The American Ruling Class

[dutchdivco]

Rick

You posted
"This understanding is actually a common misunderstanding, Jim. The SCOTUS ruled that while it would be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause to mandate that everyone purchase insurance, it would not be unconstitutional under Congress' broad powers to impose taxes, and that the ObummerCare mandates were actually a tax. So keep in mind that the cost of purchasing a ObummerCare approved policy is the tax, and the fine for not buying a policy is a tax penalty. And as I have stated before in this thread, paying a tax penalty does not release anyone from their obligation to pay the actual tax amount. As long as the tax remains unpaid, interest fees and new penalty amounts will be added to what the person owes. It is astounding to me why it appears that no one in "government," the media, or the IRS, has made mention of this. I doubt that this factor will be made known to the public until after the first large wave of tax defaults has occurred. Folks will think they are getting off the hook by paying the tax penalty, but then they will get a bill from the IRS for the tax amount, interest, and a warning that if not paid by such-and-such date that a further penalty amount will be added."

Not doubting you, or what your saying. But how in the world will the IRS implement this. For instance; My wife and I DON'T get health insurance, for 2014. In 2015, when we file our taxes, the IRS says "Ah, you didn't have health ins. in 2014, so we are charging you the penlty of $95 or 1% of your income. But, we are also still going to collect the original tax, which would have been your premiums, had you purchased Insurance. But, had you purchased Insurance, there are a variety of different policies you COULD have purchased, from 'gold' thru 'bronze', and each policy would have different premiums. In addition, with your yearly income, you WOULD have qualified for a subsidy. So, we're going to assume that IF you had gotten coverage, you would have gotten a 'silver' plan, and the premiums would have been "X" dollars per month, less "Y" (the Gov't subsidy), times 12, and so you still owe a tax of "Z: dollars? Even for the IRS, with there complicated way of doing things, this seems rather unworkable. How can they possibly calculate what the 'tax' is that we owe, when the 'tax' is an insurance premium, and the premium depends on which plan we choose, and the IRS is 'charging' us the tax, because we DIDN'T choose?

Saw a 'news' story last nite, on ACA. It was making the point I made earlier; not only was o'bummer 'lieing' when he said "If you LIKE your policy and your Dr. you can keep them" to those with 'independent' policiies, he was also lieing to those on large company group plans, as such people on such plans, (like my wife) are finding either their co-pays, their deductibles and or their premiums are going up. And, this was foreseable consequence of o'bummercare.
It IS a trainwreck. It can't possibly work as 'constructed', and politics is such that there is little likelyhood of it being 'fixed'. But, what then? Can't/won't just 'scrap' it, and 'start over', its what,...1/6 of the economy? Insurance companies AND providers have made business plans based on ACA being 'the law', as have millions of consumers.

I am sure there will be those who will argue strongly that the ONLY way to 'fix' the mess is to go with a 'single payor' system, with the Gov't. being the single payor. And, if ACA has gotten us into such a mess, many MAY 'buy into' the idea that thats the 'only' answer.

By the way, exactly how will the IRS go about detirmining if someone who claims the religious exemption to ACA is 'qualified'? They certainly aren't going to 'allow' millions of taxpayers to avoid paying the tax or the penalty by claiming this exemption.

O'bummer certainly will go down in history, and not JUST for being the 'first black President'; in fact O'bummercare WILL be his legacy, and if its as bad a clusterf*ck as we all think it is, it may even supercede his race, historically speaking.Jim

[Mad Scientist]

And as I have stated before in this thread, paying a tax penalty does not release anyone from their obligation to pay the actual tax amount. As long as the tax remains unpaid, interest fees and new penalty amounts will be added to what the person owes. It is astounding to me why it appears that no one in "government," the media, or the IRS, has made mention of this.

Yes I believe that many folks that think they are going to get off with just paying the tax penalty are going to be in for a surprise. Hay Martha the gobberment people have just deducted a bunch of dollars from out tax refund. So now what will happen, will they just bend over and take it? I’m certain some will because who are we to question government.
But then there would be those that would look for alternative solutions. Such as reworking their W2 forms so that they are not owed any money at the end of the year. That way the government could not reach in and grab fist full before giving it back. But in addition to that consider what would happen if this year long continual trickle of money generated by the W2 withholding were to start to dry up and go away.

Could you imagine the names these people would be called because they are not willing to fund a bunch of corrupt politicians?

[rickoff]

The above needs no explanation, so I won't give any.

[aljhoa]

The above needs no explanation, so I won't give any.

Salute "To the lost sheep of the House Of Israel."

Al

[dutchdivco]

That is

EXACTLY what we are doing; 're-working' our 'withholding' form, in Jan., to have minimum taken out, so we will 'owe' at the end of the year, rather than getting a refund. We will 'bank' the difference, so we will HAVE the $, at the end of the year, to pay.
And we are prepared to take the 'religious exemption', and are even prepared to empty our bank accounts, so the IRS can't freese them.Don't own a house, (own our travel trailer that we live in), but i suppose IRS could attach wifes wages. We'll 'fight the good fight', and avoid submitting to ACA any way we can. Like everyone,we'll have to evaluate the situation as it develops, and make decisions and take actions based on what we percieve is in our 'best interests'.

The thing is, 'they', (the 'talking heads') keep talking about a 'death spiral' for ACA. IF the Insurance companies don't get enough Y/I's, (or people who don't use as much medical services as they pay for), to offset those people who use more services than they pay for, the premiums in 2015 will go way up, to the point that the premiums are un-affordable, even with the Gov't subsidy. This will be in 2015, when the Ins. co's have looked at their #'s of people enrolled and $ payed out. So, the IRS will begin collecting these fines and taxes when its too late to do any good, in terms of 'saving' the program.
IF at that point, your 'average' person/family is faced with rate increases which make it simply un-affordable, there will be massive cancellations,and the whole thing collapses.

At that point, the Liberals who have always favored a 'single payor' will start harping on the Insurance company profits, and saying THAT is the problem.

It isn't, of coarse. And so, a 'single payor' (Uncle Sam) WON'T 'solve' the problem, it will only make it worse. We WILL end up with 'rationed' healthcare, one way or another. One only has to look at the average time for a Social security Disability claim to be 'approved' (2-4 years, depending on location), to see an example of how the Gov't. will 'ration' healthcare. As bad as people can bad-mouth the private Ins. companies, (and well deserved), can you IMAGINE an Insurance company taking 2-4 years to 'approve' a claim? Jim

[5150]

EXACTLY what we are doing; 're-working' our 'withholding' form, in Jan., to have minimum taken out, so we will 'owe' at the end of the year, rather than getting a refund. We will 'bank' the difference, so we will HAVE the $, at the end of the year, to pay.
And we are prepared to take the 'religious exemption', and are even prepared to empty our bank accounts, so the IRS can't freese them.Don't own a house, (own our travel trailer that we live in), but i suppose IRS could attach wifes wages. We'll 'fight the good fight', and avoid submitting to ACA any way we can. Like everyone,we'll have to evaluate the situation as it develops, and make decisions and take actions based on what we percieve is in our 'best interests'.

The thing is, 'they', (the 'talking heads') keep talking about a 'death spiral' for ACA. IF the Insurance companies don't get enough Y/I's, (or people who don't use as much medical services as they pay for), to offset those people who use more services than they pay for, the premiums in 2015 will go way up, to the point that the premiums are un-affordable, even with the Gov't subsidy. This will be in 2015, when the Ins. co's have looked at their #'s of people enrolled and $ payed out. So, the IRS will begin collecting these fines and taxes when its too late to do any good, in terms of 'saving' the program.
IF at that point, your 'average' person/family is faced with rate increases which make it simply un-affordable, there will be massive cancellations,and the whole thing collapses.

At that point, the Liberals who have always favored a 'single payor' will start harping on the Insurance company profits, and saying THAT is the problem.

It isn't, of coarse. And so, a 'single payor' (Uncle Sam) WON'T 'solve' the problem, it will only make it worse. We WILL end up with 'rationed' healthcare, one way or another. One only has to look at the average time for a Social security Disability claim to be 'approved' (2-4 years, depending on location), to see an example of how the Gov't. will 'ration' healthcare. As bad as people can bad-mouth the private Ins. companies, (and well deserved), can you IMAGINE an Insurance company taking 2-4 years to 'approve' a claim? Jim

I'll have to give that question some thought, can I get back to you with an answer in about 2 years?

[rickoff]

How can they [the IRS] possibly calculate what the 'tax' is that we owe, when the 'tax' is an insurance premium, and the premium depends on which plan we choose, and the IRS is 'charging' us the tax, because we DIDN'T choose?

That's an easy one, Jim, and they won't wait until you file your tax return to let you know you owe them. Anyone who doesn't buy a plan before the deadline will get a notice soon afterward of their penalty amount. And since everyone must have at least a Bronze plan, those who don't buy a plan will be assessed on that basis.

By the way, exactly how will the IRS go about determining if someone who claims the religious exemption to ACA is 'qualified'? They certainly aren't going to 'allow' millions of taxpayers to avoid paying the tax or the penalty by claiming this exemption.

That one will be easy for the IRS too. If they don't already have them for 2013, they will ask for lists of "members in good standing" each year from all religious organizations that qualify for an exemption, and if you're not on the list then you don't qualify. If you were only a member in good standing for a portion of the year, then you are only exempted for that portion.

[dutchdivco]

5150 and Rick

5150; Good one, re: "Get back to you".
Rick; Back in High School, I had the 'hots' for a girl who was a "Christian Scientist", and so went to the church for awhile, as a way to get close to the girl. I don't recall them taking any kind of 'role' or anything like that.

Been awhile, but i'm not even sure they have 'priests', I THINK its like Quakers, where there is no one person 'in charge'. And, Christian Scientist is definetly a religion that should qualify for the exemption.

On the one hand, I realise IRS COULD/CAN do what you say. But, whenever I hear about a Gov't. 'mandate', I always think of the letters the courts send out here, notifying people of jury duty. The Gov't. lies to people, all the time. Letters make it SOUND like if you don't 'register' for duty, you'll be arrested. Even has statutes quoted, and printed in RED. Reality is the ONLY way they can arrest you is if you register, and then don't show up; since the letters aren't sent registered letter, there is NO way they can prove you ever got the 'notice'.

Anyway, the IRS can certainly TRY to collect this tax/penalty, SOME people will fight it, and we'll 'see what happens'. IF the whole thing collapses due to going into the 'death spiral', the tax and penalty will at some point become moot.

I see where small businesses aren't going to be able to shop on the exchanges, for a year, blah, blah, blah. Anyway, we're going to TRY to resist ACA, and we'll see what happens.

Polls are showing 61% of people against ACA now; I suspect those who will benefit from ACA already know who they are, i.e. chronicly ill and poor, so as enforcement takes place, # of those against will go up, whereas those in favor won't.

Bottom line is in any action of the Gov't, (thats not covert) the gov't needs at least the passive support/acceptance of a majority of the populace. I DON'T think they are going to get it, with ACA. And, as a small Gov't. conservative, I gotta say its rolll-out, so far, is a GREAT argument in support of minimal Gov't.

I'll be dragged kicking and screaming, and yes, I MAY end up paying the tax and the penalty. But I'm going to make them fight for it!
Jim

[aljhoa]

Oy Vey (Yiddish: אױ װײ)

Just In Time For Thanksgiving: Obama Exposes Roswell And Area 51 Secrets!: ROOT For America - YouTube

Al

[aljhoa]

Sephardic vs. Ashkenazi

The third rail of Jewish politics is not the Palestine question, or even the issue of secular against religious that has so divided Jews in Israel and the Disapora. No, buried deep inside the contentious issue of Jewish identity is the primordial split between European Jews, Ashkenazim, and Jews of the Arab-Muslim world, Sephardim.

The differences between Sephardim and Ashkenazim are not limited to geography. In the Middle Ages the chasm between the Arab-Muslim world and Christian Europe was vast. After the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of an Islamic one, Arab civilization was urbane, sophisticated, and deeply learned. The very foundation of the Sephardic Jewish culture was the intellectual synthesis of religion and science that can best be called "Religious Humanism."

Sephardim are often identified by their relationship to Christian Europe, even as the earliest strata of Sephardic Jewish culture is formulated in the Arabic language. The disdain of contemporary Jews for the Arab culture under the Zionist ideology has served to undermine the very model that has enriched Judaism over the course of many centuries.

Rather than seeing cultural integration as its preferred ideal, contemporary Jews seek to mark out their parochial territory and battle it out. These battles frequently spill over to become global contests, particularly in Israel where the Ashkenazi ideal of fractiousness has been taken to absurd extremes.

In terms of the Jewish future, the Sephardi-Ashkenazi split is of immense importance. Understanding the cultural differences between the two groups is vital for our political interests. Ironically, even the articulation of these differences has become a dangerous matter given the ways in which Ashkenazi Jews have come to dominate Jewish life the world over. The third rail of Jewish politics is one that has served to destabilize a civilization that at one time valued the Sephardic tradition as its most valuable model of cultural identity

David Shasha: Understanding the Sephardi-Ashkenazi Split

Al

[aljhoa]

Oy Vey (Yiddish: אױ װײ)

Total Control Of The United States │ The Israeli/Jewish Lobby │Full Documentary - YouTube


Al

[rickoff]

More info from Clint Hill......

You will remember that in post #4876 I talked about Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who ran from the left running board of JFK's Presidential limousine follow-up car when the shooting began, and climbed onto the back of the Presidential limo. I had posted what Clint had said about Jackie picking up a piece of JFK's skull from the trunk lid. Since that post, I have been able to find out a few more pertinent facts from reading some things Clint has included in his new book, Mrs Kennedy and Me. Clint explains that he had just reached the handhold bar, affixed to the back of the limo, when the fatal shot was fired, and then goes on to say, "a vile eruption of blood, brain matter, and bone fragments spews out, showering over Mrs Kennedy, across the trunk, and onto me. Mrs Kennedy, her eyes filled with terror, is crawling out of her seat and onto the trunk. Oh God, she's reaching for some material that's come out of the President's head. The car is beginning to speed up and if I don't get to her, she's going to be thrown off. I push her back into the seat. When I do this the President's body falls to the left, with his head in her lap. His eyes are fixed, and I can see inside the back of his head." [emphasis by Rickoff]

The words which I have bolded for emphasis are the most important to consider. The fatal headshot has been fired, and instead of a vile eruption at the front of the head, as depicted rather questionably in frame 313 of the Zapruder film, Clint Hill describes this as mostly occurring at the back of JFK's head and spewing out "blood, brain matter, and bone fragments" onto the trunk lid. Then Jackie crawls out onto the lid to retrieve a piece of the President's head (which she later hands to a doctor at the hospital).


This must be a sizable piece of skull and/or brain matter, and therefore considered as crucial to her, or why would she have risked crawling out onto the trunk lid to retrieve it? And if this all ended up on the trunk lid then clearly the blowout wound was at the rear of JFK's head - not the front. Had it been the front, she would have been picking up brain and/or skull matter from the car's interior. After Clint pushed Jackie into the back seat, he used his body as cover for Jack and Jackie, and looking down on the back of JFK's head, he says that he "can see inside the back of his head." Clearly then, this is not a bullet entrance wound as the Warren Commission Report would have us believe. And, as Clint wrote next in his book, Jackie looked down in her lap upon the back of JFK's head and shrieked, "My God! They have shot his head off!" How much clearer can it possibly be that the massive blowout exit wound was at the back of President Kennedy's head, just as reported by all the medical professionals at Parkland Hospital, as well as the x-ray technician at Bethesda Naval Hospital who viewed the wounds before the autopsy was performed?

The Zapruder film does not show a rear skull blowout, so it is rather evident that the film has been altered to hide this, and to attempt to visualize a massive front blowout. James Files stated that one of his assassin teammates shot Kennedy from the rear a split second before James fired the shot from the front which violently rocked Kennedy's head backwards and caused the rear skull blowout. If you look at the photo in post #4906, you see that the rear head shot barely moved JFK's head forward, and must therefore have come from a smaller caliber, lower velocity gun, or far less powerful load, than the front kill shot. In the frames which follow #313 we can see the head violently lurch backwards and bounce off the seat back, but the rear blowout is not seen. This obviously reeks of government fraud and cover-up.

In summary, everything Clint Hill said totally supports the James Files story as well as the true medical evidence, and further blows away the faked autopsy report and Warren Commission's lone assassin theory.

[rickoff]

Quotable quote of the day....

"The history of this country proves one important truth--when we trust the American people to solve the problems we face, they always come through. Every retreat from government leads to prosperity. It happened when we reformed welfare in the 1990's. It happened when Ronald Reagan cut taxes and massively reduced federal regulations. It happened when John F. Kennedy cut taxes. We won two world wars, and we won a nation with cries for freedom and a rag-tag army under George Washington.

That should be the message for the next year--put the American people back in charge. Let them solve our problems. Pull back the Obama agenda and turn it over to the people. They know how to turn this around--not some pointy-headed intellectuals and politicians and bureaucrats in Washington." - Congressman Tim Huelskamp

[dutchdivco]

Rickoff

You have eloquently elucidated what has occurred to me for along time. And I wonder if, even if many haven't verbalised it, this MAy be one of the main things, that cuses most Americans to doubt the official story.
As you said, if the shot was from the back, why was jackie scrambling to recover parts of Jacks skull from the BACK of the Limo?

I was alive, and remember he assasination. I remember that at first there was speculation that Jackie did what she did, cause she was just trying to get away, i.e. "My God, they're going to kill us all!"

And, I recall the media making it clear that she wasn't trying to get away, she was trying to recover body parts. Now, either this was a 'spinning' of what happened, for "P.R." purposes, or she was really back there to try to recover parts of Jacks skull. After the initial speculation, it seems like most are agreed she wasn't simply 'baling out', but WAS trying to get pieces of him, (although that seems a little 'lame' to me, as I doubt there was much the Dr.'s were able to do with whatever she recovered).

Assuming thats what she was doing, it doesn't take a lot of analyses, its not rocket science; to the average person, its pretty obvious; the 'kill shot' HAD to have come from the front, in order to blow out the back of his head. To me, (and I suspect to most people), that single inconsistancy with the 'official' explanation is 'enough'. And, I don't believe anyone has given a CREDIBLE explanation to explain away THIS inconsistency.

Its SO obvious, that (again I wonder if some people haven't analysed it in depth, they just kind of 'get it', that this CAN'T 'make sense', even if they haven't figured out WHY.

Think of situations where someone is lieing to you; quite often you KNOW they are lieing, even tho initially you don't know WHY you know they are lieing. After much questioning, verifying/refuting facts, you are able to 'prove' they are lieing, but initially it was more instinct, not 'logic'; you just KNOW that 'something isn't right'. And I THINK, in your post, you 'hit the nail on the head'; all the other stuff, like the mystery bullet, and all the rest, is ephemera that the naysayers can argue over. But this is 'physics', that every person can clearly understand. You shoot a mellon, there is a small entrance wound, and a massive exit wound, blowing out much of the back of the mellon. NO WAY the 'kill shot' can have come from the back. Any eight year old kid (my age at the time), can 'see' it.Jim

[Mad Scientist]

Two really excellent videos in my opinion on the right to keep-an-bare-arms and why we need them.

When Resistance Becomes Duty - YouTube

Why Good People Should Be Armed - YouTube

Something that those that shot JFK probably don't think you need to know about.