The American Ruling Class

[dutchdivco]

Death spiral, but the what?

The 'talking heads' have used the term 'death spiral', (for ACA), as a kind of 'short-hand' for what we are seeing. It is aknowledged (sp?) even by supporters, that IF they don't get the 'right' % of 'young invincibles' signed up, to 'offset' the #'s of older and chronically ill, that ACA will go into this 'death spiral'.
IF this happens, there IS a provision in the law, (as I understand it); the Insurance companies will be 'reimbursed' by the Gov't., out of a 'fund' set up in ACA, for the money they have 'lost'. And, the Ins. companies will be forced to raise their rates, in 2015, as they look at the #'s from 2014.
They will raise their rates, not only on those getting policies thru ACA, but ALSO on those in company provided insurance. The more they raise their rates, the fewer people will enroll, as it will be priced beyond the reach of most.
WHAT then? No one is really talking about any kind of 'contingency' plan, for what to do then. Do they simply abolish ACA, and 'go back'? Or, do they propose, (I'm sure many liberals, who wanted this in the first place will!) that we go to a 'single-payer' system, i.e 'Nationalised' healthcare, where the Gov't is the payer. Everyone on Medicare, in other words. That will certainly be what will be urged.
Thing is, there are all sor of problems with Medicare; over 1 Billion $'s a year in fraud, going bankrupt even earlier than SS, payments to providers inadequate, and on and on.
So, thats no 'solution' to the underlieing problem, just as ACA didn't really address the problems it was said (and 'sold' to the American people) as solving.
And, this is the problem with Gov't; it doesn't usually 'solve' the problems, just creates new ones. And, many of the problems it creates seem to be insolvable problems; or problems where the only 'solutions' are un-doable, or politically undoable. And anyt proposed solution which can't be implenmentd is of coarse no solution.
What are 'they' or 'we' going to do then???
Haven't seen anyone talking about that yet, but with the writing on the wall, you would think someo, somewhere would be. Jim

[dutchdivco]

Oh, and By the way

My understading of the convoluted reasoning for the SCOTUS decision on ACA is foggy, but,..
Seems to me they (SCOTUS) said sometng about how the penalty, or the tax, (not sure which) couldn't be 'excessive' and if it became so they would be willing to re-visit the issue.
So, if ACA goes nto a 'death spiral', SCOTUS may get involved, as well, just to muddy the waters some more.
What a frigging mess! Jim

[rickoff]

Corp. U.S’. Myth 7:
The Government of the United States of America went bankrupt in 1933. Corp. U.S. Mythology

The Bankruptcy of The United States

The 'Bankruptcy' article pointed to in the above link is centered around a speech made to Congress by then Representative James Traficant of Ohio. I have always admired Mr Traficant for his courage to stand up in Congress and tell it like it is, regardless of the consequences for doing so. In fact, I stated my admiration in post #864. While nearly everything stated by Mr Traficant in the above linked 1993 speech was the absolute truth, he did err in stating that the United States government had been bankrupted in 1933. I'm sure the error was not intentional on his part, and that he simply did not fully understand what had transpired in the 20 year period between 1913 and 1933. While it is absolutely true that a bankruptcy occurred in 1933, the United States government was in no way involved in that bankruptcy, or in the promise to pay or failure to pay that led to that bankruptcy. All of that was the doing of Corporation U.S., a private corporation, not the federal government. Until 1913, all persons elected to fill federal government seats also served in a dual capacity as legitimate officers of Corporation U.S. This all changed with the unconstitutional and unratified 17th Amendment. After the national election of 2014, all original jurisdiction Senate seats were vacated, and those seats were only filled by officers of Corporation U.S. who held no legislative authority whatsoever. Therefore, these Corporation U.S. officers had no authority to enter into banking agreements on behalf of the Federal government. They acted only on behalf of Corporation U.S., which is solely responsible for any debts incurred as a result of defaulting on promises made in the agreement. The agreement itself was merely an agreement between two private corporations - Corporation U.S. and the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve Bank.

[Allcanadian]

@Rickoff

12 COMMON WORDS that could make the NSA think you’re a terrorist...
(Avoid using them in any e-mail if you don’t want to be flagged!)
Freedom
Bet
Chosen
Fraud
Codes
Eavesdropping
Government
Maverick
President
Propaganda
Spies
NSA

I mean no offence but I think the odds big brother is listening is practically zero. Now consider the computer your using then multiply the number of snafu's by a billion fold. The fact is most in government are incompetent (used car salesmen one and all) and have overhyped everything. Even if they were listening now and then I put them in the same realm as some degenerate spanking the monkey outside my window in the dark. Should I be concerned of what they might think of me or what I say, lol, no not so much.

Some other hype I heard lately was that the drone tech was based on UFO technology, lol. Wow, really because I have seen some drones and there systems and they are a flying garbage can. I mean if this is UFO technology then the aliens must have been retarded. The fact is most of what I have seen in reality is nothing like what is presented, not even remotely close. It is simply well marketed hype so people believe someone somewhere has their **** together. That is the big secret... most of them are completely incompetent and we continue to pay their salary. Which is priceless isn't it?, here we are all concerned about what their doing and even they don't know what their doing. Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction.

AC

[Allcanadian]

On another note I have theorized a machine which will change all of mankind. It will be devastating to whole economies and most all people including CEO's, government officials and the powers that be will tremble in fear at the very mention of it. It will wreak havoc, fire and brimstone on all those that oppose it.

What could it be?, a voice analyzing lie detector which is 100% accurate. Such a simple device which could be realized but having profound effects. Now imagine if everyone could tell instantly when another is being dishonest or deceitful. Why we wouldn't have to wonder who to believe be it the politician, the pastor, the salesman, the businessman... Hmm who to believe.

You see to say we believe is one thing but to honestly know it is true is quite another. I cannot help but think that if one were to build such a device 99% of our troubles would vanish overnight. It really isn't that difficult to imagine building one with our present technology is it and if everyone had one well we know what would happen. We would soon see who is peddling BS and who is not, lol.

AC

[5150]

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION - "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." [Hertado v. California]

(The reason that this decision is so powerful is that it means that any right which the People at one time freely exercised without any restrictions cannot be diminished or done away with by the imposition of any state or federal regulation which states otherwise. This principle of law is further expanded upon in the following SCOTUS decision):

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION - "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity." [Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham]
.

Ok so as a felon, how do you argue the fact the government, both state and Federal say I can no longer own a gun as I gave up those rights when I committed a crime? I might have committed a crime but at no time did I willingly give up my rights so how are those case laws you posted of any help?

Also what was the case law in Texas ? vs. State of Texas where the passenger in a car was not legally obligated to ID themselves if there is no suspicion of a crime

[aljhoa]

While it is absolutely true that a bankruptcy occurred in 1933, the United States government was in no way involved in that bankruptcy, or in the promise to pay or failure to pay that led to that bankruptcy. All of that was the doing of Corporation U.S., a private corporation, not the federal government. Until 1913, all persons elected to fill federal government seats also served in a dual capacity as legitimate officers of Corporation U.S. This all changed with the unconstitutional and unratified 17th Amendment. After the national election of 2014, all original jurisdiction Senate seats were vacated, and those seats were only filled by officers of Corporation U.S. who held no legislative authority whatsoever. Therefore, these Corporation U.S. officers had no authority to enter into banking agreements on behalf of the Federal government.

January 14, 2014 1:05 PM
"And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and
take executive actions and
administrative actions that move the ball forward..."
Obama On Executive Actions: ‘I’ve Got A Pen And I’ve Got A Phone’ « CBS DC

Al

[Allcanadian]

@5150

Ok so as a felon, how do you argue the fact the government, both state and Federal say I can no longer own a gun as I gave up those rights when I committed a crime? I might have committed a crime but at no time did I willingly give up my rights so how are those case laws you posted of any help?

If I was mad because I was a convicted felon and couldn't carry a gun I think I would just stop being a convicted felon, seems simple enough. Up here in Canada we just bludgeon people with baby seals which is much more practical and environmentally friendly. We also tape the seals mouth shut which is called a "silencer", kind of illegal. The baby seals also tend to get a little pissed off but hey there just baby seals.

AC

[Allcanadian]

Double post doh

[dutchdivco]

5150 and allcanada

5150;
You MAY be able to petition the court where you were convicted, to have your rights restored. In most jurisdictions in the U.S., IF your 'rime' wasn't a 'violent' crime, once a person has 'paid there debt to society', they can petition the court to restore their rights.

I know, I know, your brassed off, and don't think you should need to ASK the court for your rights.

Allcanadian; couldn't agree with you more, I tend to see the Gov't. as a bunch of fools, who couldn't pour p*ss out of a boot, with the instructions written on the heel, (as my dear departed Dad used to say). Jim

[aljhoa]

" 'paid there debt to society' "

"We also tape the seals mouth shut which is called a "silencer", kind of illegal. The baby seals also tend to get a little pissed off but hey there just baby seals."

Criminals Are the Product of Society

Al

[rickoff]

January 14, 2014 1:05 PM
"And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and
take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward..."
Obama On Executive Actions: ‘I’ve Got A Pen And I’ve Got A Phone’ « CBS DC

I have heard and read Barry's quoted statement several times, but he is wrong in thinking that the Constitution gives him the authority to skirt Congress and unilaterally write executive orders that are the equivalent of Congressional legislation. Michael Boldin, founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, does a very good job of explaining why Barry's understanding is flawed and constitutionally unsupported:

“In Article I Section I of the Constitution we learn that all legislative powers reside in Congress. The executive branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. An executive order is not legislation. It is an order issued by the president to enforce laws passed by Congress. This is backed by the declaration that the president ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress (which is only supposed to be passing laws in line with the Constitution), and not to issue new policy.” - Michael Boldin

[aljhoa]

I want you to go look at this case: Sullivan vs. U.S., et al. A 2003 case which clearly demonstrates federal judges are too cowardly to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and should be thrown off the bench by Congress.
Devvy Kidd -- 36 States Did Not Ratify 17th Amendment - What Will States Do?


Ghostbusters Theme - YouTube


Al

[rickoff]

Ok so as a felon, how do you argue the fact the government, both state and Federal say I can no longer own a gun as I gave up those rights when I committed a crime? I might have committed a crime but at no time did I willingly give up my rights so how are those case laws you posted of any help?

To answer that question I must first ask you a question:
Specifically what law do federal or state authorities cite to you as giving them the right to deny your Constitutional right to bear arms?

Also what was the case law in Texas ? vs. State of Texas where the passenger in a car was not legally obligated to ID themselves if there is no suspicion of a crime

Can you provide a link to the actual case you are talking about? Are you sure it is Texas v. State of Texas? That doesn't sound logical, although we must keep in mind that "Texas" and the "State of Texas" are two different entities. The first is the geographical and political area of the Republic of Texas, which became the 28th member to join the union of states known as the United States of America, in December of 1845. The second, the "State of Texas," is simply the name of a corporation. So if the case name is correct then it would imply that the People of the Republic of Texas had brought a case against the corporation.

You seem to be saying that the ruling in the case was that a passenger in an automobile can not be legally obligated to ID himself/herself if there is no suspicion of a crime having been committed. Is that correct? If so, the ruling would be a correct one because a demand to show i.d. without having supportive evidence affirming that a crime had been committed by that individual would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches. When asked to show i.d., the driver or passenger of a vehicle can legally refuse to produce such i.d. by citing their 4th Amendment right, questioning what probable cause the officer has to make the demand (in other words, what law does the officer have good reason to think has been violated by the motorist or passenger), and then asking if the motorist and/or passenger is being detained or is free to proceed on their way. An officer cannot rely upon mere suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to comply with probable cause the officer must be able to provide fact based evidence which supports such a conclusion - for example, a car matching your vehicle's description and plate number was reported as making a hurried departure directly after a liquor store robbery. Without such probable cause, an officer has no legal basis to stand upon for stopping your vehicle and questioning you. Also keep in mind that for a crime to have allegedly been committed there must be a party who claims that they are the injured victim of that crime. In the example just given, the liquor store operator would claim to be the injured victim, whether or not they were physically injured during the crime event. Even if not punched, stabbed, or pistol-whipped during the robbery, the liquor store clerk has been injured by being subjected to the trauma of the incident. The robbing of liquor and/or money would also be considered an injury, by theft, to the owner of the liquor store, as it has caused a disruption of normal business and resulted in a loss to the owner. Absent an injured party claiming to be the victim of a crime, and willing to sign a statement of such claim, there can be no claim that a law has been violated.

[Allcanadian]

@Dutch

You MAY be able to petition the court where you were convicted, to have your rights restored. In most jurisdictions in the U.S., IF your 'rime' wasn't a 'violent' crime, once a person has 'paid there debt to society', they can petition the court to restore their rights.
I know, I know, your brassed off, and don't think you should need to ASK the court for your rights.

You know when a person gets older we start to reflect on the past and make no mistake I did some really crazy **** in my youth. Just pushing the limits, trying to have a little fun and I got piicked up one night drinking and driving after a rally race, blew my motor. It's on my record and I left it there to remind me how stupid I was for all eternity. The fact is when we screw up and we all do there are consequences and how we deal with them matters. As such I think we have two choices, we can man up and accept the consequences of our actions or act like children and and pretend we didn't do anything wrong. I see way too many people wearing a three piece suit who belong in jail and regardless of what they say, what they do or what they own I am better than them. I know right from wrong and as a "responsible adult" I will accept the consequences of my actions in every case. Not because I have to or because of some law but because it is my choice and mine alone, I make it not them.
Which begs the question, what in the hell has happened to people?, why is there a complete lack of responsibility for our actions. In any case we have the choice to play silly games or not.

Allcanadian; couldn't agree with you more, I tend to see the Gov't. as a bunch of fools, who couldn't pour p*ss out of a boot, with the instructions written on the heel, (as my dear departed Dad used to say). Jim

It is bizarre isn't it?, there is this illusion of competence and control which people have come to believe is true however we should understand these are just ordinary people subject to all the flaws we as people have. I know one person who in now an MLA and to be perfectly honest I think he is a crooked SOB. I wouldn't trust him to change my tire but now apparently he is a noble politician of the utmost integrity acting on our behalf. He's probably smoking crack with the mayor of Toronto as we speak.

Which is comical in itself, the mayor of Toronto said "I did not smoke crack" even after the photo's came out showing he did. Then when he could no longer deny it he admitted that in fact he did smoke crack but he isn't an addict and he did it in a drunken stupor. So now he has admitted to being a drunk as well and then lied about drinking and driving as well as smoking crack. Now let's go over the facts we know, he is the mayor of Toronto, a habitual liar, a drug addict and a drunk.
I can accept the fact he's a basket case however I cannot accept the fact he may believe he has done nothing wrong or that he may believe he should still be mayor. As well I cannot accept that people in doing nothing have agreed that this is acceptable behavior for a mayor or anyone else.

The only word which comes to mind is FUBAR, and if everyone is going to do stupid **** then deny all responsibility for there actions you can be sure the degeneration of society will be sure to follow. I think many know this intuitively, we can't keep doing this or allow it to happen without it ending in disaster. It is natural law which supersede's our laws and is well documented in history. Unfortunately I don't think enough people have the balls to do the right thing anymore and we can expect it to get worse in the future, such is life.

AC