Finally an end to birtherism?

If we took the wealth of each member of congress and added it all together it would only amount to a pauper's pittance next to the wealth and power of the global bankers and corporations who own and/or control 98.44% of those same members of congress.

It's not the rich folks in congress we need to worry about. It's the folks who own and/or control all those rich folks in congress we need to start worrying about.

 

>Just curious what is the link for the millionaires who own 90% of all assets

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Maybe only 85% depending on what is included.

 

Since we're depending on billwald for truthfulness (chuckle), let me remind all that the federal goverment could confiscate all of the millionaire's money...and we wouldn't even touch the deficit.

 

Just wondering - for such an important post as your President, isn't there any vetting of candidates to ensure that no one stands for office unless they fulfil the legal requirements?

 

I'm told that political correctness is not the monster in England as it is in the U.S. Political correctness has practically everyone here cowering in a corner too afraid to confront situations in fear of being called a racist, or worse, and of the reprisal that would certainly befall them with impunity.

Obama was not vetted for one reason only; he is black. Were he white, he would have never made it past the primaries.

 

If that is so, then a person who is ethnically Chinese, or native American, or Innuit, or anything else that means a skin colour other than white, would be accepted as a potential President with no questions asked. Surely that cannot be the case?

 

>let me remind all that the federal goverment could confiscate all of the millionaire's money...and we wouldn't even touch the deficit.

True, but deficit is not intrinsically evil else every person with a mortgage would be evil. Deficit is good if it is being used to construct infrastructure and bad if used to fight foreign wars against people who are no threat to the US.

 

If your outgoing is more than your incoming then debt it bad no matter what you are spending it on. Economics 101

 

If I were to rank protection by political correctness, it would be:

Nationality.............................................% impunity
1. Jews ................................................ 70
2. Africans ............................................ 50
3. Native American/Mexican ...................... 30
4. All other Non-White-European ................ 10
5. White, European .................................. 0

 

Precisely where I was headed. The tax burden in this country is borne by the top 1/3 of wage earners. I don't have exact numbers, but something on the order of the bottom 1/3 of wage earners pay no net effective income tax, while the middle pay something short of 10-15%. The upper quartile to third of wage earners pay a disproportionate amount of net effective taxes.

 

You are correct in my opinion - somewhat. Remember that Bush 43 was married to a woman who had Hispanic lineage. Now, if he was George Morales instead of George Bush, it would have been interesting. I said for years we would have a minority as President before we had a female. The media pounced on Hillary Clinton with a vengance and largely left Obama alone. Remember why the media didn't lay too many gloves on him: he was largely the underdog and behind until McCain picked Palin. That threw him over the top when the Palin pounce happened.

Let's see, what do Hillary and Sarah Palin have in common?

I remain convinced that we will be unlikely to have a woman as President. I hope I'm wrong.

 

" bottom 1/3 of wage earners pay no net effective income tax," indeed many of them get money back if they file, both fed and state.

 

Nothing, since billwald was making a claim about percentage of assets owned by millionaires and about capital gains tax rates and not about general tax burden.

However, we know that billwald is wrong about 95% of the time so even though your factoid didn't directly refute his statement, I'm going to say that he is wrong about the budget being in the red because millionaires don't pay enough in capital gains taxes. No statistics needed.

 

>If your outgoing is more than your incoming then debt it bad no matter what you are spending it on. Economics 101

Then renting is good but buying a house is bad?

Slaves and serfs paid very little taxes. You all call yourselves "middle class" but are de facto industrial serfs. This is a new kind of serfdom that is not tied to land. Our owners don't care which one of them you work for or if you work at all. The present system of "free" serfs has a lower net cost to our owners than owning slaves outright did.

 

And what does that have to do with what I said?

What kind of view point imposes this kind of mentality on people?

 

Well, it would be a start! :laugh:

 

Right on. :thumbsup:

 

Your profile says you're in Ireland, so you may not be aware of this, but during the campaign, John McCain's place of birth was under much higher scrutiny and there was much debate as to whether or not he was eligible because he was born outside of the US.

The second thing is that it wasn't the Republicans who first brought the issue up, but Hillary Clinton. Somehow, you guys always seem to forget that little tidbit.

 

By shining the light on John McCain who can and did prove he is in fact an Article II natural born citizen and therefore eligible to hold the office of POTUS Hillary Clinton and the MSM effectively hid Obama's little secret in the dark and out of the minds of voters.

What is Obama's little secret? He does not qualify as an Article II natural born citizen and is therefore ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.

Article II, Section I of the Constitution requires that a person be a natural born citizen to be eligible for the Presidency.

The Constitution does not say “citizen”, but specifically combines the legal concepts of jus soli (right of the soil) and of citizen parents, jus sanguinis (right of blood). It was intentionally designed by the Framers to prevent a President from having dual allegiance.

The authors of the Constitution no doubt based their understanding of the term “natural born citizen,” on the 1758 book “The Law of Nations” by Emerich de Vattel, who wrote:

“… natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children…”
​

The narrative of the 14th Amendment is also consistent with the Framers intent regarding dual allegiance and natural born citizenship.

Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, defined natural born citizenship:

“It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

The underlying issues within those Congressional debates were hotly contested. Yet Bingham’s definition of natural born citizen was never challenged on the floor of the House of Representatives.





Supreme Court cases supporting the natural born citizen definition of born in the US of citizen parents include:

• The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
• Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
• Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
• United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
• Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

SOURCE

Obama is living in the WH and commanding our military unlawfully. Where or when he was born makes no difference.

Understand this if nothing else, we do not live in a nation of laws when our political elites can decide on their own to ignore the law and judicial precedence and do as they please.