I have found the Democratic debates really interesting to watch. For the first time in my lifetime, these debates actually have some substance and drama. There was a couple of interesting moments last night, including the suggestion by Hillary Clinton that it is out of bounds for Sanders to raise the money that she has taken from Wall Street as a “smear.” I thought that Clinton did a good job on various points with strong responses, including the progressive label issue. However, one of the most intriguing moments was Clinton saying that it was ridiculous to call her the “establishment” candidate because she is a woman. For many, the Clintons are the personification of the establishment with huge donors, PACs, control of the DNC, and a massive political machine. Even the Washington Post responded with “Come on” to the suggestion that she is not the ultimate establishment candidate. Yet, Clinton’s point is that she is also the trying to become the first woman president and thus must be considered an outsider candidate. It seemed to resonate with the crowd, though Sanders appears to have tied Clinton in a national poll despite an concerted campaign from Democratic leaders and politicians aligned with Clinton. I thought it would make for an interesting discussion on the blog.
Here is the exchange:
Sanders: “I will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton has the support of far more Governors, Senators, Mayors, members of the House. She has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. That’s a fact. I don’t deny it. I’m pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks a piece.”
Clinton: “I’ve got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me as a woman running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment.”
While I certainly understand her point and that women remain underrepresented in politics, it is also true that many of the most powerful folks in Washington are women. Indeed around the world, women are the increasingly prominent like Angela Merkel, Melinda Gates, Janet Yellen, Mary Barra, Christine Lagarde, Dilma Rousseff, Sheryl Sandberg, Susan Wojcicki, Park Geun-hye, Oprah Winfrey, Ginni Rometty, Meg Whitman, Indra Nooyi, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Irene Rosenfeld, Ana Patricia Botín, Abigail Johnson, Marillyn Hewson and others. In Congress, there were ranked by CQ:
PARTY POWER
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.)
MEDIA SAVVY
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
DEBATE SHAPERS AND SWING VOTES
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.)
POLICY DEALMAKERS
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Was.)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
POLICY WORKHORSES
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cynthia M. Lummis (R-Wyo.)
BREAKING OUT
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.)
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.)
FRESHMEN ON THE RISE
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Ia.)
Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.)
Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah)
Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.)
Again, none of this means that women are adequately represented. Moreover, I think that there remains sexism in how some people view women in power, particularly in seeking the highest office in the land. However, is it still fair game to say that Clinton cannot be the symbol of the establishment because she is a woman? It may turn on the meaning of what the “establishment” is in politics.
What do you think?
Nick,
“Sanders would be the first Jewish President. I’m intrigued why that has not been in the MSM.”
If either Cruz or Rubio wins the presidency, we’d have the First Hispanic President. But they’re Republican, shhh, mustn’t talk about diversity amongst Republicans.
Rockefellers funded the ‘women’s movement’
Darren Smith
“I don’t believe the founding fathers envisioned the definition of citizen to be that constructed by more contemporary statutory definitions. The framers were seeking to remove foreign influence from the United States and it is very unlikely they would have been willing to allow a presidency of a person born in a foreign country, especially one of a commonwealth nation.”
Please find enclosed above a letter from John Jay.
Please find a letter enclosed below a letter from Benjamin Franklin.
As did the Europeans and all Westerners, including colonists, practitioners of the law read, learned from and quoted, without attribution or citation, the Law of Nations, among other texts and lectures. The Constitution is not a dictionary and did not define words. The Founders used many multiple words and phrases without defining them in the founding documents. It is as clear now as it was then that a “natural born citizen” was “…born in the country of parents who are citizens.” The authority of the Law of Nations is acknowledged in Article 1, Section 8, Line 12 of the Constitution.
_____
Benjamin Franklin to: Charles William Frederic Dumas
———————————————————————–
Dear Sir,
Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.
I received your several favors, of May 18th, June 30th, and July 8th, by Messrs. Vaillant and Pochard;(1) whom if I could serve upon your recommendation, it would give me great pleasure. Their total want of English is at present an obstruction to their getting any employment among us; but I hope they will soon obtain some knowledge of it. This is a good country for artificers or farmers; but gentlemen of mere science in les belles lettres cannot so easily subsist here, there being little demand for their assistance among an industrious people, who, as yet, have not much leisure for studies of that kind.
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel.
It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary
frequently to consult the law of nations.
Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,)
has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress,
now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript “Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. “Le court Expose de ce qui s’est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies,” bc. being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.(2) We are making all the provision in our power here to oppose that force, and we hope we shall be able to defend ourselves. But, as the events of war are always uncertain, possibly, after another campaign, we may find it necessary to ask the aid of some foreign power.
CC Steve Groen
P.S. The Law of Nations was published in French. French was the language of England until the 12th century. French was the language of English aristocracy until the mid-18th century. French was the language of English jurisprudence until the 18th century. Vattel was Swiss and practiced in France.
“Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, first Secretary of State under Washington, and our third President spoke English, French, Italian, Latin, and he could read Greek, and Spanish. Benjamin Franklin, America’s first diplomat and well-known genius spoke English, French and Italian. Our second President: John Adams spoke English, French and Latin. President James Madison spoke English, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. James Monroe spoke English and French.”
John, thanks for another terrific expose on the phrase “natural born citizen.”
I’m persuaded and there is lots of evidence out there that the Congress in 1787 referred to Vattel’s Law of Nations with some frequency, let alone citing it in Article I.
If the document is going to be interpreted, I don’t think time should modify at least the Article II citizenship requirement. It was important to have the most singularly-loyal and unaffected candidates. Why that wouldn’t be the case today as well is inarguable.
As for McCain being born on a naval base, that’s more a gray area for me. It seems to me that military installations are US soil at least arguably. What’s your opinion?
stevegroen – McCain was considered a natural born citizen because at the time the Panama Canal Zone was leased by the United States and considered US territory.
Paul, so it’s cut and dried for you on a servicemember’s child’s eligibility if the child is born on station outside the international borders of the US?
That assumption might contrast with Vattel’s Law of Nations: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
“[I]n the country” and on foreign soil (or a naval base in Panama whether possession is authorized or not), i.e., outside the country may mean two different things. No?
That’s why we have a Supreme Court. Right?
stevegroen – embassies are considered the property of that country. If you were born in the embassy there would be no question you were born in the country. Bases I give my vote to. Although I like Canadians, being born in Canada does not make you a natural born citizen of the United States, especially if the Canadians give you citizenship as well.
Paul, “property of the country” can be outside the country. No?
The point here is that this is the domain of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Comstitution, not yours, mine, the Legislative branch’s, nor Speaker Ryan’s.
stevegroen – embassies are the property and sovereign ground of that country by international law. Has nothing to do with the SC.
Paul: It’s a common misconception that international, legislative enactments, federal regulations, and state law somehow supersede our foundational law, i.e., the federal Constitution. That’s not the case.
It’s what “natural born citizen” means in the Constitution that controls, and the Supreme Court of the United States has the final say as to that meaning.
stevegroen – I would be willing to bet that my take on international law is correct.
Paul, I’d bet you would be willing. 🙂
Steve, to me such debates on Citizenship today are kind of moot because so many constitutional rights have been usurped by bad legislation and judicial decisions. Sadly, the Constitution did not restrain the overreaching powers of the various levels of governments and the consequences are now very visible. Sadly, No society has yet been able to stop the tyranny of government over prolonged periods of time. In the debates the candidates don’t even debate the things that really need to be done. Our Federal budget went from $314 billion in 1950 to $3.4 trillion today. We’re lost a large part of our middle class and the wealth gap is increasing. We now have approx. 115 different taxes and administrative fees in this country.
In tax law there are two type of Citizens. Citizens of the 50 States and Federal citizens. What qualifies you to be them, has been interesting to read. A U.S. Citizen I am of the understanding is a Federal Citizen established under the 14th Amendment. Apparently, the legislatures and Judiciary found it necessary to convey this citizenship to newly freed blacks even though many qualified as Natural Born Citizens. If you live and work in DC you are a Federal Citizen, owing income taxes to both the Federal Government and the District of Columbia. I, as a Citizen of Florida (one of the 50 States) “appear” to owe no such income tax to either the Federal Government or State of Florida. I have requested the IRS’s authority to administer and enforce the Federal Individual Income Tax on Citizens of the 50 States and they have thus far refused my 5 different methods of requesting it, to supply the Congressional Act. 1. Personal Correspondence, 2. FOIA, 3. CDP Hearing, 4. Petition for Redress of Grievance and 5. Federal Law Suit to enforce the Petition. The SCOTUS refused to hear the case even though the right to petition is quite clear. FYI: the Petition was simply 62 questions relating to the tax. Should we assume that if such an Act existed, they would have answered the questions? One of the essential elements required to be on their tax liens is the agencies authority. The “tax liability given rise to the lien” is the specific phrase used in the IRC, and Treasury Regs. Where does the IRS get it’s authority to create a tax liability on Citizens of the 50 States? Don’t know yet and no one from the government will tell me or answer my questions. They just leave this essential element off the Notice of Federal Tax Liens filed in the Country Court Houses around the country. The NFTLs are what start the collection process. How can they be collecting a tax when the liens are legally insufficient. In my recent book the Achilles Heel; IRS Notice of Federal Tax Liens, I provide all the laws, Regs and evidence that all of the liens are invalid. According the the IRC, the IRS does have authority over Federal Citizens and certain objects, hence why they could perfect their liens under certain circumstances. I have yet to see a perfected lien though and I have researched hundreds of them.
As I had shown you in a previous post, an income tax is the 2nd platform of communism and it has played a major part to the advancing size and scope of government. If you and other are really interested in improving our nation, this would be a good place to start. Taxing the poor and middle classes on their labor is pretty rotten thing to do with them.
hskiprob: First, please forgive the delay in responding to your thoughtful post from Saturday. I’ll get to it. It’s just that economics is really the bane of existence to me and the economics under which we currently live gives me a headache every time I think about it, let alone every attempt I make to study it.
Regarding the mootness of Article II citizenship, i.e., pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate for the Presidency, yours is surely a valid argument that precedent should overcome the original intent. However, that precedent is not legally binding – if any legal precedent is binding – on the Supreme Court, which hasn’t addressed the term natural born citizen as it relates to Article II.
Cenk Uygur, owner/founder of The Young Turks, also thinks the 14th Amendment’s automatic citizenship on birth in the country supersedes any contrary definition of “natural born citizen” in Article II. I don’t see the theory there.
As for taxes, and their basis, I’ve very briefly in the past looked into not having to pay them. Trust me – I don’t like them as I’m single and in the worst tax bracket. Why people who choose children should get tax breaks that I don’t seems to me unfair on one level.
You wrote, “The “tax liability given rise to the lien” is the specific phrase used in the IRC, and Treasury Regs. Where does the IRS get it’s authority to create a tax liability on Citizens of the 50 States?” I don’t understand why Article I’s “tax and spend . . . for the general welfare” isn’t a good enough basis, although I’ve never looked into the intent as to who should be taxed and whether it was a generic taxation or to be allocated between classes of people as we have now.
This segues into another comment of yours: “an income tax is the 2nd platform of communism and it has played a major part to the advancing size and scope of government . . .”
I don’t adhere to the same definition of communism or socialism that you do. I think what you’re describing is governmental totalitarianism, whether it was Stalin’s twisted view that Stalinism was socialism or Mao’s view (or maybe it was McCarthyism’s view) that a government owning everything was communism.
Communism and socialism are simply about private ownership of the means of production by the worker: whether it’s the engineer or the welder working for the same entity, each has equal decision-making power, although they may not be paid the same or have equal working conditions. That’s up to them as a democratically-organized group.
They differ in the manner of moving from a capitalist economy to private ownership by the worker is where. In Europe, communism sought peaceful political means, whereas socialism sought violent albeit quick overthrow of the government, a la Bolshevism. The problem has always been that whoever came out as the leader in these systems invariably liked the control and never moved the economy out of public control and even ownership to private control by the employees.
Finally, getting back to income tax as the “2nd platform of communism,” how do you propose we maintain defense of the country and infrastructure without taxation, regardless of the economic system?
Finally, and intertwined with taxation, I think there are some basic necessities that are so important to a civilized society that government needs to at least heavily regulate them if not unilaterally control them: among others, education, water, electricity, healthcare, and a safety net for minors, the disabled, those of low income, and the elderly. And, yes, I think the New Deal was a good idea for a civilized society.
stevegroen
“MAILCALL”
There’s a letter for you from John Jay. Jay CCed you on his letter to GW. Please note that the constitutional requirement for president is raised from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief. Mr. Jay et al. learned the definition of “natural born citizen” in the Law of Nations, the legal text and reference of the era, the authority of which Franklin’s letter to Dumas, 1775, demonstrated, stating that it was “…continually in the hands of the members of our Congress,… The “strong check” was not placed against senators and congressmen, only the commander-in-chief. The highest form of citizenship, two citizen-parents, was required for the highest office per the aforementioned rationale. Sorry, Steve. You don’t get to “interpret” or otherwise modify Mr. Jay’s message in his letter. You have to read it and know it –
“…BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS.”
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet, which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
CC Steve Groen
If women are going to work outside the home, who is going to have babies?
If women are going to work outside the home, who is going to nurture babies?
If a nation has a declining birthrate, what is its future?
If a nation has a declining birthrate, it imports foreigners.
If a nation imports foreigners, the population is diluted.
If the population is diluted, a nation sets out on a course to extinction.
Ergo, if women are going to work outside the home, the nation will dissolve into extinction.
China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Kazakhstan, etc. exist and persist.
America and Europe are dissolving.
America began its journey into extinction with the “Reconstruction Amendments” and sealed its fate with the19th amendment.
_____
For the first time, American deaths outpace American births.
BY Michael Walsh
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
The percentage of Americans in the U.S. population has reached an all-time low: 63%. That is 197.7 million Americans out of 313.9 million including foreigners.
In 2000, Americans were 69% of the population. In 1980, they made up 80%. But now American deaths outpace American births by 12,419, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
“This is the first time there has ever been an American population decrease in the U.S.,” demographer Kenneth Johnson told Bloomberg.
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT VIDEOS YOU WILL EVER SEE ON AGENDA 21. ITS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN4ip9t7JvU
Densely packed ‘managed’ cities surrounded by Federally owned land. This is what the activists in Oregon are fighting against. The ranchers are being forced off their land to support this nightmare. Turn off your God D*mned television and educate yourself.
Central Planning
Control of the Means of Production
Social Engineering
Redistribution of Wealth
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
_____
The Constitution was ratified in 1789.
The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848.
_____
The Communist Manifesto was written because it was different from the Constitution and because it was not the same.
The Preamble, Constitutions and Bill of Rights established severely limited government and freedom and free enterprise without interference by government.
The American thesis is freedom and self-reliance.
Common Core: Based on UN Agenda 21, UNESCO Standards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNeimlu9jxk
Mandating voluntary compliance. Enough?
Common Core’s Communist Programming Exposed: Chinese Immigrant Speaks Out
hskiprob and stevegroen
Common Core is the Communist Core I Went Through in China
Lily Tang Williams
Well, the folks who hate Cruz are aligned w/ Trump on Cruz being a citizen. We all have our dark side. Hate and politics make strange bedfellows.
Nick – I have no feeling for Cruz one way or the other, however I am concerned that he be a “natural citizen”.
Ted’s father Rafael fought for Castro in Cuba until he was awakened to the fact that instead of freeing the people from oppression, Castro represented increased suppression. He repeatedly equates Castro’s promises to Obama’s promises of ‘hope and change’. The story goes that politics was the favorite subject in the Cruz household with lots of emphasis on eliminating tyranny, etc. etc. etc.
As it turns out, we tend to become what we hate and the influence of Ted’s father gives us a good example of this as Ted is so very evangelical in his politics; spouting basically fire and brimstone. Apparently ‘the end justifies the means’ and if he has to get his ‘means’ from Goldman Sachs AND hide it from us, so be it. After all, he has God on his side.
Nothing beats a ‘natural born’ leader for president Posted March 4, 2014
http://columbiadailyherald.com/opinion/letters-editor/nothing-beats-natural-born-leader-president#sthash.lAv26dg6.dpuf
“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?” — Alexander Hamilton.
Randyjet, since when have we started following the Constitution again? Oh that’s right, when it suits our agenda.
I really do need some legal expert tell me why Cruz is a natural born citizen despite being a natural born Canadian citizen. There must be some legal reasoning that allows for such dual nationality, which if allowed, basically negates the whole reason for putting in the requirement of being a natural born citizen in the first place. Why not a naturalized citizen too? The other question too,does that provision violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment since it creates a two tier class of citizenship? In that connection, the 14th spells out the requirements for being born a US citizen so that a person whose family has diplomatic immunity cannot claim US citizenship even if they were born in the USA. In Obama’s case, it is obvious that he is a natural born citizen since he was born in Hawaii. While it is true that he can claim British citizenship based on his father’s citizenship, he has to work to claim it. Just as Cruz had to work to prove his right to citizenship in the USA.
Then I saw that the father of the US Constitution, Madison, sponsored and passed in Congress a bill REMOVING the previous law defining natural born citizen as a person born of US citizen parents, no matter the country of birth. I would think that Madison rejecting that provision should be the last word on the subject as to what HE MEANT by natural born. So the letter and the intent of this provision shows conclusively the Cruz in NOT eligible to be POTUS. I was hoping that some legal person could point out my errors on this if any.
Randyjet: I’m no expert, but if read Wikipedia’s page on “Natural Born Citizen,” it gives a list of which experts agree with which definition. It’s a pretty good and thorough read.
Apparently, the issue hasn’t been dealt with by the Supreme Court for various failures of the plaintiff’s standing to bring suit. It seems to me a State would have standing for a determination of Cruz’s access to that State’s ballot, with the suit being brought (filed) directly in the Supreme Court under its Article III original jurisdiction.
Shockingly, there are some pundits supporting a definition whereby naturalization equates to natural born. And, just as surprising, there are some who think one parent being a citizen, and others who believe both parents being citizens, is good enough on various bases. The argument Darren related above on this thread persuades against such seeming nonsense.
I really need to start proofreading my own comments… 🙁
randyjet; What? It’s not good enough for you that Cruz was born NEAR the USA? And what good would it do to have Turly comment on it? Obama’s father never was a citizen of Kenya and he’s been in office TWO terms! It’s not for lack of trying to get him out. It would take pages and pages of comments to post links to all the lawsuits.
I work for ‘smart’ people; successful business owners, who dutifully sat enraptured at Obama’s last gun (people) control announcement displayed via CNN on their expensive big screen TV. As much as I’ve tried to wake them up, they’re not budging. Obama’s black so he can’t BE part one of the ‘establishment’ world class crime lords. People KNOW our government is corrupt but they refuse to see just HOW corrupt they are. It would take them way too far out of their comfort zone.
I am surprised that as a legal blog Prof Turley has not posted anything about the problem Ted Cruz presents re his citizenship. The Constitution is quite clear that one must be a natural born citizen to become President, not a citizen from birth. So there are a number of questions that arise with Cruz. There is NO question that he is a NATURAL BORN CANADIAN citizen. He even admitted that by renouncing his Canadian citizenship, though it still does NOT resolve the problem of his birth there. In fact, in Texas if he were to bring a photo ID and his birth certificate to the registrar of voters, he could NOT EVEN VOTE in Texas unless he provided MORE documents to prove his citizenship. THAT IS NOT BEING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
The question is then can one be a natural born citizen of TWO countries? I think that is impossible unless one is born on the border and the mother straddles the border line. The Constitution does not say one must be a citizen from birth, which is what Cruz is, but says one must be a natural born citizen. These are two different things since the obvious intent of the clause was to prevent divided loyalty in such a powerful office. So it follows that Cruz cannot legally become or run for POTUS. Stating it more bluntly, only a fool would think that their intent was to allow a Canadian, Mexican, or other foreign citizen or English subject to run for POTUS! Then we have the case of Winston Churchill, who according to those who think Cruz is eligible would have been able to run for POTUS since his mother TOO was a US citizen at the time of his birth. So although most people would view Churchill as a Brit, the folks who think Cruz is good to go would have to grant Winnie the right to run as well. Think that is what our founders had in mind? To allow a subject of our enemy to get elected to the Presidency of the USA? GET REAL!
Paul writes, “Prairie Rose – Obama has earned Worst President, including Jimmy Carter.”
Dubya is the worst in recent times if IQ and delegation of presidential decision-making are the criteria.
Johnson (apart from what may have been his hand in Kennedy’s death) and Nixon were the worst in terms of criminal conspiracy.
All of them since FDR are probably guilty of extraordinary usurpation of the president’s (Article II) authority. I know the last two have been.
stevegroen – Dubya had a higher IQ than Kerry. Obama’s IQ is hidden from the public. I don’t think FDR took an IQ test or LBJ. JFK would have. However, let’s look at IQ. People with high IQs are actually not the best people to run organizations. Ask the people who started with Steve Jobs and had to remind him to shower and wash his hair.
Paul: Arguing Dubya’s IQ is higher than someone else’s leads me to believe his father paid Squiggy to take Dubya’s IQ test.
We have an ol’ saying down in Texas that you maybe have here in Tennessee: “I believe that human beings and fish can co-exist peacefully.”
Potatoe!
stevegroen – actually it was kind of funny. Everyone was claiming Kerry was smarter and then they both dropped their military records, which includes their IQ scores. Kerry’s impeccable reasoning for his lower score on the IQ test was “I must have been drinking the night before.”
Karen S writes, “steveg: what does that [income disparity?] have to do with anything? Dictators and Saudi sheiks are also billionaires. Obviously there are less billionaires in socialist countries because the government took it all. France exported many of its wealthy. The US is one of the most successful countries in the world, and it’s not socialist. It is also one of the largest. So by definition it will produce the most wealthy. That is not “unfair” that is a combination of size and opportunity for success. What is unfair is a dictator blowing away a village and seizing its oil reserves.”
If by this you mean the change in relative asset and debt accrual in the US since Reagan became president, have you looked lately at a graph of the difference between the income of the wealthiest segment of our country and that of the middle class? The middle class’s income (generally limited to sweat-equity earnings) has flat-lined and the top incomes (much in tax-free shelters) has spiked.
What does this have to do with anything? It means absolutely nothing more than a yawn if you are wealthy and using the poor and middle class to work your machines and fight your wars of destabilization for the pittance you give them. There’s no sense in arguing the point, however, if you don’t believe in egalitarianism.
What’s more, tossing around the word “socialism” like Ayn Rand or Alan Dulles won’t get you far as the American public becomes more savvy in the information age. Again, socialism is not about government ownership of the means of production. Whatever he may label himself, Bernie is a New Dealer, not a socialist or communist (from what he’s said thus far), which both are really about the workers in any company owning the means of production equally with equal voice. Bernie wants to work within the failed capitalist system (even adding onto Big Insurance’s and Big Pharma’s stranglehold on healthcare), which justifies its pitiful, unfair existence with the terms “cyclic,” “downturn,” and “correction.” Haven’t you heard enough of that baloney? The only reason our economy is perceived as growing right now is because of our oligarchy’s gutting of the middle class and fondness for the military-industrial complex’s protection of an ever-expanding marketplace through nefarious globalism, yet you ask what does income disparity have to do with anything. The question is truly mind-boggling.