XCR Forum banner

1 - 20 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,526 Posts
Typical socialism, no true understanding of the costs of their decisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
COVID is just an opportunity for them to institute their "living wage". They don't care about the costs. The more they ruin the economy or other institutions (families, schools, businesses, etc.), the more empowered they get if the sheeple see them as the solution. Something that can't go on forever won't. There will be a day when the government loses its ability to borrow. When that happens, they will literally do anything to stay in power (think draining your bank accounts and literally taking your possessions).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
705 Posts
Becky BigCanoe - circulating now. and I believe it.... | Facebook
LEAKED!!! CANADA'S FRIGHTENING PLAN FOR LOCKDOWNS / RESET / INDEFINITE ISOLATION OF REFUSERS SET IN MOTION FOR 2021!!!
I'm not sure of the validity of this and I also can't give the source but please, PLEASE READ!!!
THIS MUST GO VIRAL AND TO EVERY MLA,MP,MMP and all authorities!!!
Fw: LPC Strategic Committee LeakInboxLPC leaker <[email protected]>1:47 PM (7 hours ago)toHello,
Original Message &#8208;&#8208;&#8208;&#8208;&#8208;&#8208;&#8208;
On Saturday, October 10, 2020 1:38 PM, REMOVED <REMOVED> wrote:
Dear ***,
I want to provide you some very important information. I'm a committee member within the Liberal Party of Canada. I sit within several committee groups but the information I am providing is originating from the Strategic Planning committee (which is steered by the PMO).
I need to start off by saying that I'm not happy doing this but I have to. As a Canadian and more importantly as a parent who wants a better future not only for my children but for other children as well. The other reason I am doing this is because roughly 30% of the committee members are not pleased with the direction this will take Canada, but our opinions have been ignored and they plan on moving forward toward their goals. They have also made it very clear that nothing will stop the planned outcomes.
The road map and aim was set out by the PMO and is as follows:
  • Phase in secondary lock down restrictions on a rolling basis, starting with major metropolitan areas first and expanding outward. Expected by November 2020.
  • Rush the acquisition of (or construction of) isolation facilities across every province and territory. Expected by December 2020.
  • Daily new cases of COVID-19 will surge beyond capacity of testing, including increases in COVID related deaths following the same growth curves. Expected by end of November 2020.
  • Complete and total secondary lock down (much stricter than the first and second rolling phase restrictions). Expected by end of December 2020 - early January 2021
  • Reform and expansion of the unemployment program to be transitioned into the universal basic income program. Expected by Q1 2021.
  • Projected COVID-19 mutation and/or co-infection with secondary virus (referred to as COVID-21) leading to a third wave with much higher mortality rate and higher rate of infection. Expected by February 2021.
  • Daily new cases of COVID-21 hospitalizations and COVID-19 and COVID-21 related deaths will exceed medical care facilities capacity. Expected Q1 - Q2 2021.
  • Enhanced lock down restrictions (referred to as Third Lock Down) will be implemented. Full travel restrictions will be imposed (including inter-province and inter-city). Expected Q2 2021.
  • Transitioning of individuals into the universal basic income program. Expected mid Q2 2021.
  • Projected supply chain break downs, inventory shortages, large economic instability. Expected late Q2 2021.
  • Deployment of military personnel into major metropolitan areas as well as all major roadways to establish travel checkpoints. Restrict travel and movement. Provide logistical support to the area. Expected by Q3 2021.
Along with that provided road map the Strategic Planning committee was asked to design an effective way of transitioning Canadians to meet a unprecedented economic endeavor. One that would change the face of Canada and forever alter the lives of Canadians.
What we were told was that in order to offset what was essentially an economic collapse on a international scale, that the federal government was going to offer Canadians a total debt relief.
This is how it works: the federal government will offer to eliminate all personal debts (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc) which all funding will be provided
to Canada by the IMF under what will become known as the World Debt Reset program.
In exchange for acceptance of this total debt forgiveness the individual would forfeit ownership of any and all property and assets forever.
The individual would also have to agree to partake in the COVID-19 and COVID-21 vaccination schedule, which would provide the individual with unrestricted travel and unrestricted living even under a full lock down (through the use of photo identification referred to as Canada's HealthPass) .
Committee members asked who would become the owner of the forfeited property and assets in that scenario and what would happen to lenders or financial institutions, we were simply told "the World Debt Reset program will handle all of the details".
Several committee members also questioned what would happen to individuals if they refused to participate in the World Debt Reset program, or the HealthPass, or the vaccination schedule, and the answer we got was very troubling. Essentially we were told it was our duty to make sure we came up with a plan to ensure that would never happen. We were told it was in the individuals best interest to participate.
When several committee members pushed relentlessly to get an answer we were told that those who refused would first live under the lock down restrictions indefinitely.
And that over a short period of time as more Canadians transitioned into the debt forgiveness program, the ones who refused to participate would be deemed a public safety risk and would be relocated into isolation facilities. Once in those facilities they would be given two options, participate in the debt forgiveness program and be released, or stay indefinitely in the isolation facility under the classification of a serious public health risk and have all their assets seized.
So as you can imagine after hearing all of this it turned into quite the heated discussion and escalated beyond anything I've ever witnessed before.
In the end it was implied by the PMO that the whole agenda will move forward no matter who agrees with it or not.
That it wont just be Canada but in fact all nations will have similar roadmaps and agendas. That we need to take advantage of the situations before us to promote change on a grander scale for the betterment of everyone. The members who were opposed and ones who brought up key issues that would arise from such a thing were completely ignored. Our opinions and concerns were ignored. We were simply told to just do it.
All I know is that I don't like it and I think its going to place Canadians into a dark future.
I assumed this was a LARP back in October. If it is still a LARP, they had rather good foresight in aligning the new measures at the correct timeslot for Canada. In December 2020, Fauci said the rise in infections was due to the new variant COVID-21. Its like he read his lines from later on in the scrip.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,125 Posts
Becky BigCanoe - circulating now. and I believe it.... | Facebook


I assumed this was a LARP back in October. If it is still a LARP, they had rather good foresight in aligning the new measures at the correct timeslot for Canada. In December 2020, Fauci said the rise in infections was due to the new variant COVID-21. Its like he read his lines from later on in the scrip.
This can't be real:

"This is how it works: the federal government will offer to eliminate all personal debts (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc) which all funding will be provided
to Canada by the IMF under what will become known as the World Debt Reset program.
In exchange for acceptance of this total debt forgiveness the individual would forfeit ownership of any and all property and assets forever. "

Exactly what is the difference between losing your home (as one example) b/c the economy takes a shit and you can't pay your mortgage and having IMF essentially buy out your ownership of said home? Is the important part they are leaving out of this "agreement" that you can still live there? Rent free? Or as part of your UBI payment?

And they have this definitive timeline of events....but nothing for this World Debt Reset program. I dunno....I'm smell a whole lot of conspiracy theory, but it is FB after all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
@Sean K. I agree with your assessment — it’s an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
As for whether possessions can or will be taken from us in the future — seizures like that are legally difficult. You can look at the case law on “takings” and see the criteria that the courts will use to evaluate when the government can take and when they do, how much they need to compensate the aggrieved property owner. Liberal AND conservative justices generally do not differ in their position on “just compensation” for takings, so it’s not really an issue where the makeup of the high court makes a difference. There are so many things to worry about these days, but in my estimation this isn’t one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
I think that you're significantly underestimating the current crop of woke leftist judges. They will not let such minor details as case law get in the way of the agenda. They are not the same as liberal judges of the past. They don't believe in property rights and are not going to less silly racist pieces of paper such as the Constitution get in the way either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Show me a case where a judge ignored a taking, like allowed a taking to occur without just compensation, and then wasn’t reversed by the court of appeals. Even the 9th circuit has been protective of individuals’ rights to just compensation for takings. I understand the fear that the other side’s appointed judges will do things you disagree with; but just compensation for takings isn’t an issue that falls on a right/left divide among judges. And in legislative/local government politics it’s actually historically been conservative business interests who have tried to erode takings law because of their interest in land development, and that has largely been unsuccessful anyhow. It would take a constitutional amendment to get to where the conspiracy theory described above comes anywhere close to reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
That's easy. Here's a pretty well known one. Chrysler bond holders were deprived of their property rights by the Obama administration. They literally got nothing when the law required that they had first rights to Chrysler's assets. The Truth about the GM and Chrysler Bailouts | Cato at Liberty Blog

BTW, I'm not agreeing with the Facebook article. I didn't even read it. I'm just saying that if you're confident that the most recent crop of leftist judges will be there to protect property rights, you're likely to be disappointed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Looking aside from the fact that the source isn’t a great one for understanding what happened, it’s not related to what we’re discussing here. Describe in your own words how that is a constitutionally protected taking, in the sense of seizure of personal property. My understanding is that this is pretty basic risk when investing in stocks and bonds, and that’s a separate body of law much of which predates the political parties as we know them today, and so doesn’t resemble at all the situation you described above where you feared that government will come and seize personal property and that liberal judges will ignore the law of takings. I appreciate that you are critical of what happened in those bailout situations, and I don’t disagree with you that it’s a shame, but that’s not an example of a court ignoring takings case law as you described above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Show me a case where a judge ignored a taking, like allowed a taking to occur without just compensation, and then wasn’t reversed by the court of appeals.

Liberal AND conservative justices generally do not differ in their position on “just compensation” for takings, so it’s not really an issue where the makeup of the high court makes a difference.

I'd like to introduce you to Suzette Kelo, who might beg to differ with your opinion.





The majority (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) and the minority (Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas, Scalia) were pretty clearly divided by the liberal/conservative line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
Describe in your own words how that is a constitutionally protected taking, in the sense of seizure of personal property.
Bond holders, who were legally entitled to compensation from the liquidation assets of a company, had the value of their bonds taken from them when the government reduced that value (in many cases to zero) by assigning their legal rights to a politically favored entity (the unions).

The risks typically associated with investing in stocks and bonds are business risks. None of the investors knowingly accepted the risk that the government would step in and take their investments away from them. Government action destroying your investment efforts should not be an acceptable class of business risk (even though it often is, in a practical sense). And direct government action, as in this case, even less so.

It was a clear taking. Worse, it was a taking with political favoritism, where the property was not used by the government for public benefit, but rather given to a politically powerful group for its own private gain (much like the Kelo case).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Northern, look for other sources. The story will be the same. When a bankruptcy happens, the value of the stock goes to zero, labor contract liabilities are nullified and the bond holders are left owning the property that that remains after the creditors are paid. The Obama administration didn't want their money sources at the UAW left with nothing, so they took the property of the bond holders and used it and other government money to pay for Chrysler's contract liabilities. The bond holders appealed, but lost. BTW, the property rights that the bond holders have are every bit as legally valid as your right to the house you live in. Physical possession is not a requirement to keep a property right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Kelo is a great example. Notice above I’m not saying takings don’t occur — they do! But they don’t occur without just compensation. Repeatedly I said that the doctrine of just compensation itself isn’t political on the part of judges.

Bonds losing value, equity holders losing what they’ve put into an investment — those arent takings. You would be hard pressed to find a Bush or Trump appointed bankruptcy judge who would agree with you that those are takings. It’s not a political definition, it’s just that people don’t like that law. That’s another debate.

The scenario described above is that the government will drain your bank accounts — not gonna happen because the compensation would be equal to the amount taken. It’s like fearing a type of cancer that cannot exist. There are so many things to be afraid of, and this isn’t one. If you think you have cancer and the doc says nope, go get a second opinion but at least get it from another doc and not a quack. And don’t misconstrue all the takings law as you have above. If something is a taking, the courts will enforce just compensation.

Yes if the government wants to build a highway over your land, or a football stadium, there will be a taking. It will suck. You will have no choice and that will feel awful, like paying a tax hurts sometimes. Yes you will get your check and you will buy other land that can be taken. None of that is new and none of that is particular to one party. And there are analogous laws in every western country; and in countries with no rule of law you can anticipate takings with no just compensation protected by courts. You can disagree with me but over the course of your lifetimes you will see that there will be no “draining of your bank accounts” in the sense described here. What’s far more likely are increased taxes, so we all will have ample opportunity to complain. 🤣
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
The definition of 'fair compensation' is the price that you would willingly accept for your property. The agreement of the two parties as to price is what defines a fair price. That's the entire definition of price determination. Imagine if I took your XCR and gave you $10, and said 'well, I think that's adequate compensation.'

Taking someone's property and saying 'I'll give you whatever I say it's worth' isn't fair--not by any stretch of the imagination.

The 'compensation' given in the Kelo case was neither just nor fair.

More information on the website of Kelo's legal team here: Kelo Eminent Domain - Institute for Justice



And a good quote from one of the 20th century's most underrated Supreme Court justices that sums this up pretty well.

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”​
—Justice Sandra Day O’Connor​


When Justice Ginsburg died, I was aghast to read main stream media coverage (BBC) claiming that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the first female Supreme Court justice. Sandra Day O'Connor has almost never gotten her due, and yet she (to this day, long after retirement) continues to live her ideals without complaint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Bret—oh I agree with you about what happens in bankruptcy but you are missing part of the reasons things are actually very different between bonds and outright home/land ownership.
It’s well established that when bankruptcy occurs there is a pecking order of who gets paid out first. Creditors, bond holders, stock investors, employees with options all have the opportunity to inform themselves of where they will stand in that order as well as the various risks that threaten the future of a company. People gamble without really learning all that but it’s all basically the same as it’s been for decades. Just like the Bank That lends you money for a house also take risks that it may never recover it all — let’s say the house is leveled in a fire etc and the insurance policy doesn’t cover much for some exceptional reason. It’s a risk. Those risks are more or less understood by all who are involved and if some don’t understand them it’s for lack of diligence and/or lack of getting advice. For many, avoiding those risks altogether is the best choice. So you aren’t correct when you say a person’s property rights over land they own outright are the same as for the bonds they own—they are different packages of interests with some overlap and some difference.

I’m sympathetic to the feeling of not liking all that and feeling like the system can be stacked against, say, regular people who buy bonds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Tom I agree with Justice O’Connor regarding condemnation of property. That in no way contradicts what I said above. To be clear, she is talking about real property. Most of the time personal property is seized — and there’s no way she was talking about that — it’s because of its entanglement with criminal enterprises (like drug dealing out of a house or car) or because it is collateral for a debt that was taken with the understanding that it could happen (like when you stop paying a car loan). There will always be people who hold out and say no compensation for condemned land is just, especially irreplaceable specific family properties etc. but like I said above that’s a different position (that there should never be any condemnation of land) and you would be hard pressed to find any Supreme Court Justice, regardless of politics, who will support that view.

Again, gents, I agree with you that these condemnations are tough and frustrating — I’m commenting on the notion that your money will simply be seized when the government cannot borrow any more. I’d worry way more about creeping taxes than that—that’s something that actually does happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Bonds losing value, equity holders losing what they’ve put into an investment — those arent takings.
You would be hard pressed to find a Bush or Trump appointed bankruptcy judge who would agree with you that those are takings. It’s not a political definition, it’s just that people don’t like that law. That’s another debate.
It's not a matter of liking the law or not. The bonds had value because the bond holders had legal rights to the property. Obama took the property and the bond holders were not compensated.

The scenario described above is that the government will drain your bank accounts — not gonna happen because the compensation would be equal to the amount taken.
Getting money out of your bank accounts is easy for those with the leftist mindset. All they have to do is pass a law stating that money in accounts over $X in value is taxed at 100%. Then they take it with no compensation needed.

Bret—oh I agree with you about what happens in bankruptcy but you are missing part of the reasons things are actually very different between bonds and outright home/land ownership.
It’s well established that when bankruptcy occurs there is a pecking order of who gets paid out first. Creditors, bond holders, stock investors, employees with options all have the opportunity to inform themselves of where they will stand in that order as well as the various risks that threaten the future of a company.
I understand what you're saying about investment risks, but you still have property rights to all your investments. If there was no value left for the bond holders after all obligations were paid, then they'd be out of luck. However, the remaining assets did have value which the bond holders were legally entitled to. It was their property and was taken with no compensation in violation of both the law and the Constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
You can disagree with me but over the course of your lifetimes you will see that there will be no “draining of your bank accounts” in the sense described here.
I'm not so sure of that.

When taxes are levied at unsustainable levels, and people are unable to pay them, the government seizes their assets. How, exactly, is that different from just seizing the assets? The only difference is a legal fiction used to justify the asset seizure.

The US government has seized private property without fair compensation multiple times in the past.

For example: Gold Reserve Act - Wikipedia


Given the similarities between the Biden administration and the FDR administration (court packing, anyone?), I will not be at all surprised if we see asset confiscation next.

I'm just hoping we avoid the part where they round up US citizens and herd them into camps. I have taken my kids to visit one of those camps (which is within an hours drive of our home) but I think most people have totally forgotten that great evil, perpetrated in the name of the 'common good'.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Most of the time personal property is seized — and there’s no way she was talking about that — it’s because of its entanglement with criminal enterprises (like drug dealing out of a house or car)...
The burden of proof for such seizures is shockingly low (or nonexistent) and most such seizures are used to take the property of disadvantaged people or political unfavored groups--often not even the same people accused of the crimes (which crimes do not even need to be proven for the seizure to take place).

More information here:

 
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
Top