Category Archives: Tyranny

Death Spiral: 6.5 Million People Choose To Pay Tax Rather Than Buy Obamacare

For those who still aren’t convinced that Obamacare is trapped in an inescapable death spiral that will inevitably end in nothing short of an epic collapse of the federal and state health insurance exchanges, perhaps you should consider the following facts from the National Review and Mark Farrah and Associates.

–  Four heavily promoted open enrollments have taken place run by the Obama administration and the state exchanges.

–  Federal law has required people to purchase insurance or pay a fine — and the individual mandate was administered through 2016 by the Obama administration. In fact, in 2015, 7.5 million people paid the fine, while 6.5 million paid the fine in 2016, according to the IRS.

–  Every one of the people in the insurance market earning less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level were eligible for premium assistance — and those below 250 percent of the poverty level were also eligible to have their deductibles and co-pays subsidized.

–  After all of this, only about 40 percent of those eligible for subsidies have signed up for coverage. In what other business or government program would such a dismal acceptance by those it was targeted to serve be considered a success?

–  The number of insurance companies participating is on track to shrink by 38 percent in 2018.

And then there is the chart below…if people really saw “value” in Obamacare wouldn’t you expect that more than 2% of the people who don’t qualify for subisidies would sign up?

Finally, I will suggest the real test of whether a health-insurance program is stable is whether the consumers for whom it is intended believe that it provides them with value. Here is a chart of the take-up rate on the federal exchanges under the Affordable Care Act; excluding the “Over 400%” category, all of these individuals are eligible for subsidies. This chart represents data from last year, but with only a 4 percent reduction in those purchasing on the exchanges between 2016 and 2017, it should remain a fair indication of consumer approval of the program.

The health-insurance industry has long considered a 75 percent take-up rate to be the gold standard in evaluating whether an insurance pool is stable — i.e., whether there are enough healthy people signed up to pay the claims of the sick. While the exchanges appear to have achieved this for the lowest-income consumers — those who get the biggest premium subsidies and also have their out-of-pocket costs subsidized — only 17 percent of those making 301 to 400 percent of the poverty level have signed up.

https://i2.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2017/08/09/2017.08.09%20-%20OCare1.JPG

Still not convinced, how about this?  The “off-exchange market” (i.e. people who make too much money to quality for subsidies and whose premiums are required to subsidize everyone else who does qualify) contracted by 2.1mm in 2016, or a 29% drop.  With those kind of declines, it’s only a matter of time until there are no more rich fools in the pool willing to continue subsidizing a broken system.

Also, MFA published the same report in 2016, facilitating a year-over-year comparison. The on-exchange market fell from 12,681,874 to 12,216,003 individuals, a reduction of 465,871 or 4 percent. However, the off-exchange market fell from 7,520,939 to 5,361,451, a reduction of 2,159,488 or 29 percent. In other words, enrollment is steady among those who receive subsidies but declining dramatically among those who do not.

Much has been made of the question of whether the individual markets are in a “death spiral.” Given that the on-exchange market enrollment is relatively stable, there is clearly not a death spiral in the subsidized market. However, with a reduction in the unsubsidized market of 29 percent in just one year, that pattern certainly looks like one we would expect in a market spiraling down.

Meanwhile, of course, that 29% drop exactly why insurance companies are expected to hike their rates by 20-40% in certain markets again in 2018…

https://i1.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2017/08/02/2017.08.02%20-%20ACA_0.JPG

…and why rates have soared an average of 113% over the past 4 years, or nearly 30% per year.

Source: ZeroHedge

Russian TV Begins To Educate Its Citizens About Rothschild ☭ Global Power

https://i0.wp.com/anonymous-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/s-2-5-696x358.jpg?zoom=2

A weekend news broadcast, aired on Russia’s Channel 1 on April 2, 2017 reports on the history of the Rothschild family, using Nazi propaganda footage and antisemitic caricatures.

The item, which was broadcast following the death of American banker David Rockefeller, purported to shed light on another wealthy international banking dynasty, the Rothschilds.

The use of Nazi propaganda footage – and moreover, without explicitly mentioning the Nazi regime – is unusual in public broadcasts on Russian media. The broadcast describes the major conspiracy theories regarding the Rothschild family, claiming that it is part of an international Jewish plot to take control of the world.

The MEMRI TV clip has translated excerpts from the original news item.

Source: NWO Report

 

2A Foundation Issues Travel Advisory: Your Gun Rights Are No Good in ☭ California

On August 7, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) issued its first ever travel advisory warning American gun owners not to go to California unless they are willing to enter the state disarmed or risk going to jail.

The gun rights group is “warning law-abiding armed citizens that their civil rights could be in jeopardy due to that state’s restrictive gun control laws.”

SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb observed:

The California Legislature has been out of control for years when it comes to placing restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens. Right now, I wouldn’t suggest to any gun owner that they even travel through the state, much less to it as their final destination.

Lawmakers in Sacramento either ignored or have forgotten that in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment in SAF’s landmark case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments, but they seem rather oblivious to that fact in the halls of California’s Legislature.

He added:

If you are licensed to carry in your home state, that license is not recognized in California. It doesn’t matter how many background checks you’ve gone through or whether you took a gun safety course. Your license is no good in the Golden State, which suggests that your safety and the safety of your family are of no concern to state lawmakers or city administrators. You could be prosecuted for having a gun for personal protection, or you might get killed because you didn’t.

Gottlieb is spot on. California refuses to recognize any concealed carry permit other the one they issue. This is an expression of Democratic hegemony whereby they have made concealed carry licenses extremely difficult for Californians to acquire — fewer than 100,000 Californians have a license — and they do not want to provide a means for additional law-abiding citizens to be armed via reciprocity.

What does this mean? It means that when a visitor from another state drives into California, he is not supposed to be armed, regardless of the number of out-of-state concealed permits he possesses or the risks associated with being defenseless. None of these things matter because the Democrats have spoken.

Gottlieb’s verdict: “By not going to California, the life you save may be your own.”

By AWR Hawkins | Breitbart News

Foreign Youtuber Expose US Congress Filled With Treason

“What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we’ve been fighting to destroy?” — Sen. Padme Amidala

All Americans live in an unaccountable police state. Make peace with resistance because our choices are rather stark.

https://www.infowars.com/congress-to-investigate-wasserman-schultz-it-aide-scandal/

… the following demonstrate once again that they, the investigators and investigated are all in on it, against America together.

Arrest The Sanctuary Mayors Now

(Vdare) Every civil war has a Fort Sumter moment—a point of contention over which disputing factions stake a political claim and refuse to budge, leading to all-out war. And in this Cold Civil War through which we are now living, the growing hostility between President Donald Trump and sanctuary state politicians will inevitably produce such a confrontation; probably within the next year. [Attorney General Sessions Raises Stakes for Sanctuary Cities, by Pete Williams, NBC, July 25, 2017] If Donald Trump is wise enough, he can capitalize on the situation in much the same way that Abraham Lincoln capitalized on the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter during the first Civil War.

The attack on Fort Sumter in 1861 is often portrayed as an act of unprovoked aggression on the part of the Confederacy. But the truth is more complicated than that. Fort Sumter was not simply a military installation, but a Union tax collection office perched in the center of Charleston harbor.

The Morrill Tariff, which was widely supported in the North, but vehemently opposed in the South, was signed into law by President James Buchanan two days before Lincoln took office. The legislation promised to triple the import tariff, and was especially burdensome on the import-dependent South. The challenge, for Lincoln, was that the Confederate South no longer considered itself obligated to pay any tariffs to the Union government.

In his Inaugural Address, President Lincoln directly responded to this challenge and insisted that he had the full authority to collect all tariffs owed to the federal government, by force, if necessary. (Lincoln also insisted, incidentally, that he was perfectly willing to maintain slavery).

President James Buchanan—long regarded, perhaps unfairly, as one of our weakest presidents—had sent a supply ship to Fort Sumter in January, 1861, but the ship immediately turned around after being fired upon. Lincoln, therefore, surely knew that the Confederates would attack again when he ordered a small fleet of ships to resupply Fort Sumter in the spring of 1861. He even sent a delegate to the governor of South Carolina to inform him that the ships were on their way.

Whatever the merits of the Confederate cause, they had boldly challenged the authority of the American President and the legitimacy of federal law over their territories. If the Union was going to survive, Lincoln could not back down over Ft. Sumter. More pressingly, Lincoln knew that the side that fired the first shot would be at a serious moral disadvantage.

Today

Fast forward some 156 years later and the United States is in the midst of a different kind of civil war—a Cold Civil War over the National Question. And our Fort Sumter may well come over the issue of “sanctuary cities”—cities whose official policy is that of non-cooperation with the Federal immigration authorities.

During last year’s campaign, Donald Trump promised to withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities and he has kept that promise, so far, by appointing Jeff Sessions as Attorney General and supporting, among other things, the No Sanctuary For Criminals Act, which bars sanctuary cities and states from receiving federal funds (a policy VDARE.com has long advocated).

In response, some jurisdictions have backed away from their sanctuary policies. .[ Miami-Dade commission votes to end county’s ‘sanctuary’ status, By Alan Gomez, USA TODAY, February 17, 2017]

But most sanctuary politicians remain defiant and insist that they will defy any federal attempts to deport illegal aliens in their cities. In fact, California and, to a lesser degree, Massachusetts, are now moving to officially become sanctuary states. [Debate rages over California’s ‘sanctuary state’ law, by By Kyung Lah and Alberto Moya, CNN, July 3, 2017 and Supreme Judicial Court ruling gives legal cover to sanctuary cities, By Milton J. Valencia, Boton Globe, July 24, 2017]

So how should President Trump respond?

From allegedly liberal Massachusetts (home to five sanctuary cities), Bristol County Sherriff Thomas Hodgins told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “If these sanctuary cities are going to harbor and conceal criminal illegal aliens from ICE, which is in direct violation of title 8 of the US Code, federal arrest warrants should be issued for their elected officials.” [MA Sheriff: Arrest Leaders of Sanctuary Cities, CBS Boston, March 8, 2017]

In response, Mayor Joseph Curtatone of Somerville, MA was defiant: “Come and get me.” [‘Come and get me,’ Somerville mayor says to sheriff calling for arrest of sanctuary city leaders, by Dialyn Dwyer, Boston Globe, March 29, 2017]

They should do exactly that. Attorney General Jeff Sessions should issue an arrest warrant, and federal officials should enter Somerville City Hall, throw the cuffs on Mayor Curtatone, put him in jail, and prosecute him.

Sure, the mayor might be out of jail in an hour. And the Main Stream Media talking heads will freak out. But can there be any doubt that the American public will overwhelmingly support Trump—especially if he communicates why he was forced to act?

Such a high-profile arrest would also put the fear of God into most sanctuary politicians. As Netflix President Frank Underwood put it: “I have often found that bleeding hearts have an ironic fear of their own blood.”

Indeed they do. These sanctuary politicians will be shocked when they discover that the vast majority of Americans are actively hostile to sanctuary policies and side with Trump.

An arrest of a sanctuary politician would also serve as a very inexpensive form of immigration enforcement because it would encourage many illegals to self-deport and deter many more from entering in the first place.

My guess is that the Left’s strategy will be to challenge the No Sanctuary For Criminals Act in the courts, and effectively nullify it until a Democrat is elected to the White House. This was pretty much the strategic response to California’s Proposition 187 (1994), and it worked.

In other words, they don’t really believe that Trump can pull this off. And that is all the more reason why he must act boldly.

My candidate for the best politician for Trump to arrest: California Governor Jerry Brown. “Governor Moonbeam” is the perfect poster boy for Sanctuary America; the kind of political opponent Trump could steamroll, not just because he is a weird guy, but because he is a total hypocrite.

For example, Brown once claimed to oppose sanctuary policies. “I don’t support sanctuary cities,” he said in 2010. “Just opening up the cities and saying our borders don’t mean anything, as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, I’m not going there.” [Jerry Brown on the issues, SFGate, March 10, 2010 ]

But Brown more recently most definitely has “gone there”. Governor Brown recently appropriated as much as $30 million in the state budget to help illegals escape deportation. This is in addition to the small fortune California has spent hiring former Attorney General Eric Holder for the same purpose. In fact, Brown recently pardoned several deportees who had been convicted of serious crimes so that they can return to the country—implying that he has the power to pardon the crime of illegal immigration, which he does not. [Gov. Jerry Brown issues pardons, commutes sentences hours before Easter Sunday, by John Myers, Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2017]

Indeed, Brown’s hypocrisy on immigration runs deep. When Brown was governor during the 1970s, he openly opposed the importation of Vietnamese boat people. “There is something a little strange about saying, ‘Let’s bring in 500,000 more people’ when we can’t take care of the 1 million [Californians] out of work,” said Brown in 1975. He even tried to prevent the planes carrying refugees from landing at Travis Air Force base in Northern California. [Governors’ Tough Talk Can’t Block Refugees, by George Skelton, Los Angeles Times, November 23, 2015]

Brown has also inherited considerable wealth from his father’s shady oil business, and yet he continually inveighs against fossil fuels and “climate change.”

Moreover, despite Brown’s significant inherited wealth, Brown and state legislators recently gave themselves a 3% pay raise, making Jerry Brown the highest-paid governor in the country. [Lawmakers, Jerry Brown, Get Another Pay Raise, by Christopher Cadelago, Sacramento Bee, June 19, 2017 ]

If the feds were to arrest Brown, and he should protest, Trump should simply remind the public that Jerry Brown doesn’t understand the law and that is probably why he flunked the bar exam the first time he took it.

Remember, Abraham Lincoln took infinitely more drastic steps during our first civil war—the suspension of habeas corpus, the imprisonment of some 30,000 private citizens without trial, an executive order to seize any newspapers critical of the Union cause etc. And yet we have effectively canonized Abraham Lincoln and honored him with the most magnificent memorial in our nation’s capital.

In contrast, all Donald Trump needs is the courage to enforce the specific law that is already on the books.

What will the obstructionist judiciary do when President Trump arrests a public official for breaking the law? Especially when most of the citizenry applauds—and they will, if Trump states his case forcefully.

Patriotic Immigration Reform’s Fort Sumter moment is coming. Will President Donald Trump face the challenge as Abraham Lincoln did before him? Or will he allow these modern-day rebels to flout our immigration laws in perpetuity?

We’ll soon find out.

Matthew Richer (email him) is a writer living in Massachusetts. He is the former American Editor of Right NOW magazine.

Church & State Sponsored Phases of Depopulation

Kevin Galalae explains the three phases of depopulation that make up the engineered demographic transition the international community has pursued since 1945.

Methods of Depopulation

Depopulation by Food