View Single Post
  #23  
Old 07-03-2012, 06:09 AM
Conrad Conrad is offline
Networker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
Well Guys...This has nothing really to do with Health Care...I did some research and discovered WHY the Supreme Court would contradict the Constitution...and that is...in short, since the culmination of the American Civil War, the "Union" of States has inflated into a "Government" of States.

This is evidenced in two ways...first, The Federal Over-ride of the State Government on almost every level, and secondly, and most importantly, those insitutions based on this Federal Government are attached to it.

If the Federal Government collapses...so will the Supreme Court...

So I wondered what could be of such benefit to the Government that the Supreme Court would rule to protect itself...or more likely its future.

Barack Obama DOES NOT WANT YOU TO BUY HEALTH INSURENCE...what he wants for you is to fail, or refuse...because then you will pay the Federal Government money...He has imposed, what he hopes will be a tax on every single American...The Supreme Court wont rule against this, because in these hard times the Federation NEEDS money...

Its WORSE then forced Insurence...its nothing short of gunpoint theaft. Buy something you dont want, dont need, and cant afford...or give me your money...which can be spent on ANYTHING.

Here is the thing....You Federal Government is well beyond its design brief...There has been little to no State Assertment since the Civil War...look how before the civil war it wasnt about two rival political parties...it was about the soverignty of the individual states.

A True American should realize that the real Tyrany the US Constitution was designed to stop vanished when the Union had to defend itself against the Confederacy, and became something it was not supposed to be...a war time footing might have been needed to win the war...but did someone forget to tell them that the war, once over, meant whatever they had done to coordinate multi-state action should have been reversed again

You MUST start thinking of yourself as fifty SOVERIGN STATES....Your Federal Government, shouldnt even meet each day!! Your President only Exists to mediate between State on State indecision, and is only a benefit to the international world. You are a Hive Mind...A Convention....

The true irony of this who affair is...the Federal Government shouldnt even be discussing this sort of matter!!!!!

...and I do truely blame it on the Civil War/imediate successor Administrations.

If your individual States do not have the power, and thought for themselves to constantly fight for their STATE Rights, to the extent the Southern States did...then they have already given their powers away to Washington...

You will need a Revolution to get them back now....or a complete Reformation of the Federal Government


Dave, I'm proud of you. You've clued into several things that many Americans miss, including that the Federal government is "beyond its design brief." Great phrasing, btw!

Regarding Federal over-ride of State law. That's actually a big part of where the Federal govt has over-stepped it's boundaries. There is supposed to be a division of jurisdiction, defaulting anything not specified in the "brief" to the States. Now, it's being done differently. So, if a State wanted to impose these same regulations, it may actually be Federally Constitutional because that imposition would be left up to the individual State.

Also specific to the healthcare bill, the way Judge Roberts interpreted the law is as unprecedented as the law itself. In my state, if I choose to drive a car, then by law, I must be insured, whether I buy it or am covered on another plan is irrelevant. How I'm covered is between the insurance company and the individual buyers. Our state has simply declared that I must be covered in order to drive. The State will still license me to drive (as a skill set) whether I have the insurance or not. It is illegal for me to exercise that license without insurance. So, I can own a car and be licensed to operate it, but cannot drive legally without insurance coverage. The only way to avoid buying (or someone buying) the "product" (insurance) is by me simply choosing not to drive. If I break that law, they don't tax me, they fine me. If I don't drive, they neither fine nor tax me. They are saying that I must buy a product (insurance, I know it's really a service, but get over it) based on my own decision to drive.

In the case of healthcare, I didn't choose to be born. I can't "choose" not to have a body without killing myself. A tax in imposed on the subjects (or citizens, there's a difference) simply for being alive. This is what Roberts is leaning on. However, this is being imposed in a perverse manner. The imposition of the "tax" is based on not-purchasing a product, to coerce the individual for the benefit of corporations. I can't choose not to have a body like I can choose not to use a car. This is so twisted.

It was tossed around by public critics, "experts" who get news interviews, that other countries have government issues coverages paid for by taxes. That methodology is NOT what this enormous law enacted.

You are right in your observation that this is to impose degradation. It's always about control and power, anymore. In the 60's, a document came out called the "Iron Mountain Report" that the conspiracy nuts went..., well, went nuts over. From the pages I've read, it's likely the result of government sponsored research (if genuine) and regards how to subjugate the US population. National health care is mentioned as a step toward Universal ID carding, global citizenry, and defaulting on the debts to the banks (e.g. Federal Reserve/Bank of England) as property. By birth certificate, under the terms from 1933, the population is collateral. I would not say that the Iron Mountain Report is necessarily good information, but the co-incidence is alarming.

Oh, and since you commented on it, for more on the difference between what the US was build on, pre-Civil War, and how we went from individual, anti-imperial freedoms (in contrast to the globalist control of British naval trade routes) to Anglo-American Globalist Imperialism, see the film "1932" on LarouchePAC.com, here
http://larouchepac.com/1932 This explains everything you said about the Civil War. Edit: When the film focuses on FDR, after the 50% mark, don't get the idea that I think everything FDR did in the New Deal was appropriate or consititutional or whatever. The primary point about FDR in the film was that he was anti-imperialism. It's too bad that an example of Big Government comes from FDR as well.

Then see "The Takedown of Glass-Steagall" here:
http://larouchepac.com/gsfilm You'll hate Ben Bernake after that, as well as he predecessors.

Edit: With those two, see if you can get your hands on a copy of the 1996 film, "The Money Masters." These put together, with another that I can't remember the title and a few good books, explain 75% of everything. I'm really picky about recommending anything, and question a lot of statements made. If you have a chance to read "The Secret Side of History" by Zahner from 1994, that will help. No ISBN on that book. It's from JBS (and don't let JBS know you exist either ;) ). Zahner ties together a Biblical view of man with the effects of abandoning that view for communism, pre-Marx. (Yes, Communism preceded M&E.) It explains, therefore, how the USA was differentiated from France in the ideologies and deception that drove the revolution. The same deceptions are being played out today in the USA.

Note: I don't squarely recommend Lyndon Larouche. He went insane around the time of the assassination attempts on him--who can blame him. Before that, he was a little odd, but actually got some stuff right in his assessments and predictions. Repeatedly, I keep going back to saying, "Wait, Larouche was right back when he said..." He now functions with a very tight, unhealthy personality cult around himself. If you question anything, even for the sake of obtaining clarification, you're treated like a threat. He has some good researchers under him, but that's about as good as it gets. Check their material, but don't let them know you exist. Stay flexible. I hope this reply is worth your time.

(OMIGOSH that was lengthy...sorry...my mind just kept daisy chaining from concept to concept that Dave touched on. My bad.)
__________________
"Be the trouble you want to see in the world."
-- Not-quite-Ghandi

Last edited by Conrad; 07-03-2012 at 07:47 AM.
Reply With Quote