Home

Are “Guaranteed Requirement Accounts” in Your Best Interest?

1 Comment


Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

For the purposes of this satirical piece, one will need the following definitions to assist in decoding the secret methods of stripping away the populations nest egg.

SSA : Sorry Suckers All gone : Formerly known as Social Security Administration

AARP : Another Association Ripping off People : Formerly known as American Association of Retired People

GRA : Grab Retirement Assets  : Guaranteed Retirement Accounts

Introduced in the past have been Bills indicating that American Corporations are being irresponsible with their employees monetary investments (401K/IRA) and that the simple little American Folk need protecting from the big bad businesses. In order to do this, Administrations in the past have helped the under-informed idiots (us) by setting up programs that are designed to “help” us save for retirement. Seeing as the Federal Government has done such a fine job with the SSA program (never mind that for the first time since the overhaul in 1983 the program is in the red, is projected to be “less bad” and then recover nicely until it fails again in a few years) – history shows that another “assistance program” might not be such a great idea.

“While defined contribution plans have some strengths relative to defined benefit plans, participants in defined contribution plans bear the investment risk because there is no promise by the employer as to the adequacy of the account balance that will be available or the income stream that can be provided after retirement.” And furthermore, “The Agencies are considering whether it would be appropriate for them to take future steps for them to facilitate access to, and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed to provide a stream of income after retirement.”

We’ll just put that little data point at the back of our “unevolved-cannot-make-decisions-for-ourselves” brains until we work forward with this problem. More

Turning cops into robbers

1 Comment

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

The “civil asset forfeiture” laws are inherently corrupt. They empower law enforcement officers to take and keep your property, even if they haven’t charged you with a crime.

It gets worse.

It’s your property that’s actually charged with a crime, and your property is considered guilty until proven innocent. This makes it virtually impossible for you to regain your possessions once they’re seized.

But it gets even worse . . .

This scheme of legalized theft actually fosters additional corruption, as demonstrated in the sample letter below. Please use the new evidence we provide to send Congress another letter arguing that . . .

Civil asset forfeiture laws should be made illegal. More

Police Begin “Guns Drawn” Raids on Organic Food Stores in California

Leave a comment

Think this isn’t what S.510 is about?  This is happening across the country in every state as individual food producers are raided and attacked by local police. 

Too stupid to be allowed to vote?

3 Comments

 

 Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved 

____________________________________________________

Sometimes it is mind numbing to consider just how gullible and easily duped we can be.   Are we really just going to change the center stage actors and  believe that by doing so we will affect change? Or, that anything will actually change? Are we that stupid?  Is there really anyone out there who honestly believes that electing Republicans will change anything at all?_____________________________________

 

The last ten years have seen the most overt assaults on the constitution, our civil liberties and our right to be left alone by government.  In 2000, with a new president enthroned by the Supreme Court rather than by election, the faction of congress which calls itself [Republican] began the dismantling of our sovereignty and our constitution, in earnest.  By 2006, compassionate conservatism, a true oxymoron, had done as much damage as it could and over the next few years, the torch was passed to the other faction, the [Democrats]. Either way we got the same thing, the establishment of multi-national corporations as government, with congress simply acting as the facilitator for corporate takeover.    

2008 saw Democrats take control of both houses of congress and election of a new president.  And didn’t we all give a sigh of relief?  Didn’t most of us who had been waiting to exhale after eight years of near dictatorial rule by the Bush Administration, the absolute corruption of power and the open hostility of government towards the people, suddenly feel as if some burden had been lifted from us?  That somehow all the egregious assaults on America, perpetrated by its own government, would somehow be righted?  That our instinctive fear of this grossly expanding government that was intruding steadily into our lives, that viewed us as the enemy, would be subdued by voting into office anyone but more Republicans?  Didn’t we believe the Democrats would save the day?  More

Africa: up for grabs The scale and impact of land grabbing for agrofuels

Leave a comment

Friends of the Earth Africa and Friends of the Earth Europe | 30 August 2010

The farming system developed shall respect ecological limits, not lead to climate changing emissions, depletion of the soil and prevent the exhaustion of water supplies. Such systems naturally forbid the use of genetically modified crops or trees.

Executive summary

Access to land provides food and livelihoods for billions of people around the world, but as the availability of fertile land and water is threatened by climate change, mismanagement and consumption patterns, demand for land has been increasing.

“Land grabs” – where land traditionally used by local communities is leased or sold to outside investors (from corporations and from governments) are becoming increasingly common across Africa. Whilst many of these deals are for food cultivation, there is a growing interest in growing crops for fuel – agrofuels – particularly to supply the growing EU market.

These land grabs have been taking place against a backdrop of rising food prices which led to the food crisis in 2008. There were food riots in some developing countries and in Haiti and Madagascar the governments were overthrown as a result of the crisis. Crops being used for agrofuels was a major factor in the rising price of food. More

Buying Africa for a song

Leave a comment

 

Guardian News & Media (Johannesburg) | Aug 27 2010

KATIE ALLEN

If dodgy emails offering millions in return for your down payment to repatriate a stranded Nigerian astronaut do not tempt you, then maybe this will appeal to your speculative side — a hectare of fertile African land on a 99-year lease — for $1 a year.

Think about it: crop prices are soaring, land is appreciating and importdependent rich nations almost guarantee you a never-ending export market. It’s starting to sound like that Nigerian astronaut deal. But this is not a scam.

Sadly, for anyone who happens to live on that farmland, there are countless examples of African governments handing it over at bargain prices to foreign investors, ranging from hedge funds to biofuel producers. Critics call it land grabbing.

The trend of buying or taking out long-term leases on land first came to prominence during the 2008 world food crisis. As food riots raged across the world, speculators and countries with their own food-security fears quietly sealed deals with African nations. Others call it neocolonialism. More

Unconstitutional laws and the courts

Leave a comment

 

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..

Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”  Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: