|
The
"crisis" buzzword.
Suppose that
we were to enter a major depression as bad or worse than 1929. Then suppose a
party comes along and says "Vote for us and we will take you into the
New World Order, have world trade, put you to work
again." Do you think if you and your children were starving that you might
be willing to give up your freedom so that you might feed them? Well, that
scenario may not be in the far too distant future.
Do you remember the
Y2K Crisis that some predicted would cause widespread outages of
computers controlling everything from the banks to electric utilities? For
some, namely lawyers, they saw it as a gold mine. "This is the tobacco, the
silicone breast implant, and the asbestos abatement problem all rolled into one
-- times three," said David Stewart, who is not a lawyer, but was traveling the
country advising lawyers on the opportunities awaiting them.
Hillary
Clinton reminds us we have a "health
care crisis" - justifying her attempted takeover of one-seventh of the
U.S. economy. It was the so-called "health care crisis" that forced most
Americans into health - maintenance organizations or other kinds of managed
care plans. Now we're told that because the country has attained most of the
savings (read "profits") it could from the transition, health care costs are
likely to double over the next decade.
We are told we have a "ecological
crisis" - justifying the government to impose far reaching new
regulations on businesses.
We heard of a "crisis
of family values" and that "it takes more than a family to raise
children." The Children's Defense Fund (CDF), which promotes an amoral approach
to sex education and other means of destroying the very moral values which most
parents want to pass on to their children, agreed with the Clinton's and wants
to redefine the family believing government can serve as surrogate parents (the
"village"). That means that kids would no longer be primarily
accountable to their parents. To whom would they be accountable to? The answer,
of course, is the state. The benevolent state. The "VILLAGE," then, would
transcend the Orwellian "Big Brother" role and become surrogate parent. It
would grant your children "rights" and be their legal guardian.
Believing that it takes more than a family to raise children,
Clinton's Big Government, "Village", turned the rhetoric to focus on children.
In almost every speech, on about any topic, in just about any context, Bill
Clinton used that "powerful" emotion-filled statement,"for the
children."
We have a "crisis in the education of our
children" - bringing on humanist solutions through the control and
manipulation of our children's minds while removing their knowledge of their
heritage.
We have a "hate crime
crisis," so Attorney General Janet Reno wants us all to get our minds
right. In her own chilling words, "the Justice Department and the Department of
Education will soon distribute a hate crimes prevention manual to help teachers
get young people to understand that they should celebrate their differences and
not fight over them." Homosexual activists are already in the schools ... soon
they may get your tax dollars to teach your children, too.
We
have a "pediatric disease crisis" fueling the governments
takeover of the tobacco industry. Of course, it too is being justified as
"for the children."
Obesiety
How we measure people's weight has recently been
changed to use the BMI (Body Mass Index) to determine who is overweight. Of
course, those who are overweight pose a greater health risk and as a result in
the not-too-distant future, expect insurance companies to begin rating their
policies based on BMI.
Insurance
One industry that seems to be common in most of our
"so-called" crisis is the insurance industry. Take a objective look at any of
the crisis were supposedly facing and you'll find insurance companies and
attorneys in the middle of the fray. I wonder if anyone ever considers the
possibility that there is NO crisis beyond the fact that greedy insurance
companies don't feel like they are getting enough of your money? I would
venture to guess there is no family who has not been touched (ripped off) by
their insurance carrier.
You don't have to go far to find documented
cases online. Take for example, the eleven year-old whose HMO delayed giving
her important medical tests for her frequent headaches, letting a tumor grow
unchecked for four years. According to the youngsters parents, the HMO had an
incentive program in place to pay bonuses to physicians who avoided "excessive"
care. The list of other cases of abuse by HMO's goes on-and-on.
- Your policy denies claims, delays payment, or only pays
part of the charge. This is an all-too-frequent experience: "Eventually they
covered a part of the bill, but it has taken a year to collect it. Meanwhile,
we paid the whole thing out-of-pocket" is an often-heard refrain.
- Does your policy exclude entire organ systems from
coverage, like reproductive, respiratory, or digestive. As one person on the
Working From Home Forum said, "When I got my policy, it had riders attached
which exempted any part of my body a doctor had ever looked at with more than a
passing glance. Another rider exempted any problem of any kind having to do
with a kidney or anything attached to it! But I had naturally passed a kidney
stone about five years ago. I had no surgery or complications, but spent two
days in the hospital."
- Have you or members of your group insurance made many
claims? If so, rates are apt to be increased dramatically. After paying into an
employer provided policy with Central Reserve Life for 5 years, I had a
situation where I needed medical attention that only cost CRL $1,925 after my
deductible and co-payments. They paid the initial claim but responded by
increasing my deductible by 400%. In a policy that netted CRL probably $12,000,
their response was to punish me when I used the policy for what it was designed
for. Terms like "rip-off, conspiracy, and fraud, come to mind to describe this
insurance company.
- Don't overlook the details! Willis Caroon provided the
policy for Jennifer and her husband. When she delivered her first child, the
proud parents excitedly took the baby home and contacted Willis Caroon with
their claim. But, because they did not file the claim within 48 hours, the
claim was denied and this new family was forced to pay the entire $5,000
medical bill. Technically, Willis Caroon could legally deny this claim because
buried in the details of their coverage was the requirement to file a claim
within 48 hours. It may be legal, but it's not right! It is a perfect fit of
the definition of "conspiracy" cited earlier: [An agreement, manifesting
itself in words or deeds, by which two or more persons confederate to do an
unlawful act, or to use unlawful to do an act which is lawful. - From
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)]
The conspiracy of insurance
companies confiscating your wealth is not limited only to HMO's, nor is it
limited to health insurance. More traditional coverage is also fertile grounds
for insurance abuse - and that includes homeowners insurance,
automobile insurance, any kind of insurance - it's industry
wide!
The complaints against Allstate Insurance Company, for example, go
far beyond the confines of this web site. There are entire web sites available
that document the abuses of Allstate. To counter their abuses Allstate hits the
airwaves with advertising campaigns designed to manipulate public opinion in
their favor. A recent campaign diverts the attention from their money grabbing
tactics to make them look like a company that "cares" deeply about their
policyholders. And, it must be working because millions of Americans, like
"mind-numbed robots," send in their checks to Allstate.
Employer
Provided
Health Insurance
You buy
your own auto insurance, your own homeowners insurance, and your own life
insurance. Why, then, do we allow our empolyers to buy something as private as
our healthcare? Because they can get a better deal for us? Because they care
more about us? Or perhaps, as many would argue, if they didn't have insurance
through their employer, they probably wouldn't have insurance at all. So, why
doesn't the employer provide auto, home, and life insurance as well? Read on...
I'll tell you why!
In 1957, the federal marginal income tax rate was
91%. Corporate executives, particularly those in the 91% bracket, told their
employers they didn't want to be payed more money because they had to pay the
government $9,100 in taxes for a $10.000 raise. So the corporate executives
followed by the labor unions went to Washington and obtained the right that if
their company paid for their healthcare, they wouldn't get taxed on the
benefit.
So, if you're employed with an income in the upper half, and
work for a company that pays your healthcare, the federal government ends up
paying half your healthcare. The benefit you get, you don't pay income taxes
on. In fact, the only reason employers pay our healthcare is because they pay
non-taxable benefits on healthcare. Further, we are forced to buy healthcare
from our employer because we get a 2:1 advantage over buying the insurance
privately, because of the income tax deduction.
The working mother with
three children working for a company that does not provide healthcare has to
earn two dollars to buy her children $1 worth of healthcare.
We
should immediately stop this unfair practice and should give a tax deduction to
anybody who buys their own healthcare.
When we give a tax
deduction to people who buy their own healh care, the first thing that is going
to happen is that every employee working at a compnay that provides healthcare
is going to get a pay raise! Assuming the employer has been paying $5,000 a
year for your insurance and now pays you the $5,000, you can take that money
and start shopping for PERSONAL health care insurance.
Assuming your
healthcare insurance is now costing you $5,000 a year, by increasing your
deductible, you can reduce your premium. For example, say you get a $2,000
deductible plan and reduce your premium $3,000, you are immediately ahead
$1,000.
And, insurance consumers will pay more attention to what they
are paying for. When they discover a particular drug, doctor, or proceedure is
too expensive they will look for another option. People would start comparison
shopping for health care matters (insurance, doctor visits, etc.). In the
present health care system, who cares what the costs are? Why should you care
since someone else is paying for it. If you were paying for it, you will be
more involved in finding the lowest cost health care services and wouldn't
stand for those people overcharging for their goods and services.
In
other words, the health care industry would be forced to be more efficient and
competition would drive healthcare prices down. Get the employer out of health
care and allow entrepreneurs deliver a better product for a lower cost. Our
brightest minds would start focusing on more efficient ways to deliver health
care, doctors & hospitals would have new incentives to invest in new
equipment, technologies and procedures. Service might actually come to the
health care industry! Health costs would actually start going down.
The Insurance
Industry Future
We will surely
eventually reach the point where the Insurance industry simply collapses
leaving millions of Americans without coverage or their life savings. It has
been a profitable confidence game for many years: create a crisis or scare ...
convince people to pay for protection ... hike the prices of that protection
... and abandon the policyholder when the money runs dry. Perhaps, it has
already begun.
Following the inability of General American Life
Insurance Co. to repay as much as $6.8 billion in customer deposits, on Aug.
10, 1999 St. Louis-based General American was put under state regulators'
supervision. Eventually Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. agreed to buy General
American Life Insurance Co. for $1.2 billion in cash, resolving the Missouri
insurer's inability to repay it's deposits. New York-based Met Life plans a
``stabilization program'' to deal with the deposits, known as funding
agreements. What do you suppose that means? Rate hikes for everyone
perhaps? |
Government
Racketeering
Why do you suppose the
federal government waged what was essentially an all-out war on entrepreneurs
early in the century? The enemy was degradingly called the "mob" and their
product was alcohol and gambling. The socialists in government won that war and
the federal government now controls and profits from the burgeoning alcohol and
gambling business.
Putting fear into the minds of its citizens and
falsifying the facts have always been the modus operandi of those wanting to
install a Socialist-Democratic society in America. The word "survival" is never
far from the lips of those who wish to impose state power in order to protect
us from disaster, named or unnamed.
Tobacco and Second Hand
Smoke
Cancer, heart disease,
children's welfare, good health?
 Wrong!
It's all about money, control, and
jurisdiction!
Those folks who want to control you through the control
of your money are absorbed in convincing you that because of a contrived health
problem associated with cigarette smoking and the heaping of guilt on smoking
parents of their childrens health, you should willingly give them more of your
money. So, Americans are expected to blindly accept higher taxes to pay for
more failed government programs, increased government intrusion into American
businesses, and higher insurance premiums to line the pockets of insurance
industry CEO's.
The U.S. Congress has passed billions of dollars in
new taxes to pay for new bureaucracies giving non-elected officials
jurisdiction over the tobacco industry.
The current propaganda
campaign being waged against the tobacco industry amounts to extortion by the
U.S. government, insurance companies, and many others in the health related
professions. They are simply coercing your money from you through the spreading
of fear and in some cases lying to the American public in exchange for higher
taxes, higher insurance premiums, higher medical fees, and MORE government
control over yet another American industry.
Profiteering from War and
Disaster
Using the war in Iraq as the
scapegoat for higher oil prices where Americans have seen the average price of
a gallon of gasoline jump from about $1.60/gal. in Mar. 2003 to over $2/gal. in
less than two years. Following the disaster wrought by Hurricane Katrina in
2005, prices for a gallon of gasoline surged to over $3/gal.
While
average Americans suffer, the major oil companies are counting their profits.
In just the first three months of 2001, ExxonMobil reported record profits of
$5 billion; Chevron, $1.6 billion; and Texaco, $833 million. In 2004, the nine
largest integrated oil companies made $87 billion in profit, with Exxon Mobil
alone making $25 billion, according to an August report by the Congressional
Research Service. In 2005, Exxon Mobil reported profits jumped 32 percent to
$7.6 billion in the second quarter compared to the same period in 2004. BP saw
a profit increase of about 30 percent, totaling $5.6 billion in the second
quarter, while Conoco Phillips earned $3.1 billion, a 55 percent increase in
profits in the second quarter compared to the same period in 2004.
Federal Telecommunications Act
of 1996
Since 1996, Americans have
become more comfortable with NEW TAXES!
Number Portability
My phone bill from Southwestern Bell contained the following
explanation:
"The Federal Telecommunications of Act of 1996 required
local telephone companies to initiate measures that permit customers to keep
their local telephone numbers if they change their local telephone service
provider while remaining at the same location. This capability is commonly
called "number portability. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has
ruled that the costs to provide "number portability" may be recovered through a
monthly service charge."
My first reaction when I saw this new tax
was, I don't care about having "number portability" and want to cancel it.
I call Southwestern Bell and speak with April. She was very cordial and
tried her best to explain to me the new charge (within company guidelines of
"what she can and cannot say.") Come to find out that even if I never use the
"number portability" service, I still have to pay for it in order to have the
privilege of calling someone else who might take advantage of the
service.
When is "enough - enough?" These lying politicians in
Washington tell us that they are reducing our taxes ... while they slip in all
these additional fees. I asked April at Southwestern Bell if she had been
getting many calls inquiring about this new tax. She said they had, but most
people were satisfied after being told it was just another mandated tax levied
by the Federal Government.
Personally, I'm getting a little tired (no,
allot tired), of the government taxing, taxing, and taxing, all the while
telling us they're reducing taxes. They are simply doing what Bill Clinton and
the U.S. Senate legitimized: lying!
My most recent phone bill from
Southwestern Bell contains 36% taxes and fees! Someone please tell me
how this is "for the children," or even "the right thing to do."
Universal
Service Fund
The "Gore Tax," which is
now being collected (upon directive of the FCC) by telephone companies, amounts
to 5% of all interstate long-distance charges, which will, as AT&T is
explaining to its customers, "give schools and libraries access to advanced
services like the Internet."
The Universal Service Fund is a vehicle
for maintaining universal service in the telecommunications sector. In order to
support telephone service in high cost areas, this fund, which is supported by
long-distance service providers, pays subsidies to local exchange carriers
(LECs) in proportion to their subscriber line costs. Subsidy payments from the
USF were started in 1986, and its initial eight-year plan came to an end in
1993. The Federal Telecommunications Act, passed in the Spring of 1996, called
for major changes in the telecommunications industry. The act placed an
emphasis on competition and deregulation, and included new rules on who could
tap funds in the Universal Service Fund (USF). The act went on to include
changes in how the USF could be used. The Universal Service regulations were
published in the Federal Register on June 17, 1997 and took effect on July 17,
1997 - just in time for the "budget deal."
For the first time, the 1996
Act includes schools and libraries among the explicit beneficiaries of
universal service support. The legislative history indicated that Congress
intended to ensure that eligible schools and libraries have affordable access
to modern telecommunications and information services that will enable them to
provide educational services to all parts of the nation.
K-12 schools
and libraries are eligible for discounts of 20% to 90% on telecommunications
services, Internet access, and internal connections. Funds will be distributed
from a single, common universal service fund that has a cap of $2.25 billion
per year for the entire United States. Any unspent funds carry over for use in
the next year, with slightly different carry forward rules in the first two
years.
The FCC has subsequently voted to raise the Universal Service
Charge or “Gore tax” as its become known on telephone users by $1
billion. If memory serves me, Article 1, Section 8 of Constitution still says
only “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes.” How is it
that the FCC now has this authority?
Internet Tax
Perhaps you've seen the ad or received an email
stating:
Internet Tax Alert
Congress is considering long
distance charges for your internet connection.
CNN has reported that the
Government would be deciding at any time to allow or not allow a Charge to your
phone bill equal to a Long Distance call EACH time you access the Internet.
The above alert has been labeled a "hoax" and "urban legend" by some.
See:
CIAC Internet Hoaxes. [NOTE: the CIAC
page appears to be sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy - who better to
be a watchdog over the federal government.] But, the facts can speak
for themselves... the FCC, not Congress recently ruled on this exact topic and
it was not "hoax." Folks, they may not be getting additional fees (taxes) in
the next several months, but you should know they have their eyes on the "deep
pockets" of the Internet and will incrementally raise prices (increase taxes)
disguised as some other kind of fee.
If the phone companies have their
way, you WILL end up paying more for basic service. Right now you're paying for
Internet access plus local phone charges incurred while dialing up the ISP's
POP. The FCC has ruled that calls to ISP's should be considered interstate
transmissions, so ISPs may have to pay fees to local phone compies for using
their wires. FCC Chairman William Kennard denies that consumers will end up
paying higher rates. Right now, the charges are being waived as an exception,
but given the huge stakes involved, you can count on a long drawn-out legal
battle.
Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) introduced a bill late in July,
199 that would levy a 5 percent federal sales tax on all goods sold over the
Internet. In what is becoming predictable "for the children" talk, proponents
say S1433, the "Sales Tax Safety Net and Teacher Funding Act" would use the
taxes to fund grants for elementary and secondary-school teacher
salaries.
Rising
Cost of Safety
Apparently,
insurance companies just are not satisfied with how much of your money they are
getting. Eyeing the fact that for the first time in history, more sport utility
vehicles are sold in the United States than passenger cars and that they are
the fastest-growing segment of the auto market, these folks are beginning to
gleefully count more of your money - as theirs.
 Known in the industry as SUVs, many consumers buy sport utility
vehicles, at least in part, because the vehicles are safer in collisions than
midsized cars. But, your safety comes at a price ... higher insurance rates. 35
insurance companies have already raised their premiums on sport utility
vehicles and several other are considering similar action.
Greed
and discontentment in the workforce
The main beneficiaries of minimum wage legislation
are the labor unions, whose members are able to negotiate pay scales at
higher levels than they could without the laws. It is no coincidence that
union officials have been the most vocal supporters of
minimum wage laws. What union people do you know that works for minimum
wage?
What was the real agenda behind the
war in Yugoslavia?
Need you be reminded
again? It's Money.
Or, to be more specific ... oil, black gold,
texas tea. Apparently, there is a wealth of oil and minerals in the Caspian
sea. According to a June 23 story on UPI, the US Trade and Development Agency
announced on June 2 the US had awarded a $588,000 grant to Bulgaria to carry
out a feasibility study for an oil pipeline. Under the proposed plan, Caspian
oil would be shipped by tanker from Black Sea ports in former Soviet Georgia
and then pumped by overland pipeline across Bulgaria, Macedonia and
Albania.
The huge oil reserves under the Caspian Sea has been a coveted
prize for years. The Third Reich waged the bloodiest battle ever fought, the
siege at Stalingrad in an attempt to gain control over access routes to these
oil reserves during World War II.
Gun Control
Because of an epidemic of crime on our streets, we
are told to give
up our guns.
"Our task of creating a socialist America can only
succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, The National
Educator, January 1994, Page 3. |
|
What's the
bottom line on global warming?
 Money, of course.
Why do they want to
control international energy use and have government control of industry?
To raise your taxes to pay for it!
"The evidence of global
warming keeps piling up, month after month, week after week. How long is it
going to take before those people in the Congress get the message? People are
sweltering out there. .. The future holds significantly higher temperatures
still unless we do something about it." - Vice President Al
Gore
What evidence? Is it Mr. Clinton´s recent assertion that "the
five warmest years recorded since the 1400s all occurred in the 1990s"?
Mathematical statistician, J. Gart, rightly asks, "As the early readings
necessarily predate the European ´discovery´ of the Western
Hemisphere (1492), Australia (1606), and New Zealand (1642), please make it
clear whether the temperatures recorded by the Aztecs, Incans, Australian
aborigines, and Maoris are in centigrade or Fahrenheit or whatever."
Buenos Aires Conference On
Global Warming: Much Ado About Nothing
The science is uncertain.
Scientists cannot tell us how much and where temperatures will increase or, for
certain, whether they will increase at all.
Part of their evidence for
global warming is complex computer models that spew out misleading conclusions.
These same computer models, when fed the facts of past weather patterns, cannot
accurately spit out what actually happened. Of course, basic facts like since
1890 the continental U.S. ground temperature has not changed are of little
consideration or that during the 30 years between 1940 and 1970, when we pumped
out more CO2 than any other time, there was no global warming.
It's on
the basis of no evidence that the recent Kyoto Treaty was signed. It will be
very costly to American families, fuel and electricity costs will go up and
jobs at energy-intensive industries are likely to be lost. It will export
American jobs. While economic growth and job creation will be severely impacted
in the United States, other nations will be free to continue emitting, growing
their economies, and competing for jobs.
It will not improve the
environment. By 2015, greenhouse gas emission from developing countries will
exceed those of the United States and other countries impacted by the treaty.
Overall, global emissions will continue to grow. If global warming is real, the
Kyoto Treaty is not a solution.
"The real threat to Mr. Gore´s
Kyoto dreams is if Americans begin to doubt there´s any real threat. If
no one can be sure that humans are causing the Earth to warm, or even how much
of a problem it is if it does warm, what´s the point of breaking a
political sweat? This is why Mr. Gore and his aides are so dismissive and
caustic toward anyone who doubts their claims or disputes their evidence." -
The Wall Street Journal
"Every month this year has delivered new
evidence of global warming and El Nino has given us a picture of what the
future may hold if we fail to act." - Al Gore
People have been becoming
increasingly aware that the problems of external security which are facing
their national governments are problems facing the world today - ozone
depletion, air pollution, acid rain, nuclear accidents,
over-population,
drought, famine, international terrorism, international trading, multinational
corporation, international communications, etc. - cannot be controlled or
solved by individual national governments. So men are beginning to look beyond
their national governments to a higher denomination of government - a world
government with legislative, enforcement, and judicial influence on a world
scale.
The New World
Order Agenda
In 1954 The Ford
Foundation President H. Rowan Gaither told Norman Dodd, investigator for
Congressman Reece's Committee, that their objective "was to alter our life in the United States so that we can
be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union." The Soviet Union no
longer exists as we knew it. What has emerged is a much larger globalist
entity.
Virtually every major name in banking from Rockefeller to
Rothschild to Robert McNamara (president of The World Bank) has spoken of the
reality of an interlocking global economy - that what happens on Wall Street
one minute is felt in London or Tokyo the next, that the complex jigsaw puzzle
of world economy is moving into an oscillating ball that will eventually unify
nations and currencies in the global marketplace, and that the economic forces
of the earth are moving relentlessly toward a unified world system.
If
Rothschild was right about controlling the money, you control the country, then
it is pretty easy to see how Communism can fail so conveniently for the
New World Order and how basically the same people who
were communists then, are now Socialist
Democrats and still running things.
The average American Citizen
isn't going to give up his Constitution for some World Government too easily.
We and our ancestors have fought too long and shed too much blood for it to
give up easily.
The plan is for Americans to give up their freedom
willingly. Socialist reform is the only way that a one world order can be
established without a direct military confrontation.
"We can't be so fixated on our
desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..."
Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page
2A) |
|
