Are We Still in a Feudal System of Property?

crown

Source: TheDailyBell.com
March 5, 2017

Do you own property? How does it feel to have a piece of land that is yours, that no one can take from you?

Unless of course, you don’t pay your yearly rent, or rather property tax, to the town.

And then of course the government could always just take your land for “public use” providing “just compensation,” a price which will be decided by the government.

Oh and the government could also steal your land for private use, because they decided “public use” can include tax revenue gained from the land.

And if you are suspected, not convicted, of a crime, governments in many states can take your land through civil asset forfeiture.

Do you have water on your land? Even a drainage ditch means the EPA really owns it.

Private property means sovereignty for the individual; something the power elites cannot stomach.

Government Can Take Your Land

You are probably familiar with Kelo v. New London, the 2005 Supreme Court case in which a woman’s dream home was stolen from her using eminent domain, authorized by the Fifth Amendment. Her property was handed over to the private corporation Pfizer. Since the corporation pays higher taxes, that was considered public “use” of the land.

Basically the bigger the business, the more land they can steal, authorized by the federal government.

Some states, like Indiana, strengthened laws to prevent this from happening.

But if there is one thing government is good at, it is being creative in their oppression.

Charlestown Indiana is trying a new tactic: fine private property until the owners can hardly afford to live there. Then, waive those fines if they sell their property to a developer.

The fines are issued for things like tall weeds in the yard, torn window screens, and chipping paint. The fines are usually $50 per day after assessment, and the residents usually won’t receive them immediately. So when the city issues three fines, and notifies the homeowners five days later, the homeowner owes $750 in fines immediately, increasing by $150 per day, unless they sell their home to the developer.

Did I mention this is a low income neighborhood filled with retirees?

Feudalism Reorganized

Bottom up approaches mean freedom; individuals control their property, which they organize into larger voluntary groups controlled by those individuals. But feudalism was the opposite. The King owned all the land, and awarded some to the Lords, who likewise reigned over the serfs.

Originally America was supposed to resemble the former, where individuals had the most power over town governments. Local officials then controlled state government, which controlled federal government. Now it is the opposite, where the feds issue orders to the states, and the states control the towns.

And each government really controls all the land in their territory, and graciously allows us peasants to rent it from them, unless and until they decide to take it back.

The big question many have is, if the government cannot steal private property for actual public use, then how would we get projects like roads done? This is just like the Kings used to provide roads, and the Lords protection. We need them, right?

But in a non-feudal system, our “superiors” would have to offer actual just compensation. How can the government consider something just compensation if the owner of the property gets no say in that? The government somehow comes up with a market value, but that is not necessarily the same as the value to the homeowner.

Real just compensation is whatever the homeowner will accept. At some point, Kelo would have sold her property, she just hadn’t been offered enough money yet. If Pfizer really wanted it that bad, they could have offered her $1 million for a $300,000 house. If she still said no, up the price until she says yes! How bad does Pfizer want her land?

Would highways have been way more expensive to initially build? Probably. But why are highways immune from economics? Maybe they weren’t worth the price, which includes the oppression and precedent of kicking people out of their homes for the greater good!

Maybe some better form of transportation would have been born out of free market economics. Instead it is taken for granted that highways and roads are a good thing. Yet we are still burning fossil fuels to get places, and allowing the economic waste of individual car ownership.

We are now stuck in an outdated transportation system; just one of many bad result from not having ownership over “our own” land.

Marx Would Be Proud

Private property doesn’t really exist in America, seeing as local, state, and federal authorities can tell you what you can and cannot do with it, as well as charge you money for occupying it.

These authorities can also use various methods to take the land from you altogether. Even if they give you what they decide is “just compensation” it still means the land is not owned by you, because you have no say in whether or not to sell the land, nor in the price.

Hopefully we can work towards a private property system where individuals actually own their land. And then, they would have actual control, like sovereign nations, over their land, and over how they interact with their neighbors.

Do you think we can (or should) get their in our lifetimes? Comment what you think.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Vatican Wants A Global Central Bank

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 11, 2017

Color me surprised… NOT.

In this article shared by Ms. S.H., the Vatican recently sponsored a committee that called for (surprise surprise) a global central bank:

Vatican Calls For Central World Bank To Be Set Up Across The Globe

http://worldtruth.tv/vatican-calls-for-central-world-bank-to-be-set-up-across-the-globe/embed/#?secret=Kzk6ZGMgGc

I definitely think this to be a colossally, hugely, unabashedly bad (and furthermore) stupid idea, but one certainly in line with what the Vatican, and Papacy, really are, based on claims much of the Christian world, and most of the secular humanistic world, regard as egregiously false, and those claims are tyrannical. There is no other word for them. There is no dressing them up, no explaining them away, and no softening of them, for that institution itself has not softened them nor rejected them.

Why is this a colossally, hugely, unabashedly bad and stupid idea?

Years ago, on one of many interviews with the late George Anne Hughes of The Byte show, and in conjunction with a prolonged series of interviews about my book Babylon’s Banksters, I offered the opinion that eventually one would see the Vatican jump on the global government central bank bandwagon. My reasons were simple: throughout history, one has seen an alliance between the debt-money model, central banks, and religion… in short, an alliance between “money changers” and “the Temple,” and it seems to me I remember a certain Someone having something to say about that a couple of millennia ago. (Apparently, that Someone and His supposedly infallible “Vicar” are now in a bit of ideological conflict.) In a private correspondence with a friend, I also predicted that inevitably one would see a move toward a European currency, or a global currency, backed by the “moral suasion” represented by religion. The trouble is, what religion makes such universal political and temporal claims?

Answer: the Papacy.

And it’s been very clever in trying to distance itself not only from its own past, but from its own claims about itself. Recall that after the revolution of Vatican Two, Popes abandoned their sedan chairs and the papal tiara, the triple crown that symbolized and embodied the claims of the institution to have authority over the church triumphant (in heaven), the church suffering (in purgatory) and the church militant (on earth), each represented by one of the three crowns in the tiara. Pope Pius XII (Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli) was the last person to wear it, though Pope Paul VI was crowned with it, he seldom wore it in public functions. But amid all the flannel- and cotton-mouthed pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council, one central doctrine was treated in the old fashioned language: the papacy, and its claims, itself, and those pronouncements of Vatican Two stressed all the vocabulary of plenitudo potestatis that one was accustomed to from the mediaeval popes like Boniface VIII and Innocent III. It was, after all, Boniface VIII whose (aptly named) Bull, Unam Sanctam, stated clearly and unequivocally that it was necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. Not in communion with, not adherent to other Catholic doctrine, but simply subject to the Papacy. And this itself was the subject of critique, not only by Eastern Orthodox theologians of the day (and since), but also of Roman Catholic theologians themselves: in the face of such supreme authority, what did the rest of Catholic doctrine really matter, if the sine qua non of being Catholic were mere submission to a claim of authority, whether or not that authority in other respects was even Catholic. The critique was leveled again by Roman Catholics, some even bishops, at the first Vatican Council that defined papal infallibility, and universal and immediate jurisdiction, in 1870-71.

The whole papal edifice and its claims have come again under scrutiny by Catholics dismayed by some of the current occupant of these claims’ recent pronouncements, some of which don’t sound all that “Catholic.” Francis has called for his more traditionally-minded opponents to be “flexible and adaptable”; but when push comes to shove, invokes papal authority. The rest of Catholic tradition and doctrine are wholly subservient to it. And that means, effectively, all Catholic doctrine and practice are up for grabs.

In short, as the Orthodox Churches have stated clearly and unequivocally since these claims were pressed on it a millennium ago: such claims are no part of Catholic doctrine or practice, and lie at the heart of the West’s schism from Orthodoxy ever since. The Protestants took up this renunciation of papal claims during the Reformation. It is the papacy, and its claims, that are at the heart of the disunity of Christendom, and that are at the heart of the issue.

So now the Vatican calls for a global central bank, and taxes on all financial transactions. And this is but another clue that the world of Boniface VIII is still alive and well, for one can assume that the Vatican wants its “cut of the action” in return for…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
___________________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

After the Election – #NewWorldNextWeek

Source: TheCorbettReport
James Corbett
November 10, 2016

Welcome to New World Next Week — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. In this week’s episode:

Story #1: Donald Trump Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of Establishment
http://bit.ly/2fniLdz

Story #2: What Major Ballot Measures Did Voters Approve?
http://cbsn.ws/2fmPujc
California Marijuana Legalization Faced Unlikely Foe In Pot Growers
http://for.tn/2eEuN0x
San Francisco Passes Soda Tax
http://bit.ly/2elF9qP
Michael Malice and Tom Woods Discuss: What the Trump Victory Means
http://bit.ly/2fgrW1J

Story #3: Pizzagate: Podesta Emails Lead to Allegations of Another Child Abuse Ring
http://bit.ly/2fIWCuC
Has Reddit Cracked the Madeleine McCann Case?
http://bit.ly/2fTRjZr
Massive Investigation Into Clinton Crime Family Happening Online, Right Now
http://bit.ly/2fnpPHd
Thomas Sheridan: Don’t Feed the Sorcery
http://bit.ly/2fTSCHy

Obamacare On “Verge Of Collapse” As Premiums Set To Soar Again In 2017

WHO'S SREWED IF OBAMACARE GETS THE AX?
Source: ZeroHedge.com
August 11, 2016

If Obamacare enrollments continue their current trend and insurers continue to hike premiums at alarming rates then Republicans may not have to worry about “repealing and replacing Obamacare” as it might just work itself out “naturally”.  The 4th open enrollment period for Obamacare begins on November 1, 2016 and industry experts are warning that another year of tepid demand from “young and healthy” Americans could force more insurers out of the exchanges effectively marking the end of Obamacare as we know it.  According to a story published by The Hill, 11 million people bought health insurance through the exchanges for 2016 which was drastically below the Congressional Budget Office’s initial projection of 21 million.

Well we’re shocked!  Turns out that whole “adverse selection bias” was a real thing.  So you’re telling us that young, healthy people don’t want to pay for insurance they know they’ll never use?  We guess America’s youth can actually do basic math, after all.  Apparently they were able to figure out they would rather take the lower tax associated with Obamacare penalties than the larger tax associated with buying a healthcare policy they’ll never use.  We guess Millennials are a little less enthusiastic about embracing socialism when the costs are coming out of their pockets.

With America’s youth continuing to shun health insurance, insurers are all racking up massive losses on the exchanges.  For many insurers the losses will simply result in massive premium hikes but others have decided to withdraw from the exchanges all together.  In fact, UnitedHealthCare recently announced plans to exit most state exchanges by 2017 (see our post entitled “Largest US Health Insurer Exits California, Illinois Obamacare Markets“)  Per The Hill:

In the last month, two major insurers – Aetna and Anthem – both reversed course on their plans to expand in the marketplace. Now, all five of the nation’s largest insurers say they are losing money on the exchanges.

 

“From a policy point of view, we’re basically seeing the exchanges unravel,” said Michael Abrams, a healthcare strategist with Numerof & Associates who consults for insurers including UnitedHealthGroup.

2016 average premiums were up substantially in most states (see map below) and, with no one making money, 2017 seems no better.  According to The Hill:

Already, many insurers this year are proposing substantial rate hikes with the hopes of making up for higher recent medical costs. The average premium increase next year is about 9 percent, according to an analysis of 19 cities by Kaiser Family Foundation. But some hikes are far higher: Blue Cross Blue Shield has proposed increases of 40 percent in Alabama and 60 percent in Texas.

Obamacare Premium Map

For her part, Hillary Clinton has vowed to stick with Obamacare insisting that taxpayers just need to spend more money on advertising to drive higher enrollments:

Clinton has already laid out plans to help boost enrollment by making coverage more affordable for people who are still priced out of ObamaCare.

 

Like Obama, she vowed to invest in advertising and in-person outreach to help more people enroll. Clinton would also increase ObamaCare subsidies so that customers spend no more than 8.5 percent of their income on premiums – down from 9.5 percent under current law.

 

She has also proposed a tax credit of up to $5,000 per family specifically to offset rising out-of-pocket costs – a side effect of cheaper plans offered under ObamaCare.

Right, more advertising should fix it because no one in the country is familiar with Obamacare.  As Obama likes to say when things don’t go as planned, it’s not that Obamacare is bad it’s just that we’ve failed to explain it properly.  No, we think people get it and they just don’t like it.   

We also find it hard to understand how a Clinton administration could make healthcare cheaper than “free?”  Perhaps we should start paying people to take taxpayer subsidized healthcare?  If at first you don’t succeed, throw more taxpayer money at it…

US Corporations Hide $1.4 TRILLION In Tax Havens

Source: RT
April 26, 2016

Anti-poverty charity Oxfam released a new report entitled, Broken at the Top, which asserts that the US’s top 50 corporations have stashed $1.4 trillion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes. Worse, the report asserts that, in the same time period, those same corporations actually received $11 trillion in federal loans, bailouts, and loan guarantees – from the rest of America’s taxpayers.

Hate Taxes? You Certainly Are Not Alone…

Taxes - Public Domain

Source: TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com
Michael Snyder
April 11, 2016

At this time of the year, millions of Americans are rushing to file their taxes at the last minute, and we are once again reminded just how nightmarish our system of taxation has become.  I studied tax law when I was in law school, and it is one of the most mind-numbing areas of study that you could possibly imagine.  At this point, the U.S. tax code is somewhere around 4 million words long, which is more than four times longer than all of William Shakespeare’s works put together.  And even if you could somehow read the entire tax code, it is constantly changing, and so those that prepare taxes for a living are constantly relearning the rules.  It has been said that Americans spend more than 6 billion hours preparing their taxes each year, and Politifact has rated this claim as true.  We have a system that is as ridiculous as it is absurd, and the truth is that we don’t even need it.  In fact, the greatest period of economic growth in all of U.S. history was when there was no income tax at all.  Why anyone would want to perpetuate this tortuous system is beyond me, and yet we keep sending politicians to Washington D.C. that just keep making this system even more complicated and even more burdensome.

If you hate taxes, you are far from alone.  According to NBC News, here are some of the things that Americans would rather do than pay taxes…

Six percent would rather sell a kidney, eight percent would rather name their first-born “Taxes,” and 11 percent would rather spend three years cleaning the bathrooms at noro-torious Chipotle.

Of course our system was never intended to be like this anyway.  Our founders hated taxes, and they fought a very bitter war to escape the yoke of oppressive taxation.  During his very first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson clearly expressed what he thought about taxes…

A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

Why couldn’t we have listened to him?

When the federal income tax was originally introduced a little more than a century ago, most Americans were taxed at a rate of only 1 percent.

But of course once they get their feet in the door, the social planners always want more, and today we are being taxed into oblivion.  Below, I would like to share with you three quick facts about our taxes that come from the Tax Foundation

-This year, Tax Freedom Day falls on April 24, or 114 days into the year (excluding Leap Day).

-Americans will pay $3.3 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of almost $5.0 trillion, or 31 percent of the nation’s income.

-Americans will collectively spend more on taxes in 2016 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.

That last statistic is a huge sore point with me.

How can anyone argue that we are not a socialist society when the government takes more of our money than we spend on food, clothing and housing combined?

What they are doing to us is deeply wrong and it is fundamentally un-American.

And of course the elite have the resources to be able to hire very expensive tax attorneys that help them manipulate the game in their favor.  At the end of the day, many extremely wealthy Americans end up paying a much lower percentage of their income to the government than you or I do.

Continue Reading At: EconomicCollapseBlog.com

Massive $160 Billion Pharmaceutical Merger Stopped Cold

It’s Getting Harder For Big Pharma To Dodge Taxes

business deal
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Christina Sarich
April 9, 2016

As Washington cracks down on pharmaceutical company greed, the largest ever health-care-acquisition between Allergan and Pfizer has been dissolved.

Pfizer will have to pay Allergan $400 million in fees for pulling out of the planned $160 billion merger, but the mega-pharmaceutical company will end up paying much more in avoided taxes.

Pfizer was targeting the merger with Allergan, which has a legal ‘home’ office in Dublin, Ireland, and was meant as a safe haven to avoid paying millions in taxes to the US government. Pfizer is based in New York, and would need a foreign address in order to get a lower tax rate.

Big Pharma has been fighting with the current administration to avoid paying taxes for some time now. As Forbes reports:

“Jack Lew, Obama’s secretary of the treasury, called Pfizer’s bluff, instituting new rules to make the move as difficult as possible.”

This is likely what made Pfizer call off the merger with Allergan, and why the stock price is suffering. Should the $160 billion-dollar deal have gone through, it would have amounted to the largest merger in history.

Lew is also uncovering a host of shady dealings between at least half a dozen pharmaceutical companies which will now be affected by the ‘un-done’ deal. For example – Allergan, who makes Botox, used to pay taxes with a base in Irvine, California, but then was purchased by a Dublin-based pharma company called Actavis for $66 billion. Then there were a few more exchanges and mergers between a New Jersey-based pharma company, a Swiss-based company, and finally Allergan’s eventual tax-base in Dublin, Ireland.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com

Incisive Analysis Into Media Propaganda Regarding The Panama Papers

Source: TheCorbetReport
James Corbett
April 5, 2016

The Panama Papers are out and the Panama Papers propaganda is out right along with it. So why does this new mega-leak seemingly only expose those in the State Department crosshairs or expendable others and not a single prominent American politician or businessman? And what does this have to do with the OECD’s plan for a global taxation grid? Find out more in today’s Thought For The Day with James Corbett.