The Israel Deception

Is the return of Israel in the 20th century truly a work of God, or is it a result of a cosmic chess move to deceive the elect by the adversary?

Showing posts with label court ruling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court ruling. Show all posts

Monday, September 12, 2016

Why invest in gold? Because contrary to popular belief, the government can end the insolvent Social Security at any time

Prior to FDR's creation of Social Security in 1935, people relied upon their families to take care of them in their retirement years.  And in fact, there were no expectations of a 'benevolent government' using the General Welfare clause of the Constitution to do for them what was their responsibility since the beginning of time.

But with the advent of Social Security, the government opened the door to a whole myriad of programs to virtually take care of people from cradle to grave, and has used the power of taxation to force everyone to pay into it whether they wanted to, or even needed to at all.

It is now 80 years later following this momentous act passed during the height of the Great Depression, and because of a combination of Demographics and Congressional greed, the program is insolvent and by some analyst's measures, could be completely bankrupt as early as 2017.  And the real question that has to be asked is, is the government responsible for providing these retirement benefits no matter what, or can they simply dissolve the program at will if they decide they can no longer afford to pay for it?

The answer unfortunately may scare some people, because the question itself was resolved back in the 1950's by the Supreme Court.

Most people see Social Security as a contract between themselves and the government. You pay money into the system, and the system pays it back at a later date—guaranteed by law. 
But nothing could be further from the truth… 
You have no choice when it comes to paying your Social Security tax. It comes out of your paycheck automatically. 
But did you know the government isn’t under the same rigid contract? 
In fact, by ruling of the United States Supreme Court, the federal government is under no obligation to pay you a Social Security check. 
This is the clear precedent set in the case of Flemming v. Nestor
Ephram Nestor was an immigrant from Bulgaria. He moved here in 1918 and paid Social Security taxes from the very beginning of the program in 1936. 
In 1955, when he retired, Nestor began receiving Social Security checks for $55.60 per month. 
But, just one year later, Nestor was deported. Turns out, he’d been an active member of the Communist Party in the 1930s, giving the U.S. government grounds to kick him out. 
When he was deported, his Social Security checks stopped. Nestor sued the U.S. government, arguing that, since he had paid money into the program, he had a right to those benefits. 
The Supreme Court ruled against Nestor, saying the government had the right to terminate Social Security at any time. 
The people who sign the Social Security checks sum it up this way: 
[Nestor] appealed the termination, arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right. 
Takeaway: You have no contractual right to Social Security. 
That historical precedent means it has the power to cut Social Security anytime it wants. - Casey Research
So while politicians deceive everyone into thinking Social Security is guaranteed to them for the tens of thousands of dollars they have paid in taxes to be eligible for a retirement payout, the truth of the matter is Congress's only obligation is their right to tax you as they see fit, and even to keep on taxing you whether they pay out social security benefits or not.

And it is why nothing has ever changed in life... and it is you and I who are responsible for our own retirement savings programs.

Got gold?

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Legalized theft: Italian high court rules it is not against the law to steal food


Laws are put in place in a society to both lay down legal and moral boundaries, and to ensure that a citizenry does not fall into anarchy when they find it easier to commit a crime than to work honestly towards a solution.  And perhaps no greater example in recent days could be with the establishment of transgender bathroom rights, which just days after their legalization had both stalkers and sexual predators abusing this politically correct edict.
And now in Italy, a new ruling by their high court has made it no longer a crime to steal food from any and all retailers if the individual claims only that they were hungry.
Stealing small amounts of food to stave off hunger is not a crime, Italy’s highest court of appeal has ruled.
Judges overturned a theft conviction against Roman Ostriakov after he stole cheese and sausages worth €4.07 (£3; $4.50) from a supermarket.
Mr Ostriakov, a homeless man of Ukrainian background, had taken the food “in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment”, the court of cassation decided.
Therefore it was not a crime, it said.
A fellow customer informed the store’s security in 2011, when Mr Ostriakov attempted to leave a Genoa supermarket with two pieces of cheese and a packet of sausages in his pocket but paid only for breadsticks. - BBC

Read more on this article here...

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Bitcoin gets a victory in Europe as EU courts rule it is to be treated as money

On Oct. 21, Bitcoin got a strong victory from an European Union (EU) court ruling that termed the crypto-currency as money, and as such should not be taxed as either a commodity or collectible.  This ruling, as opposed to how the U.S. courts have suggested Bitcoin is an investment rather than currency, opens the door for much greater use and acceptance in the Eurozone, and in commerce for countries mired in inflation and sovereign currency issues.
Bitcoin rose in value against most major currencies after the ruling, and has over time stabilized despite attacks from sovereign regulators who have tried to both negate and destroy the currency in the eyes of the public and in retail transactions.

Read more on this article here...