tells them. If they get upset at all they might say “OK this time I will vote for the other party” which as we have seen never has produced any real change.

So OK let’s bring on all these mass arrests and see if that that might have an effect.

[aljhoa]

Maybe I'm a real sucker, but I do not swee what Rockefeller said, or implied, that was at all sinister. Fulford really had to use his imagination to make those types of conclusions. Rockefeller seems like a nice old gentleman to me. Somrbody tell me what I am missing here.
davidrstarr 1 month ago
Benjamin Fulford inteviews David Rockefeller (illuminati) - YouTube

Al

[wayne.ct]

Two world views

People should realize that there are two basic worldviews and they have a significant impact on how they individually relate to world events. (I am trying to address the 2007 Rockefeller interview.)

For simplicity, I would clue you in by calling one the "religious" and the other "secular". If you want to take an extreme view, call the first Christian and the second Atheist.

Use your intuition, education, family or acquantances as your reference and put Rockefeller, Obama, Romney, Michelle, Nancy, Holder, etc. on the scale and see where you think they fit. Learn history, study, and above all, think about things. We need more genuinely good people in government or things will only get worse.

[Mad Scientist]

Somrbody tell me what I am missing here.

Maybe this:

The reform is not new. It started in the early 1900s when John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s Director of Charity for the Rockefeller Foundation, Frederick T. Gates, set up the Southern Education Board. In 1913 the organization was incorporated into the General Education Board. These boards set in motion “the deliberate dumbing down of America”. In Frederick T. Gates’ “The Country School of Tomorrow” Occasional Papers No. 1 (General Education Board, New York, 1913) was a section entitled “A Vision of the Remedy” in which he wrote:
“Is there aught a remedy for this neglect of rural life? Let us, at least, yield ourselves to the gratifications of a beautiful dream that there is. In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful (??) and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.”


Consider the words of David Rockefeller:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

Really???

[aljhoa]

Valdi Sabev - Changes - YouTube

Valdi Sabev - We Are Free - YouTube

Al

[dutchdivco]

Clarification Rick

I think the (Un) Affordable Care Act is an abumination, (Obamanation?), just trying to look for 'siver linings'any where i can.
For instance, since the SCOTUS now clearly has identified the Individual mandate as a TAX, that SHOULD mean that it will only take 51 votes, in the Senate, to amend or overturn, instead of 60 votes.
This is because certain TYPES of bills, such as Taxation and (I THINK) appropriations can be dealt with by (shoot! I forget the name) anyway, by a different process,and only requires 51 votes.

Anyway, Obummer BAD, Romoney no better, and perhaps (if possible) even worse! Obummercare terrible, and only one more in a long series in the march towards too much Gov.

"A Government that has the power to grant citizens their every wish/need, ALSO has the power to withold the same!"

Just not convinced that "They" (The Ruling Elite, whatever you want to call them) who have been; making/breaking, and where necesary assasinating) Kings, Prime ministers and Presidents, "Buying/Owning" Congresses and Parliaments, having Laws written or circumvented, manipulated public opinion, medias, and markets, started wars etc. all for their collective profit/aggrandisement, around the world and for generations, is going to STOP such activities, and 'roll over', because 537 people show up in D.C., on November 23rd, 2012, and declare THEY are the 'True, Constitutional representatives of the people. EVEN if these 'representatives' DO have the support of the military.

I do not see 'THEM' as 'going quietly into that good night'. 'THEY' will only give up power when it is wrested from them, I suspect.

But I HOPE I'm wrong! ;-) Jim

[rickoff]

I like that bankster game, Minoly. Everybody should have one. Most of the faces in that picture were instantly familiar to me, and I'm sure that I should know who the fat cat serving up a slice of the world to David Rockefeller is, but for some reason it escapes me at the moment. Probably because he looks like so many fat cats. And perhaps that is what he is there for - just as an image representing all the Wall Street and bankster fat cat elitists, rather than a single individual. I'm not sure, though, so if someone has the answer then please share it. I like the paper "money" that they appear to be using in this game, and it features the same fat cat dude. He has kind of a WC Fields look about him, without the usual hat worn by Fields. Whoever designed this play money did a great job at it, and there's a lot to be seen if you look at it closely. For example, look at the round area at the left side. On a Federal Reserve note (FRN) you would see a similar round area showing the "Great Seal of The United States, with an eagle clutching a 13 leaf olive branch on the left and 13 arrows on the right, with a banner in front of the eagle having 13 stripes, an image of 13 stars arranged above the eagle's head, and the words "E Pluribus Unum" just below that. The idea, of course, is to make FRN's appear patriotic and official so that they appeal to the public. That's why an image of a famous President is also seen on the front of each FRN. The 13 stars, stripes, leafs, and arrows, represent the 13 original states. Now look at the paper money used in the bankster game. The stars are replaced by a damaged Pentagon, E Pluribus Unum is replaced by "NEW WAR ORDER," the eagle is two-faced, and clutches opium poppies and syringes on the left and missiles and an automatic weapon on the right. The banner in front of the two-faced eagle is actually a NYC skyline showing the twin towers, with a smoke filled sky above them. Notice "PAY ME" inscribed below the fat cat bankster, and the "Department of Deception" seal at right, which replaces the Department of The Treasury seal, with the word "LIE" printed over it and portraying a skull and bones. Also notice "The Uninformed State of Denial," which of course replaces The United States of America. The bottom line, of course, is the very telling words, "This Bogus Note is For All Debts of Working Slaves Public and Private," which of course lays it all on the line just as it really is. Very clever, and just how the FRN's should read if they were telling us the truth. There's even more to be seen, actually, such as the oil well towers "sprouting" at the left and right sides of the fat cat bankster picture. The purpose of the "500 Billion" note denomination is of course to help people realize that the unimaginably wealthy Ruling Class bankster elites would regard this as chump change, just as we would regard a one dollar FRN. The big difference is that THEY know full well that FRN's are worthless, while most of the public has not yet come to that understanding. And that is why nearly all of the Ruling Class elite holdings are in gold, as portrayed on the game's cover picture.