NEW
YEARS' RESOLUTIONS FOR GLOBALISTS
PART 3 of 3
By
Jon Christian Ryter
January 15, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
And David Rockefeller, the wealthiest man in the world, had even less of an excuse for his participation not only in the propagation of Ehlrich's fiction, but also in his successful effort to finance the public relations campaign that ultimately resulted in the legalizing of the killing of the unborn in the United States. That effort resulted in the withholding of birth from what now appears to be over 69 million babies in the United States (49 million victims of abortion, and 20 million babies not born because one or both of their theoretical parents were victims of abortion).
In 1995 the developed nations performed 25.6 million legal and 19.9 million illegal abortions. (This is an abortion rate of 35 per thousand women aged 15 to 44.) Asia (excluding China), performed 26.8 million abortions. There are no abortion statistics for China. Catholic Latin America performed 4.3 million abortions. If the rate of abortion for 1995 was relatively constant over the three decades since abortion was legalized in the United States, then the world may well have closed its eyes to the murder of three billion one hundred sixty-six million, six hundred thousand unborn babies worldwide since 1973.
They would be the babies which the Gaia crowd thought had no financial value to mankind since they would simply grow up and consume too much of nature's rapidly dwindling commodities. (The 69 million missing babies in the United States are the reason Social Security is bankrupt, and why Medicare is bankrupt. The pro-abortion social progressives who view population as a plague on their pristine planet failed to realize that as society ages, an aging work force needs to be not only replaced with a younger work force, but more important, it needs to be replaced with a larger work force than that which is retiring.
Again, we can thank David Rockefeller, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, the Carnegie Trust, the Ford Foundation, the Scaife Foundation, and the Pew Trust for the the people shortfall since they led the funding to legalize abortion. Shortsightedly, the constructionalists of Utopia failed to realize that the shortfall of workers would also produced a shortfall of taxpayers. Today we have an untenable imbalance between the number of people either in the work force or who are willing and able to work, and those who have paid into the Social Security system for 40 to 50 years and are entitled to both a pension and for medical care for which they've paid the "premiums" throughout their entire adult life. The Democrats in 1964-65 stole the Social Security Trust Fund which was supposed to invested in high yield bonds. They replaced the money they stole with IOUs at 2% interest, draining the Social Security Trust to finance the generational Welfare State. No interest has ever been paid on the money they stole.
What part of the Social Security OASI Trust Fund that Lyndon Johnson didn't squander on the generational welfare recipients of his Great Society, Ronald Reagan saved by cutting a deal with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan [D-NY] , House Speaker Tip O'Neill [D-MA] and economist Alan Greenspan (who ultimately replaced liberal Fed Chairman Paul Volcker (now an adviser to Obama). Reagan, with the help of Moynihan and O'Neill created the National Commission on Social Security Reform.
Reagan tasked Greenspan with the impossible chore of creating a plan to keep Social Security solvent for at least 75 years. Greenspan told Congress they would have to triple the OASI tax to generate enough of a cash reserve that, with interest, would keep Social Security solvent until 2060. Reagan signed the legislation into law. Included in Public Law 101-508, Title XIII, Sec. 13301[a] was a stipulation that "...notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursement of the Federal Old-Age Survivors Insurance Trust and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund and shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes—(1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emeregency Deficit Control Act of 1895." Under that law, all OASI surpluses were required to be invested in high yield government securities to guarantee the growth of the fund. All OASI funds were immune from the greedy fingers of federal politicians who never saw a dollar they could not spend before the ink on the greenback was dry enough to pocket.
One of the most talked about fables in Washington, DC was that co-presidents Bill and Hillary Clinton, with the help of Clinton's financial guru, former Goldman Sachs co-chairman, and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin balanced the budget, paid off a chunk of the national debt, and created a cash surplus that President George W. Bush squandered to wage a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein for trying to assassinate his daddy. You've heard lots of Washington Cinderella stories. Well, this is the Pinnochio story. Rubin was hailed as the most brillant financial genius in Washington. who was theoretically able to pay off a large chunk of the nation debt with tax dollars even as the United States was experiencing an exodus of US factories as over 15 million US tax-generating jobs were leaving the United States via the swinging door in Brownsville, Texas. Yet, with unemployment rising, tax revenue plummeting, Rubin was able to manage what little tax revnue remained so well that not only was he able to balance the budget, but create a surplus as well.
Advertisement
As is usually the case in Washington, DC, someone ultimately revealed the financial sleight-of-hand Rubin used to balance the budget. Rubin, it seems, simply wrote out a new IOU and "borrowed" $667 billion from the Social Secuirity OASI Trust Fund to balance the budget. No genius. No magic. Just a typical inside-the-beltway political sleight-of-hand. When several newspapers friendly to Clinton admitted in 2006 that the sleight-of-hand had actually taken place, they minimized its significance by noting that President Reagain and/or George H.W. Bush {depending on who was telling the story) also "borrowed" $100 billion from the OASI Trust Fund during his/their administration. (Since Reagan did not believe any government agency or President had the authority to touch the Trust Fund, the story lacks credibility.) The Clinton Administration claimed the Trust Fund was solvent and contained some $2.4 trillion. Rubin emptied the OASI coffers. All that was left in the Trust Fund were worthless IOUs which Congress promised to repay.
There's the problem. Congress' promissary notes are worthless because the Fed has run out of buyers for its debt and it lacks lacks the money to repay the OASI funds it appropriated since 1965. Social security recipients are paid with current Social Security receipts. Based on the Clinton-Rubin transferring the OASI funds to the general treasury, "D" day—deficit day—arrives in 2017. Unless Uncle Sam finds from 45 to 60 million new middle class taxpayers overnight to fill the deficit when the balance of the Baby Boomers retire, FICA taxes on all US citizens—including current Social Security recipients—will quadruple.
The problem, as the Rockefellerites have insisted for years, is that there are too many people in the world. They envisiion a more pristine, idyllic world with no more than 500 million people. However, the planned reduction of the population over the years through abortion created a demographic imbalance that the richest men in the world failed to foresee—an imbalance that would upset the economic equillibrium of the industrialized nations. The slaughter of 49,589,993 innocent babies combined with 20 million children they will never have in this country created a population shortfall of approximately 69 million taxpayers who are now direly needed to replace the 59.7 million Baby Boomers— who will be retired by 2017 and receving government benefits rather than paying taxes.
A couple days before the Senatorial Christmas break, the far left progressives allied with moderate Democrats whose votes were purchased, won a bribery-corrupted, nasty vote-buying "winterfest" gift that allowed White House occupant Barack Hussein Obama to declare an Obamacare victory, and make what could be construed as a New Year's Resolution to keep Social Secuirty and Medicare from going bankrupt for at least the next decade {which, of course is 50 years short of the guarantee Reagan got from Moynihan, O'Neill and Greenspan in 1983). Obama did not win one additional day over the Clinton-Rubin "D-Day" timeline. But Obama won something Clinton could not ge through Congress. Obama won the right to kill the unwanted at both ends of the age corridor.
Obama's victory claims, of course, were designed to bring the elderly voters back into the Democratic fold in November so they can vote for the Democrats who, in HR-1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, legislated into existence the regulatory team that will oversee the euthanasia of America's double-dippers. (Double dippers are seniors who receive Social Security benefits and are Medicare recipients, too. Euthanizing them is like getting two birds with one stone.)
The rationing of healthcare to the elderly and to those with catastrophic or terminal illnesses for which recovery is unlikely (such as old age), takes place in every nation which provides some form of universal healthcare such as: Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany [the first nation in the world to provide universal healthcare], Greece, Iraq, Icxeland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom will also take place here—even without Obama's public option in HR 3590, the House and Senate-passed Patient Protection and Affordable Caare Act [PPACA] since the healthcare legislation, when merged with the House version, will reduce the age at which Americans will be obligated to participate in Medicare to age 55. While that option is voluntary today, and while the legislation will be signed into law without Obama's public option, it is important for people to understand that once legislation becomes law, they can be amended two ways. First, by writing regulations which circumvent the original intent of the law, and second, by innocuously amending specific words within specific phases without ever mentioning, by name, the law being amending, or the full text of the section, subsection, or clause being changed.
Unless you know the specific language of whatever section, subsection or clause when you read the legalese in the bill, you won't have the slightest idea what is being changed. For example, in Sec. 3 of HR 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there appears to an extension on the first time home buyer credit for certain people working outisde the United States. Changes in the Internal Revenue Code that theoretically allow this credit appear in HR 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Caare Act. No mention is made of the original law where this authority was granted, or what changes will occur when HR 3590 becomes law. (The law being amended is the Corporate Estimated Tax Shift Act of 2009).
The exclusion from Gross Income of Qualified Military Personnel under Sec.4(a) in its entirety, says: "In general, Subsection (n) of section 132 of the Internal Revenue Code of 19876 is amended—(1) in subparagraph (1) by striking "this subscection) to offset the advrse effects on housing values as a result of a military base realignment or closure" and inserting "the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and (2) in subparagraph (2) by striking "clause (1) of". (b) Effective Date—The amendments made by this act shall apply to payments made after Feb. 17, 2009." Don't you feel relieved to know that change was finally made?
|
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
But even more, don't you wish that when people announced their New Years' Resolution the only thing that came out of their mouths was that they pledged to take off 25 lbs, or that you were determined to quit smoking, or get a better job, invent a better mouse trap...or simply be a better person and contribute more to your home, your family, your neighborhood or your nation. I'd much rather Obama's New Year's Resolution was that he was going to clear the air about his citizenship status, and that he resolved to produce his real birth certificate.
