This was my commentary about the Obama ACA shutdown. I was not an Obama supporter. Yet I didn’t get hysterical. Rather I informed people about bitcoin, and about decentralized markets.
I have to censor this, because I posted this on my personal facebook page, and I will censor my use of four letter words for this public blog post. My feelings are incredible raw during this hearing, and after listening to both Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh testify before congress, I have came to the conclusion that this was nothing more than a political hit. I will end with my facebook post that I made directly after hearing both people testify.
Democrats, liberals, and progressives. I give not one f*** who you are, or what you think our relationship means to you.
If you support this lying bitch Christine Ford, and her faulty, inaccurate and unsubstantiated lies against Brett Kavanaugh, and you want to ruin this man’s life in favor of the ability to retain some bulls*** right to kill millions of babies in the USA every year via Roe vs. Wade.
Well please f***ing remove me. I don’t need deceitful, or gullible degenerates in my life. If you can side with Christine Ford after this weak and unsubstantiated testimony that she gives, with NO corroboration, even with people who she said who was there, even people friends of hers deny being there, or knowing about this party or anything like it.
This doesn’t just affect the life of Judge Kavanaugh, though that is enough for me to be pissed off about this. This effects the ENTIRE nation and the high courts of the USA permanently.
This reckless accusation is one of the worst that I have ever witnessed!
I hope that he gets confirmed, and I hope that there is some changes to the laws surrounding false accusations.
I have been addressing false accusations for a long time.
And while my experience has been mild compared to judge Kavanaugh, I too have been affected by false accusations
I recently disproved many lies that family waged at me, none have been sexual in nature thank God. However my mom wrote horrible stories about how when I was living in a 5 million dollar home in Bellevue Washington that I attempted to steal her broken down trailer park home, while even at the same time was paying big bucks to host her at our mansion that I was paying $8300 per month for (in work and cash).
I keep my diary of how I am combating my own dark cloud of reckless, careless and hateful people here:
And I will not allow ANYONE else to go through this, to the extent that I have the ability, and I have a renewed vigor to finish my lie detection software which you can learn more about here:
Do not think that this won’t have a backlash. The tide has changed in the USA, and in the world. Liars will find out exactly where they sit at the table of the future, and it is NOT in a place of power anymore.
What comes around goes around, as Judge Kavanaugh explained.
It’s like the boy that cried wolf. If you makeup enough bulls*** lies, and are found out, eventually people will stop believing your s***.
Be careful in the future! This bad behavior will no longer be tolerated!
As all of these lefties are making false allegations against judge Kavanaugh, at least one of these have been retracted and the man that accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting his female friend on a boat in Rhode Island, apologized.
Which proves the points that Republicans on the Judicial Committee have been making this whole time about the problem with how #1 Democrats held on to these accusations for well too long without reporting it, and #2 that the longer this goes on, the more fake copycats will popup out of the woodwork.
The statistics regarding false accusations are extremely high, and higher than any other falsely reported crime in the USA.
A selection of findings on the prevalence of false rape allegations. Data from Rumney (2006).
Number
False reporting rate (%)
Theilade and Thomsen (1986)
1 out of 56
4 out of 39
1.5% (minimum)
10% (maximum)
New York Rape Squad (1974)
n/a
2%
Hursch and Selkin (1974)
10 out of 545
2%
Kelly et al. (2005)
67 out of 2,643
3% (“possible” and “probable” false allegations)
22% (recorded by police as “no-crime”)
Geis (1978)
n/a
3–31% (estimates given by police surgeons)
Smith (1989)
17 out of 447
3.8%
U.S. Department of Justice (1997)
n/a
8%
Clark and Lewis (1977)
12 out of 116
10.3%
Harris and Grace (1999)
53 out of 483
123 out of 483
10.9% (“false/malicious” claims)
25% (recorded by police as “no-crime”)
Lea et al. (2003)
42 out of 379
11%
HMCPSI/HMIC (2002)
164 out of 1,379
11.8%
McCahill et al. (1979)
218 out of 1,198
18.2%
Philadelphia police study (1968)
74 out of 370
20%
Chambers and Millar (1983)
44 out of 196
22.4%
Grace et al. (1992)
80 out of 335
24%
Jordan (2004)
68 out of 164
62 out of 164
41% (“false” claims)
38% (viewed by police as “possibly true/possibly false”)
Kanin (1994)
45 out of 109
41%
Gregory and Lees (1996)
49 out of 109
45%
Maclean (1979)
16 out of 34
47%
Stewart (1981)
16 out of 18
90%
Also, as a solution to many of these problems, I continue to insist that those close to me learn how to use a firearm, and to carry a firearm. Why? Because the average police response time is over 15 minutes and in some areas as high as two hours, and a restraining order is just a piece of paper. Learn how to defend yourself, by whatever means that must be for you!
The aftermath of the Charlottesville Virginia gathering was tragic as someone lost their life in what appears to be senseless violence. I am not aware of all of the facts as of yet, so I will not assume anything. However a man in a car, ran in to roughly 20 people that were protesting in the middle of a street. The protesters that had taken over the street were armed with clubs and other weapons, and were actively seeking out opponents to assault. I have heard reports that the man who was driving the car that ran in to the counter protesters may have been getting attacked by the counter-protesters before accelerating into the crowd. It also may be the case that he was being malicious and attempting to harm people for no apparent reason. In either case it is tragic that a 32 year old woman has lost her life in the violence. Her name is Heather Heyer, and I have only scant details about who she is, I found this article with more informatin; https://everipedia.org/wiki/heather-heyer/
I want to first say of course that I condemn the violence and the racism, and the divisions in our country, there can be no doubt how unproductive this is.
Now as for how this violence has escalated over the past 9 years, and if we want to get technical, it has been pretty obvious since 1992 with the LA riots. However it seems more organized now, and that organization seems to have come from liberal philanthropists like George Soros and others. This article from the Washington times names donors who have given over 100 million dollars to Black Lives Matter. I recently posted a video of a large group of the “Antifa” faction, chanting “George Soros we want our money“. It seems like the most violent groups, are the ones that are most closely associated with George Soros money.
Now the thing that upsets me a lot, is not just that there are racists at these events, however that does piss me off, because I would consider myself leaning right as libertarian. However the thing that makes me most angry is that these Antifa and BLM people come to events that they had nothing to do with, simply to engage in violence to try to silence people that they disagree with. They come with large numbers and weapons and attack everyone that they consider opposition. Where-as these groups gathering, obtain permits, and organize peacefully, and in fact I never see the right-leaning folks disrupting BLM or Antifa demonstrations. So the violence is coming from non-right-leaning people, and if they were not involved, it makes me believe that the violence wouldn’t exist. This was also true during the presidential campaign, where you would see Bernie, Hillary, BLM or Antifa (black bloc) folks coming to private Trump rallies to disrupt the gathering of peaceful people. But then when one of these folks would stir up violence and get their ass whooped, the news would report it as “a peaceful protesters assaulted at a Trump rally”. They rarely mentioned that the person assaulted came to disrupt the private event. Nor did they ever make mention that Trump supporters were not disrupting the events of other candidates.
So that is the history that I can see of how this violence has escalated. Often these protesters block roads, even freeways, and sometimes they get ran over. However, my thought is, “what do they expect”? They are playing chicken on the freeway, and they expect speeding cars to just come to a complete stop in the midst of an angry mob? It just doesn’t make sense.
We recently moved to Puerto Rico, where there is so little racism that in the last year I have literally not noticed any racism at all here. There are lighter skinned people, and darker skinned people, and yet no one seems to make consideration of those facts. It seems people here have realized there is one race, one species of human, and that we are in this together.
So for that I am grateful for the road that has taken me here.
For many years I have been reporting on the conflict of the FBI, CIA and other government intelligence agencies crossing the line of fair, moral and justified to down right nefarious tactics when employing their “Counter Intelligence Programs” and other investigative techniques on American citizens.
In a letter to the judge to seek dismissal of the case against him, Ryan Bundy writes;
Ryan Bundy asks judge to dismiss his charges in Bunkerville standoff case
Ryan Bundy, who previously accused federal authorities of violating the Constitution when they seized his father’s cattle, now claims he has been denied his right to a speedy trial.
In a motion filed late Wednesday, Bundy asks a federal judge to dismiss his 16-count indictment on threats, extortion and related charges stemming from the 2014 armed standoff near his family ranch in Bunkerville. Prosecutors are trying the first of three groups of people charged in the case, and Bundy is in the second trial group.
“The speedy trial right trumps any countervailing problems with courthouse facilities, overburdened court staff, or caseload,” wrote Bundy, who is representing himself. “The very purpose of the speedy trial right is to disincentivize the filing of onerous, vexatious and unnecessarily complex cases (like this case).”
Bundy accuses the government of tactically delaying the case by structuring it “in a repetitive style with multiplicitous counts to give an appearance of complexity.”
The standoff occurred in April 2014, but prosecutors did not announce charges until February of last year. In the intervening period, federal investigators staged an undercover operation in which they posed as documentary filmmakers to gain access to the people involved.
Bundy asserts that the undercover FBI operation was the “real reason” federal prosecutors did not bring charges until two years after the standoff occurred. He accuses undercover FBI agents of using “attractive women” and “alcohol” to trick his supporters into giving incriminating statements.
“The government spent more than half a million dollars on the creation of a fake film company designed to trick defendants into making boastful, false and incriminating statements that could be used against Defendants,” Bundy wrote in his filing.
Defense attorneys previously argued that evidence gathered during the undercover operation should not be admitted at trial, but a judge sided with the government and ruled the statements were admissible.
Bundy further argues that several key defense witnesses have died in the three years that have passed since the standoff.
“Evidence and witnesses have gone missing and evaporated,” he wrote in his filing.
Among the witnesses who died was LaVoy Finicum, who participated in the Bunkerville standoff and later was shot by law enforcement during protesters’ occupation of an Oregon wildlife refuge in early 2016.
“Finicum was also the most important first-hand witness to the distressed and deteriorated condition of the cattle while in BLM custody,” Bundy wrote.
The people charged in the case accuse federal authorities of mistreating the cattle during the impoundment operation, but the judge has limited defense attorneys in what evidence they can introduce at trial related to cattle mistreatment.
Bundy and his brother, Ammon, who likewise is being held without bail pending trial, recently were acquitted on charges related to the 41-day standoff in Oregon.
In Wednesday’s filing, Ryan Bundy wrote that he has been held “in solitary confinement or in distant holding cells without legal materials or focused on other false federal charges in the U.S. District of Oregon.”
He is being held at Nevada Southern Detention Center in Pahrump.
The U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment on Bundy’s filing.
What bothers me most about the left attacking Trump for his policies?
If these are the same people who supported Obama, and cheered Obama before, during and after his time as Commander in Chief, and they never once criticized his anti-liberty policies, never once criticized his anti-immigration polices, and never criticized his wars and his excessive bombing….
Then, I feel these people have no place at the table in criticizing these same things about Trump.
I can at very least say that I criticized BOTH Trump and Obama for these things. NOT just one or the other.
I was amazed that out of around 320 million people in the USA, apparently we could only get the worst possible choices for president this last election.
I have given many criticisms of Donald and the other candidates on YouTube. I hold myself accountable by making my opinions public and unchangeable (via youtube). Because so many people that give political opinions rarely own their opinions. This is the problem that I have with these people criticizing the new government in the USA, for doing the same things that Obama did in spades, and they did not offer any criticism to or for Obama (if you did, PROVE IT). I think of a partisan political supporter or voter as someone similar to someone who is a die hard football fan, spending all of their free time and extra cash supporting a team, that is getting rich from their support, but not really doing anything really productive for the fan. Supporting these career politicians, just because they give good talking points that align with your world-view does not mean that they actually support you or your world view. They are just appealing to your emotions, so that they get re-elected. Barack Obama was certainly proof of that.
I had a brother in law, who in order to reduce me tried to say that I was a George Bush supporter. Which is the most laughable accusation that I have ever heard. When even before I met him or his sister (whom I am still married to over 14 years later), I was writing blogs at www.behindzioncurtain.com and making videos and radio shows criticizing George Bush, and it was an obvious fact that I was a Ralph Nader supporter. The best way to clear the air there, is to go to www.archive.org and look up some of my old web addresses, such as www.UtahPirateRadio.com
(I lost control of those domains for a few years, but I recently got them back, however you can see the early 2000’s and even as early as 1999, that I was very critical of the right, and other establishment politicians, and I always have been)
I have been blogging, and writing since before the internet on Bulletin Board Systems and networks like Fidonet since 1992. I am extremely open about my political points of view. The people whom I presently question regarding their constitution and commitment, are the ones that refuse to own their views and opinions. I am still working on technology to sort out truth from untruthfulness. Reference; http://veracitylife.com
But regardless, those people who have a different point of view, depending on their audience, are the same types who never questioned Obama about the same things that they are rallying against Trump about.
Since the EU was formed in 1973 there has been a lot of skeptical optimism of how the European Union would be beneficial to the countries that have signed up. There are 28 member states currently in the EU, and there are at least 5 that are pushing to declare independence.
Currently the countries that are working on independence are (starting with the strongest push to the newest and less strong push); The United Kingdom which consists of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland but we will count that as one member state since they all are governed by the same governing body, then there is France (Frexit) with the front runner in the France presidential campaigns Marie Le Pen, who praises Trump and is calling for a departure for the EU similar to Brexit, after that is Greece is who feeling the pain of being a member of the EU with constant bank meddling and austerity measures, and they are ready to leave the EU and convert over to the US dollar, and lastly there is Holland with Geert Wilders who is very much like Le Pen and who also sees the value in the Trump election and the Brexit departure from the EU. (more on the countries considering leaving the EU)
All of these countries are seeing massive crime and uprisings from refugees and immigrants, and massive departure of workers and contributors to their economic stability. They all see independence as the best route at least by the looks of their popular political candidates and leaders.
Combine that with the American people not only voting Trump in as president, but also voting for a majority conservative government in all branches this last election, it is clear that we are living in changing times.
What was interesting to me, and I have documented it before. Is that even the left and far left in the USA had been pushing for immigration limitations and reform, and pushing a highly nationalist agenda. Which I created compilations of Obama, Hillary and Bernie making very similar statements to what Trump’s immigration policies were.
Piers Morgan joins Sean Hannity and Joe Digenova to discuss the media bias against Trump.
This is an interesting discussion of the coup against Trump from the whitehouse regarding the recently leaked data regarding Michael Flynn
Sean Hannity and Piers Morgan also talk about the fake news, and the Clinton campaign connections during the campaign directly to the media such as with Donna Brazil and Hillary Clinton, where CNN leaked debate questions to Hillary’s campaign ahead of the debates.
This was a great discussion about the depths of the transgressions from the media and the people inside the shaddow government, that commit illegal acts to thwart political opposition.
Trump Brexit Documentary in the UK, Disruptarian media presents a documentary to discuss the vote to leave the European Union by Britain.. We will be interviewing Brits to learn more about their choice to leave the EU. The significance of how this relates to Donald Trump being elected, is that the consequences of both votes, seem to mean very similar things.
Which include ending trade deals that give more than take, ending massive immigration by both illegals and potentially refugees, and a restructuring of many government agencies.
As an American who is interested in the connection between these two votes happening at a very similar timeline and during a very critical moment in the world, where the world economy is becoming more global, and the governments are starting to merge into one less competitive regime, rather than many competitive countries. I intend to interview Brits and others throughout the world to find out what motivated this drastic change in two world super power’s governments.
Did the USA illegally overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom, and illegally annex a sovereign nation in 1894? Or was there a legal and valid cession of power via a legitimate treaty that was signed by Queen Liliuokalani?
This is a question that has been analyzed many times by top scholars over the years, especially since the 1993 Apology Resolution given by the then US president Bill Clinton, that “acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum” (U.S. Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510)).
Although the Blount Report of July 17, 1893, upon which the Apology Resolution was based, was an official report of the U.S. government, it was followed by the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894, which after public hearings and testimony under oath found the Blount Report to be mistaken on many of the facts reported. Some of the criticisms of the Blount Report included the fact that it was done in secrecy, with no opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses and no witnesses placed under oath. Opponents of the Apology Resolution point to this official repudiation of the Blount Report as sufficient reason to dismiss any conclusions based on it. Despite being staunchly in favor of reinstating the monarchy, President Grover Cleveland also reversed himself upon receipt of the Morgan Report, refusing requests from the queen for further aid in her restoration, and acknowledging both the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii as the legitimate successors to the Kingdom.
Washington-based constitutional lawyer and Grassroot Institute of Hawaii consultant Bruce Fein has outlined a number of counterarguments challenging the historical accuracy and completeness of the assertions made in the Apology Resolution.
This is the disputed annexation:
Hamilton Library at the University of Hawaii (Manoa) has several versions of the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii. For example, they have two different draft versions, three different formattings of the final version, and a final version which incorporates also an account of the proceedings of the constitutional convention. The Constitution was published in 1894 in both Hawaiian and English languages. Click here to download a pdf of a scan of the 53 pages of the final version in English.
At the end of the Constitution, there were also pages 54-56 comprising the certification of the Constitution — especially interesting because of the names of at least five ethnic Hawaiians who were members of the Constitutional Convention. Below the copied text of the 3-page certification are some historical/political comments by website editor Ken Conklin.
[start page 54]
The Constitutional Convention, convened in Honolulu, Island of Oahu, Hawaiian Islands, on 30th day of May, A.D. 1894, pursuant to the provisions of Act 69 of the Acts of the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, entitled “An Act to Provide for a Constitutional Convention,” approved the 15th day of March, A.D. 1895 and pursuant to the Proclamation of the President summoning said Convention to assemble, having framed and adopted the Constitution herein before set forth; now it is hereby declared, enacted and proclaimed by the Executive and Advisory Councils of the Provisional Government and by the elected Delegates, constituting said Constitutional Convention, that on and after the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1894, the said Constitution shall be the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii and the Supreme Law of the Hawaiian Islands.
Done in Convention by unanimous consent this third day of July, A.D. One thousand eight hundred and ninety-four. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.
SANFORD B. DOLE,
President of the Provisional Government
WILLIAM CHAUNCEY WILDER,
Vice-President
FRANCIS MARCH HATCH,
Minister of the Interior
WILLIAM OWEN SMITH,
Attorney General
[start page 55]
WILLIAM FESSENDEN ALLEN,
CRISTAL BOLTE,
CECIL BROWN,
JOHN EMMELUTH,
JOHN ENA,
JOHN A. McCANDLESS,
JOSEPH P. MENDONCA,
JAMES FRANCIS MORGAN,
JOHN NOTT,
DAVID BOWERS SMITH,
EDWARD DAVIES TENNEY,
HENRY WATERHOUSE,
ALEXANDER YOUNG,
LEMUEL CLARK ABLES,
HENRY PERRIM BALDWIN,
CHARLES LUNT CARTER,
ANTONIO FERNANDES,
WILLIAM HORNER,
JOSE KEKAHUNA IOSEPA,
DAVID HAILI KAHAULELIO,
JOHN WILLIAM KALUA,
JOHN KAUHANE,
ALBERT KUKAILIMOKU KUNUIAKEA,
FREDERICK S. LYMAN,
WILLIAM FAWCETT POGUE,
WILLIAM HYDE RICE,
[start page 56]
ALEXANDER GEORGE MORISON ROBERTSON,
JOHN MARK VIVAS,
ALBERT SPENCER WILCOX,
GEORGE NORTON WILCOX.
Attest:
CHARLES T. RODGERS,
Secretary of Convention.
============
** Comment by website editor Ken Conklin:
Some of today’s Hawaiian sovereignty diehard deadenders like to say that the Republic of Hawaii was created and sustained entirely by Caucasians, and that ethnic Hawaiians refused to participate except under duress. However, there are several names listed above as authors of the Constitution who are clearly ethnic Hawaiian.
JOSE KEKAHUNA IOSEPA,
DAVID HAILI KAHAULELIO,
JOHN WILLIAM KALUA,
JOHN KAUHANE,
ALBERT KUKAILIMOKU KUNUIAKEA,
Also, in 1894 just as today, some Caucasian-looking names might also belong to ethnic Hawaiians (for example, the leader of the attempted counter-revolution of 1895 was an ethnic Hawaiian with the name Robert Wilcox).
After the Constitution was ratified and the Legislature was seated, the speaker of the House of Representatives at the time of annexation (1898) was John Kaulukou. During the reigns of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani he had been a Royalist, serving as marshal, legislator, and judge.
It should be noted that the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii sets requirements for President, Senator, Representative, and voter eligibility which are the same for all people regardless of race, and that the literacy requirements specify the ability to speak, read and write in either Hawaiian or English with the two languages being on an equal footing. See for example Articles 56, 58, 74. The continuity of sovereignty of Hawaii as an independent nation flowed smoothly from the Kingdom through the Provisional Government to the Republic. Government laws, private property, treaties with foreign nations, etc. were all confirmed by the Constitution; see for example Articles 92, 93, 95, 95. Article 95 is of special interest today, since it identifies the former Crown lands to have been formerly, and continuing now in 1894, the property of the government and able to be sold without any restriction.
LETTERS OF FORMAL DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION (DE JURE) OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII, RECEIVED FROM AUGUST 1894THROUGH JANUARY 1895. These letters were signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, Princes, and Presidents, addressed to His Excellency Sanford B. Dole, President of the Republic of Hawaii.
A related webpage explains the historical significance of these letters of recognition and current political implications. By recognizing the Republic as the legitimate government of Hawaii, the worldwide family of nations effectively condoned the revolution of 1893 as having been “legal” under international law, and acknowledged the right of the Republic to offer a treaty of annexation and to make a deal with the U.S. ceding Hawaii’s public lands in return for paying off Hawaii’s national debt. A secessionist claim is analyzed and refuted by these documents — a claim that the Republic had no legitimacy under international law and was merely a puppet regime of the United States. For details please see this article on the historic significance and current political implications of these newly rediscovered letters of international recognition.
The most visually spectacular letters are the ones from China and Russia. The letter from Queen Victoria (Britain) is of great significance because of the special relationship between Britain and the Kingdom of Hawaii from 1778 to 1893, and the special relationship between Queen Victoria and Queen Liliuokalani. The letter from President Grover Cleveland (U.S.) is important because Cleveland had blamed the Hawaiian revolution on the presence of U.S. peacekeepers. Cleveland had tried to destabilize the Provisional Government and restore Liliuokalani to the throne from March through December 1893, but stopped interfering due to Congressional pressure after the Morgan Report (Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, February 1894) concluded the U.S. had neither conspired in nor assisted the revolution. Liliuokalani’s strongly-worded letter of abdication and oath of loyalty constitute, in effect, a letter from the Kingdom of Hawaii recognizing the Republic as the legitimate government. Thus 19 foreign nations, plus the Kingdom of Hawaii, recognized the Republic of Hawaii as the rightful government under international law.
I was able to get a question about the Hague Convention and the Geneva convention that Dr. Sai has been referencing for years. At the town hall meeting on September 24th 2018 that Mr. Jennifer Ruggles hosted to discuss her protest as a member of the county council of Hawaii, I asked Jennifer Ruggles if the alleged war crimes happened in the late 1800’s, and the Geneva Convention and the Hague convention rules/laws that they are citing were enacted/created many years after the alleged war crimes, then how far back retroactively can these rules/laws apply?
Dr. Sai answered, and despite his answer being fairly long-winded, it basically came down to him stating that “since Hawaii was part of the British Kingdom, Hawaii was recognized as a sovereign nation, and therefore these laws had been codified even for war crimes against sovereign nations that came before the conventions and rules were established”
This is my original video regarding this whole issue, long before I became aware of the protest by Councilwoman Jennifer Ruggles, and before my question at her town hall meeting. This is regarding my place in Hawaii, and my investments here for myself and my family, such as our family home. September 3rd 2018 by Ryan Thompson @ Disruptarian Radio
I will be hosting a radio show to discuss this issue on February 2nd 2018 at 4:20pm (GMT -10) at: https://disruptarian.com/radio
Reference our growing knowledge base on this subject with images from the original documents, and the case law regarding this issue.
http://disruptarian.com/knowledge-base/
As another point of reference, this article will be archived at: www.archive.org I have also meticulously submitted all of the information listed in this post on archive.org including references and third party sources.
It was bound to happen. Cronyism has muddled up the main reasons that the people elected an majority GOP government. Once again big insurance appears to be the benefactor of the new version of the Affordable Care Act. Since Obama started talking about this, and through the many variations of this new style of healthcare, the ACA and now the “Obamacare Lite” reform has neither been affordable, nor has it represented what the USA is all about, which is freedom.
Paul Ryan’s Obamacare Lite
I am not going to pretend to be an expert about the ACA or Obamacare Lite, but I have been reporting on this since 2009, and I have not been a fan of any of this. People should not be mandated, forced, or penalized by the government for what should be a private and personal choice. Buying insurance does not hurt anyone else’s life, liberty or property and therefore should not be regulated by the government with such heavy handedness.
First of all, I will assert what rights and what privileges are. Despite what Bernie Sanders says, healthcare is not a right, it is a privilege. A person does not have a right to someone else’s time/labor, skills or resources. That would be slavery to say that “I have a right to get the services of Dr. Franklin, and to deny me that right should be a crime”, because that would make Dr. Franklin a slave. Hopefully we all agree that slavery is not right.
More on that on a constitutional level;
“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)
“If a State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Albama, 373 U.S. 262)
Doctors, patients and insurance customers should have the liberty to choose who, what, when and IF they subscribe to whatever service, occupation, or contract. There should be no government enforcement of personal contracts like this.
As for why healthcare prices are so high in the USA. It is the same reason that the National Healthcare System in the UK is having so many problems, shutting down hospitals, 25k cancer patients went unseen last year, and 1 in 5 patients are waiting between 4-12 hours for emergency care. It is the socialism issue, of supply and demand not balancing out, and government mandates costing a fortune because of price fixing and costly regulations. Since being in the UK I have wrote on this blog and posted photos of national newspapers in the UK regarding their failing system. Reference this search on this blog; disruptarian.com/index.php?s=healthcare
Rand Paul explains it better than myself by comparing Communism and Free Markets. Rand Paul is a physician, and he knows first hand what the cost of healthcare looks like and why.
As for congress, this American Healthcare Act (Obamacare Lite) does not look like it will succeed.
The House Freedom Caucus was publicly against this strategy before Ryan even rolled it out. The group of more than 40 House conservatives remains steadfastly opposed to Ryan’s plan on this front, showing no signs of breaking as they signaled before it was introduced, and now many Republican offices outside the House Freedom Caucus privately tell Breitbart News that as many as 70 or more House Republicans are opposed to Ryan’s plan. From Breitbart
Obamacare not only told individuals that they must purchase insurance, but defined specifically what that insurance must be. The first order of business should be to ensure that Americans can purchase the health insurance coverage that fits their needs.
By imposing a variety of requirements on what plans can cover and how much they pay out in claims, Obamacare significantly increased premiums. By eliminating Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirement, and other restrictive coverage and plan requirements, low-cost insurance options will again be available to American consumers.
Help People Save To Buy Health Insurance:
Authorize a tax credit (up to $5,000 per taxpayer) for individuals and families that contribute to HSAs to further incentivize health savings.
Remove the maximum allowable annual contribution limit to HSAs, so that individuals may make unlimited contributions to an HSA.
Currently, HSA funds may not be used to purchase insurance or cover the cost of premiums. Allowing the use of HSA funds for insurance premiums will help make health coverage more affordable for American families.
Allowing HSA funds to be used for a broader range of health-related expenses give Americans the freedom to choose the type of health care they wish to receive. Eligible expenses are expanded to include prescription and OTC drugs, dietary supplements, weight loss programs and physical exercise expenses, and direct primary care and concierge medicine services, among others.
Fair Tax Treatment of Health Insurance
Equalize the tax treatment of the purchase of health insurance for individuals and employers, by allowing individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their income and payroll taxes, they will be empowered to purchase insurance independent of employment.
Help Individuals Join Together to Purchase Insurance:
Expand Association Health Plans (AHPs) allow small business owners and individuals to band together across state lines through their membership in a trade or professional association to purchase health coverage for their families and employees at a lower cost.
In addition, we should allow individuals to pool together through any organization to purchase insurance.
These new pooling mechanisms increase the buying power of individuals and small businesses to decrease costs, increase administrative efficiencies, and protect individuals with pre-existing conditions by giving them access to the group market.
Allow the Purchase of Insurance Across State Lines
Increase access to health coverage by creating an interstate market for health insurance that allows insurers licensed to sell policies in one state to offer them to residents of any other state.
State Medicaid Flexibility
Provides states new flexibilities for Medicaid waivers for innovative state plan designs.
What the Paul Ryan plan does is make insurance cost more, give 30% penalties for people who haven’t had insurance for more than 63 days, and continue many of the bad aspects of Obamacare. I am glad that there are liberty minded representatives like Rand Paul in government to put a stop to this madness!
Submit a Comment