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 supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. 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?

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Au contraire Virginia, Congress can evoke bailouts during any financial crisis

In the aftermath of a negative public reaction to the bailing out of banks with taxpayer money following the 2008 Credit Crisis, Congress passed a law in which future crises in the financial system would be settled using the bank’s own customer accounts in what would become known as a bail-in procedure.
Yet on June 13, the possibility of a taxpayer bailout of a financial institution or sovereign government came back to the forefront as the Supreme Court ruled today that the territory of Puerto Rico does not have the authority to default on their debts, and only Congress has the power to legislate bailouts to aid or satisfy the obligations.
BAILOUT

Friday, May 29, 2015

New Supreme Court ruling on pensions could pave way for government to take them over

In a new and what appeared on the surface to be a fairly innocuous Supreme Court ruling last week, the high court determined that employers do have the right and responsibility for ensuring company based 401K plans are managed well, do not have inordinate fees, and perform profitably.  However, within this decision regarding Tibble v. Edison International, the Court also added a bombshell that could lead to the eventual ending of state sponsored retirement benefits, or even the confiscation of your funds at the national level.
 

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

While Congress waffles, 17 states decide to go to court over Obama’s immigration order

Despite the complete turnover in both Houses of Congress since 2010, the Republican led leadership has become little more than a limp dishrag when it comes to challenging the Constitutionality and legality of Barack Obama’s immigration programs.  But in a move that shows that many states have become extremely fed up with the political shenanigans in Washington, 17 of them signed on for a joint lawsuit condemning Obama’s most recent Executive Proclamation allowing for mass amnesty, and are seeking to have it overturned in the Supreme Court.


Read more on this article here...

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Supreme Court and Obamacare: Get ready for small businesses to close their doors

The Supreme Court on June 28 provided the impetus for the end of Constitutional government when they ruled that Federal agencies under the auspices of the Commerce Clause and the right to tax can force any and every citizen to do whatever they see fit.  Under Obamacare, the big winners are Big Pharma, and Big Health organizations.  However, the big, big losers are small businesses, which will start to close their doors en masse, as the ability to pay for universal healthcare destroys their capacity to function in the economy.



•OBAMA'S HEALTH-CARE OVERHAUL UPHELD BY U.S. SUPREME COURT
•5-4 decisions, with Roberts joining the court's liberals.

•Court says federal government can’t threaten to withhold money from states that don’t fully comply on Medicaid extension
•CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS SAYS MANDATE IS NOT A VALID EXERCISE OF CONGRESS' POWER UNDER COMMERCE CLAUSE AND NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE

•HEALTH LAW'S MEDICAID EXPANSION LIMITED BY U.S. SUPREME COURT -RTRS
•ROBERTS, JOINED BY TWO JUSTICES, SAYS MEDICAID EXPANSION VIOLATES CONSTITUTION -RTRS

•FOUR JUSTICES DISSENT, SAYING THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT GOES BEYOND -RTRSCONGRESSIONAL POWERS UNDER CONSTITUTION -RTRS
•ScotusBlog conclusion: So the mandate is constitutional

•The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read
•The ACA is upheld as a tax, not a penalty - Zerohedge

Be prepared fellow Americans.  The mandates on your lifestyle by the government have just begun.  Even as Mayor Bloomberg in NYC is trying to force people to drink less soda, and consume less salt, so now will the Obama administration's war on obesity become a festival of 'taxation', allowing their ideologies to become reality in forcing you, and your fellow citizens to do whatever policies they feel you should.