Is Obama An American?

[242006]

Yes, and I hope whomever is the next President seriously pursues that but chances are we will get another new-world-order guy that won't care.

There's some unseen hand at work here (Satan?) that got Obama in office.
Him and Hilary were "fighting" it out, Hilary was the clear winner. Let's face it: Obama came out of NOWHERE. One time when Obama and Clinton were getting ready to board a plane, all the press got on the plane: the plane took off: and Obama and Clinton weren't on board.
TO THIS DAY, nobody has any idea where they were at for those many hours. All we know is that after that meeting, Hilary suddenly changed direction and Obama became the man. Fishy stuff surrounds this Presidency.


And like I said, you could convict Obama of Social Security fraud easily. But again, the Supreme Court won't even HEAR cases. (What kind of corrupt court makes a judgement without even hearing the evidence?). Which tells us this government's handlers (Satan?) have their hands in all aspects of it.

Whereas the court refused to hear critical cases surronding Obama's qualifications, rest assured, if the new President attempted to invalidate all that Obama has done on the grounds that Obama was not a natural born citizen, the court would intercede and block all such efforts. After all, Obama's actions include two Supreme Court judges. Furthermore, it would bring into focus to the American people the Court's own complicity in the coup d'etat by refusing to hear the case prior to the election.

I also was highly suspective of what took place at that meeting between Hillary and Obama.

Yes -- there is evil in gov't and in the courts.

 

[TexUs]

As we have seen with the TEA party movement, the middle class is fighting back.

I consider the Tea Party to be a major bust...
I had high hopes and they just marginally won the House and didn't take back the Senate. It's just business as usual.

I do disagree with all the "hate the wealthy" mantra. Should we tax them? Absolutely. Buffett says he pays less in taxes than his secretaries, and he issued the challenge of all the Fortune 500 CEOs to do the same and nobody took him up on it. THAT needs to change.
There's nothing wrong with wealth as long as it's not abused.

Whereas the court refused to hear critical cases surronding Obama's qualifications, rest assured, if the new President attempted to invalidate all that Obama has done on the grounds that Obama was not a natural born citizen, the court would intercede and block all such efforts. After all, Obama's actions include two Supreme Court judges. Furthermore, it would bring into focus to the American people the Court's own complicity in the coup d'etat by refusing to hear the case prior to the election.

Yep.
That's why I support term limits. On anyone that votes. Congress and judges.
You have Congressmen that've been in office longer than Castro was in power- that's ridiculous- you mean to tell me a guy involved in politics has any idea what the real world is like after that long?

 

[242006]

I consider the Tea Party to be a major bust...
I had high hopes and they just marginally won the House and didn't take back the Senate. It's just business as usual.

I think the Tea Party did very well. First order of business is rooting out those damned RINO's from the Republican party and to make the Republican Party the conservative party again. Until the RINO's and neocons are marginalized within the Republican party, it will be near impossible to defeat socialism here in the U.S.

I was hopeful for a takeover of the Senate in 2010. I think it will take place in 2012. After the recession from 1991 thru 1994, many flocked to gov't jobs for job security. Of course, those people would not vote for TEA party candidates that, if elected, would cut their pay, pensions, and benefits. So, the difference in 2010 is that socialism has obtained a tighter grip on the populace.

As for business as usual, we will have to see how it goes with the new Congress and austerity measures adopted. Certainly, the Republicans in Congress proved to be a dismal failure during the lame duck session of 2010.

I do disagree with all the "hate the wealthy" mantra. Should we tax them? Absolutely. Buffett says he pays less in taxes than his secretaries, and he issued the challenge of all the Fortune 500 CEOs to do the same and nobody took him up on it. THAT needs to change.
There's nothing wrong with wealth as long as it's not abused.

The abuse is in the progressive tax system, as it creates class warfare.

Yep.
That's why I support term limits. On anyone that votes. Congress and judges.
You have Congressmen that've been in office longer than Castro was in power- that's ridiculous- you mean to tell me a guy involved in politics has any idea what the real world is like after that long?

How have they remained in power so long?? Probably, because they bring home the bacon to their districts. Therein lies the problem -- earmarks/pork.

IMO, the best solution to the problem associated with earmarks, outside of an amendment to the Constitution which would ban them, is to tax the district/districts, which sponsored the earmark, for the cost thereof. If a project has a net benefit to cost ratio over 1.0, they should be included in the budget. Those districts that benefit, will gladly pay for the earmark. But, as most of us know, most earmarks do not have a benefit-to-cost ration over 1.0. If each District is solely taxed for their Congress person's earmark, it would not take long for the district to toss that Congress person out of office. In fact, if each Congress person knew that their earmarks will be paid by their district, alone, there would hardly be an earmark at all.

 

[TexUs]

I think the Tea Party did very well. First order of business is rooting out those damned RINO's from the Republican party and to make the Republican Party the conservative party again. Until the RINO's and neocons are marginalized within the Republican party, it will be near impossible to defeat socialism here in the U.S.

How many examples of that are there? A handful? Out of 435?
Like I said. Business as usual.

I was hopeful for a takeover of the Senate in 2010. I think it will take place in 2012.

If we as a country make it that long (I believe the global economy will fail this year), who do you think the scapegoats will be for the continued downturn?
"The Republicans took over, waaaaaa, we couldn't pass anything, waaaaaaa, they held a majority, waaaa"........ Who do you think will take the heat? Maybe I'll be wrong but Americans are fickle people.

The abuse is in the progressive tax system, as it creates class warfare.

I have no problem with a progressive flat tax.
Like,
0-20K = 2%
21-25K = 5%
26-35K = 15%
36-42K = 22%
etc

A one-page tax system. No more credits, no more loopholes. It's a compromise.

The only other alternative that would work is elimination of federal income tax and implementation of a 20% federal sales tax. (Suddenly all those millions of illegal immigrants start becoming a tax source!)

How have they remained in power so long?? Probably, because they bring home the bacon to their districts. Therein lies the problem -- earmarks/pork.

Who is "they"? The judges aren't elected, at least at the SC level which is what I'm talking about.
Congress remains in power not because of the pork but because of lack of options. It takes lots of money to run. Only your elite run. All those "little guys" everyone views as having no chance, nobody votes for because they feel they waste their vote. Got nothing to do with pork but everything to do with the elite controlling everything.
When is the last time anyone you knew voted for someone because of earkmarks????? I know of absolutely no one. The problem is exactly as I said, the little guys with the good ideas have no chance.

 

[[email protected]]

How many examples of that are there? A handful? Out of 435?
Like I said. Business as usual.


If we as a country make it that long (I believe the global economy will fail this year), who do you think the scapegoats will be for the continued downturn?
"The Republicans took over, waaaaaa, we couldn't pass anything, waaaaaaa, they held a majority, waaaa"........ Who do you think will take the heat? Maybe I'll be wrong but Americans are fickle people.


I have no problem with a progressive flat tax.
Like,
0-20K = 2%
21-25K = 5%
26-35K = 15%
36-42K = 22%
etc

A one-page tax system. No more credits, no more loopholes. It's a compromise.

The only other alternative that would work is elimination of federal income tax and implementation of a 20% federal sales tax. (Suddenly all those millions of illegal immigrants start becoming a tax source!)


Who is "they"? The judges aren't elected, at least at the SC level which is what I'm talking about.
Congress remains in power not because of the pork but because of lack of options. It takes lots of money to run. Only your elite run. All those "little guys" everyone views as having no chance, nobody votes for because they feel they waste their vote. Got nothing to do with pork but everything to do with the elite controlling everything.
When is the last time anyone you knew voted for someone because of earkmarks????? I know of absolutely no one. The problem is exactly as I said, the little guys with the good ideas have no chance.

Elite control? Not sure who or whom that might be.
I've read a lot from all sources and some argue that the elite doesn't include any elected or even appointed persons.

Some of the stuff is considered to be outlandish and some seems to be on the money.
Pundits on both sides of the aisle are behaving like Hollywood personalities these days (ie: Rachael Maddow vs. Glenn Beck).

All branches of government are stealing/ignoring the voice and will of the people.
When power is centered in the hands of a few, whoever that may be, then inside deals and maneuvers tend to result in oppressive government such as 1930's Germany and SA banana republics.

I note that there is always a lot of argument about congress, SC & the president which are visible. There isn't any serious consideration about invisible entities which in my mind are far more dangerous. By invisible I mean the American Communist party, labor unions & organizations which may be generally considered to be anarcists. Talk about them is usually relegated to the lunatic fringe and dismissed out of hand. Those people are very busy, like termites behind the wall. They may not bring down the house, but they make it weak enough for stronger groups to do so.

My greatest alarm is with Christians who sit back and say that 'God is in control'. That isn't Biblical in that the political erosion of a government is generally judged harshly by the Lord in the O.T. examples. Saying 'God is in control' may be interpreted to justify citizen inaction. It may also be interpreted to mean that God doesn't care to invest Himself in the affairs of men, which is also wrong. According to the Biblical record, God watches and gives advice. When men ignore Him and His words, He acts. Such action is never sweet or agreeable even though it is always just. All of this discussion about the dismantling of the American democracy is but a symptom of divine judgment. We have trusted in our own wisdom and power and God is giving us the fruit of it to eat and drink; foolishness and military arrogance.

As in Ezekiel 14, individuals may be saved but the country as a whole is under judgment.

 

[TexUs]

Elite control? Not sure who or whom that might be.
I've read a lot from all sources and some argue that the elite doesn't include any elected or even appointed persons.

Lookup the Bilderburg Group.

 

[kiwimac]

Of course he's an American citizen. Man, what a lot of nonsense.

 

[TexUs]

Of course he's an American citizen. Man, what a lot of nonsense.

Nonsense?

His birth certificate was a proven forgery.
His selective service card was a proven forgery.
He's been proven to use multiple social security numbers, at the least he's a felon of Social Security fraud and should be in prison.
That's just the public info that's been provided.

So in short, any documentation that's been provided that he's a citizen has been proven to be fake. And then everything else he hasn't provided speaks against it.

It's not nonsense. The only nonsense is people willing to ignore the evidence.

 

[242006]

How many examples of that are there? A handful? Out of 435?
Like I said. Business as usual.

True -- only a few RINO's were ousted. However, it is clear that the TEA party is driving the agenda of the 112th Congress. Even life-long Republican earmarkers are repentant.

If we as a country make it that long (I believe the global economy will fail this year), who do you think the scapegoats will be for the continued downturn?
"The Republicans took over, waaaaaa, we couldn't pass anything, waaaaaaa, they held a majority, waaaa"........ Who do you think will take the heat? Maybe I'll be wrong but Americans are fickle people.

Ever since the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union, I have been telling the folks that the U.S. is headed for collapse too. Now that we are on the precipice, I can't disagree with your prognosis for 2011. If you have viewed the predictions of Gerald Celente, it doesn't look good. I see nothing, politically, that will be able to turn the tide, as the libs will fight for their socialist model every step of the way. Gridlock, alone, will not solve the problem and pending collapse.

I have no problem with a progressive flat tax.
Like,
0-20K = 2%
21-25K = 5%
26-35K = 15%
36-42K = 22%
etc

You should have a problem -- it is unfair. Now, I am for a flat 10%, with income being defined as what one has left at the end of the year. Hence, those, who spend all of their revenue, have no tax liability. I am also for tax-exempt allowance for medical savings account, retirement funding, and children educational/college funds.

A one-page tax system. No more credits, no more loopholes. It's a compromise.

I realize that many conservatives have called for this. I simply disagree with it. As long as there is a federal income tax system, it should be individualized to allow for maximum deductions for savings accounts [above] and expenditures. I don't think this can be accomplished on one page.

The only other alternative that would work is elimination of federal income tax and implementation of a 20% federal sales tax. (Suddenly all those millions of illegal immigrants start becoming a tax source!)

This is another terrible idea. I am all for the repeal of the 16th amendment, as it has proven to be a gross failure. But, replacing it with a federal sales tax hurts the poor the most. The best solution is the pre-16th amendment per capita taxation [the poor pay the same as the rich]. Income tax should be reserved for states only with possible tithing to the federal gov't from state revenue. This way the states regain their autonomy somewhat and provide a better check and balance against Federal extra-constitutional actions.

Who is "they"? The judges aren't elected, at least at the SC level which is what I'm talking about.
Congress remains in power not because of the pork but because of lack of options. It takes lots of money to run. Only your elite run. All those "little guys" everyone views as having no chance, nobody votes for because they feel they waste their vote. Got nothing to do with pork but everything to do with the elite controlling everything.

I think it is a terrible idea to elect SC judges. It would make them worse political hacks then they already are. A better system is repudiation of SC rulings per the 10th Amendment. The SC would have no jurisdiction over issues not relevant to its role as the third spoke of the federal gov't. The States and the people have jurisdiction over all else.

As for Congress, why should they be term-limited out?? An election is a form of freedom of speech. If the people of a certain district are satisfied with their representatives, they should have the right to keep that person in office as long as they see fit. My system would associate a cost for that district to keep that representative. If a district has to pay the cost attibutable to that representatives votes, then the people can assess if it is worth it to them to keep that person in power.

When is the last time anyone you knew voted for someone because of earkmarks????? I know of absolutely no one. The problem is exactly as I said, the little guys with the good ideas have no chance.

John McCain keeps getting elected from conservative Arizona, eventhough he is a RINO. The one conservative position he takes is no earmarks.

If you look at this incoming freshmen class of representatives, there are some 'little guys'.

 

[Foreigner]

The simple fact about this whole citizenship bruhaha is this:


IF he wasn't when he was elected, there will be no way to prove otherwise now.

With the unrestricted assets of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland Security at his fingertips any document can be found, destroyed, altered or created that would support his claim to citizenship.

Likewise any person disagreeing with his citizenship claim can be "pursuaded," discredited or outright "disappeared."

Sit back and accept that Barak Obama is our President.

 

[TexUs]

I realize that many conservatives have called for this. I simply disagree with it. As long as there is a federal income tax system, it should be individualized to allow for maximum deductions for savings accounts [above] and expenditures. I don't think this can be accomplished on one page.

You start introducing loopholes and that's exactly how billionaires end up paying less taxes than their secretaries.

This is another terrible idea. I am all for the repeal of the 16th amendment, as it has proven to be a gross failure. But, replacing it with a federal sales tax hurts the poor the most.

Exempt it on groceries and medical, then.

Pedro the Illegal Immigrant, when he goes out to buy that Escalade with his drug money, and the handful of flat panels, needs to be taxed for it. We can't collect taxes any other way.

I think it is a terrible idea to elect SC judges.

I never said that was my idea.

As for Congress, why should they be term-limited out?? An election is a form of freedom of speech. If the people of a certain district are satisfied with their representatives, they should have the right to keep that person in office as long as they see fit.

And that thought process is why we had the Pioneer of Socialism, FDR, elected to four terms.

 

[242006]

You start introducing loopholes and that's exactly how billionaires end up paying less taxes than their secretaries.

It is not loopholes -- everyone pays the same percentage [10%] based upon what they have left at the end of the year [true income]. The rich will have more true income then the poor and, hence, will pay more taxes.

Exempt it on groceries and medical, then.

Pedro the Illegal Immigrant, when he goes out to buy that Escalade with his drug money, and the handful of flat panels, needs to be taxed for it. We can't collect taxes any other way.

Pedro needs to be in prison.

There should never be a sales tax whatsoever. The gov't has done nothing in a transaction between two private parties to warrant a commission.

I never said that was my idea.

I realize that others have profferred it; however, you are agreeing with it. It doesn't matter who came up with it -- it is still a terrible idea.

And that thought process is why we had the Pioneer of Socialism, FDR, elected to four terms.

FDR was not the pioneer of socialism. Obviously, he was a proponent of it.

Nonetheless, I am not for term limits, eventhough people are idiots and vote as they do. I am also for restricting the right to vote. Those that are recipients of the largess of gov't [public employees, welfare recipients, etc.] should not be allowed to vote. The concept is simple -- producers, who pay for gov't, decide how much the takers are allowed to have. It eliminates the inherent conflict of interest that exists today in which takers are allowed to vote and force givers to give more.

 

[[email protected]]

Term limits were enacted here in Florida.

Quite soon there will no members in the legislature with any sort of long standing tenure.
It is not yet apparent what effect that may have on the political situation regarding the legislature.
At this point the effect is only theoretical and speculative. We shall see.......

The only immediate effect is that seat changing and office moves will be much more frequent.
Members are seated closer to the speaker or further away depending upon their time in service.
Additionally, the member offices in our high rise captial building are higher up for junior members.
If the budget crunch gets any worse, they'll be working out of RVs in the parking lot <grin>.

Term limits in Florida have not affected many staffers and lobbyists.
When the legislature isn't in session there is a lot of activity between lobbyists and staffers going on.
It's almost like termites which continue to work even when the owners of the house are gone on vacation.

Term limits ought to be tried on the Federal judicial branch as well, since more of their decisions have corrupted our republic than either of the other two branches.
They act in pseudo-invisibility taking away our rights and legitimizing actions which the voters continually reject.
For example, the Florida legislature passed a bill to put Obama-Care on the November ballot as an amendment (#9) to the state constitution.
Let the people decide, right?
At the last minute a circuit court judge pulled the amendment from the ballot and stole the voters right to decide the issue.
The queer thing about it was that only the Fl. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to do that and there was no time before the election to rectify the situation.
An insider in Tallahassee told me that the SC would have allowed the amendment on the ballot had the lower court decision not come so quickly before election day.
What do you think?

Many judges and lawyers are corrupt, and the very best legal eagles are only concerned about the law.
They are like children playing video games with the law. They may do so honestly, but they ignore the effect it has on real people and the country.
IMO the judicial branch needs a major work-over with regard to decisions based on constitutional law.

Discussions about term limits almost never include the judicial branch or legislative staffers and lobbyists.
None of them worry about what's good for the country or the will of the people.

 

[TexUs]

It is not loopholes -- everyone pays the same percentage [10%] based upon what they have left at the end of the year [true income]. The rich will have more true income then the poor and, hence, will pay more taxes.

You're out of touch with reality.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21708265/Warren_Buffett_s_Fellow_Billionaires_Don_t_Bite_on_Million_Dollar_Tax_Challenge

He [Warren Buffett] told Brokaw: "I'll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."


"So far only three close friends, all 400 members, have made the calculation for me. They all came up with results similar to mine [they pay lower taxes than their employees] but have no interest in being identified."

Pedro needs to be in prison.

Of course he does but our government has no interest in securing our borders.
There's millions of potential democratic voters out there, they don't want to piss them off.
So to work the system, let's find a way to make them pay taxes since we can't collect it on income.

There should never be a sales tax whatsoever. The gov't has done nothing in a transaction between two private parties to warrant a commission.

You mean like a transaction of paying someone money for a service performed? IE, income? LOL... weak argument.

I realize that others have profferred it; however, you are agreeing with it. It doesn't matter who came up with it -- it is still a terrible idea.

I don't agree with it. Quote where I agreed that SCOTUS judges should be elected.

Nonetheless, I am not for term limits, eventhough people are idiots and vote as they do. I am also for restricting the right to vote. Those that are recipients of the largess of gov't [public employees, welfare recipients, etc.] should not be allowed to vote. The concept is simple -- producers, who pay for gov't, decide how much the takers are allowed to have. It eliminates the inherent conflict of interest that exists today in which takers are allowed to vote and force givers to give more.

I can agree with this.

You must not be on government aid for more than 6 months to be able to vote.

However, this introduces many issues which need to be addressed.
Tax credit for buying a hybrid. Is this aid?
First time homebuyer credit. Is this aid?
Tax breaks for having a kid. Is this aid?
etc
etc
etc
I say, eliminate tax credits, get a simple tax in place, and then this idea could work. But you aren't for elimination of these things so now you've got yourself in a pickle.

Term limits ought to be tried on the Federal judicial branch as well, since more of their decisions have corrupted our republic than either of the other two branches.
They act in pseudo-invisibility taking away our rights and legitimizing actions which the voters continually reject.

Or in Oklahoma, the Islamic law thing. THE PEOPLE voted it in 76% in favor.

I understand checks and balances when it comes to representatives. The judges keep the representative's jobs in check, supposedly so they don't abuse the will of the people.

But the thing is, the people in Oklahoma... THE PEOPLE, directly expressed their desires on the Sharia Law thing- and a judge is getting in the way (granted they haven't ruled on it yet, just blocked it until they do).
Who exactly do the judges think they represent?

It depends on the state weather or not you can vote judges out. I usually vote No (to get rid of them) on every single judge. There's no term limits so my voting no is a way to ensure flesh blood keeps flowing.

 

[mcorba]

Am in Uk. what is RINO please?

 

[TexUs]

Am in Uk. what is RINO please?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rino&l=1

 

[242006]

You're out of touch with reality.
http://www.cnbc.com/...r_Tax_Challenge

[font="Verdana][size="2"]He [Warren Buffett] told Brokaw: "I'll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."[/size][/font]
[font="Verdana][size="2"]
[/size][/font]
[font="Verdana][size="2"]"So far only three close friends, all 400 members, have made the calculation for me. They all came up with results similar to mine [they pay lower taxes than their employees] but have no interest in being identified."

[/size][/font]
Well, the reality is that our current system is destroying not only the U.S., but the entire world. My system is the cure to the problem.

Everyone has the same 10% tax liability. I attack it from a morality viewpoint. No one should pay more than 10% of their income in taxation. Income is measured as what one has left at the end of the year. There are no 'loopholes' as you claim -- all expenditures are deducted from yearly revenue -- irrespective of what it is spent on. It is better for our nation and the economy for the individual to 'stimulate' via their own personal choices than the gov't taking money and choosing winners and losers.

Of course he does but our government has no interest in securing our borders.
There's millions of potential democratic voters out there, they don't want to piss them off.
So to work the system, let's find a way to make them pay taxes since we can't collect it on income.

That's total B.S. We can't make a tax system just to attempt to squeeze money out of criminals, and, in the process, screw over all the poor and lower income folks. If those responsible in gov't do not provide the service required of them [put the criminal in prison or protect borders], then the states affected should not pay their [tithe] taxes to the federal gov't. My system makes the states hold the federal gov't responsible.

You mean like a transaction of paying someone money for a service performed? IE, income? LOL... weak argument.

Not a weak argument at all. It is very sound morally and fiscally. The gov't has no moral right to a commission in a private transaction. The gov't has done nothing in the transaction to the benefit of either party.

In my system, the gov't does not get money unless people prosper. If people do not prosper, why should they pay gov't at all??

Since 10% max is all one is liable for total taxation in my system, there would be no need for sales tax, property tax, social security tax, etc. Employers would no longer be tax collectors for the gov't [like it used to be long ago].

I don't agree with it. Quote where I agreed that SCOTUS judges should be elected.

Here in California, state court judges are elected. After the law changed to subject judges to election, the judges, at first, put out statements in the election material that the voters received. When people reviewed these statements and got an idea as to their political beliefs, they were voted out of a job. The judges that did not put out a statement were elected. Now, hardly a judge puts out a statement. So, the voters have absolutely no information to go on to know who to vote for or against. Hence, judges are elected by those throwing darts at the ballot.

I have yet to see a plausible reason for voting for SCOTUS judges. Restricting SCOTUS judge jurisdiction is far better. The first unconstitutional power grab was done by the SC [can't remember the year off hand] when they ruled that they had final say as to what is and what is not 'constitutional'. Under the terms of the Constitution, the states and the people had final say as to constitutionality [10th Amendment]. Then, for many decades, the rulings of the SC were only applicable to the non-state territories within the U.S. The SC decided that they should have jurisdiction over the states as well -- another power grab.

Hence, to me, the solution is going back to the original constitution and removing the SC's power grabs that have taken place.

I can agree with this.

You must not be on government aid for more than 6 months to be able to vote.

Good idea.

However, this introduces many issues which need to be addressed.
Tax credit for buying a hybrid. Is this aid?
First time homebuyer credit. Is this aid?
Tax breaks for having a kid. Is this aid?
etc
etc
etc
I say, eliminate tax credits, get a simple tax in place, and then this idea could work. But you aren't for elimination of these things so now you've got yourself in a pickle.

I don't know where you got that idea from any of my writings. In my system, there would be no federal gov't subsidies for anything [nothing in the Constitution now giving them that power].

Or in Oklahoma, the Islamic law thing. THE PEOPLE voted it in 76% in favor.

Well, it is good that Oklahoma expressed their opinion. But, it should not have to come to this as people have the right to repudiate any judge ruling that is outside the constitution of the state.

I understand checks and balances when it comes to representatives. The judges keep the representative's jobs in check, supposedly so they don't abuse the will of the people.

Well, if you read the U.S. Constitution, that is not the case. The SC only rules on the legislative branch's actions IF a case is brought before them. Hence, Congress often passes unconstitutional bills that go unchecked by the SC.

But the thing is, the people in Oklahoma... THE PEOPLE, directly expressed their desires on the Sharia Law thing- and a judge is getting in the way (granted they haven't ruled on it yet, just blocked it until they do).
Who exactly do the judges think they represent?

There is an impeachment process to remove a judge in every state constitution.

It depends on the state weather or not you can vote judges out. I usually vote No (to get rid of them) on every single judge. There's no term limits so my voting no is a way to ensure flesh blood keeps flowing.

See my comments above. I used to always vote against the lib judges. Now, with no information on any of them, I don't vote for judges at all.

 

[TexUs]

Well, the reality is that our current system is destroying not only the U.S., but the entire world. My system is the cure to the problem.

So is this you admitting I'm right and your prior statement that the rich pay more was.... wrong?

Everyone has the same 10% tax liability. I attack it from a morality viewpoint. No one should pay more than 10% of their income in taxation. Income is measured as what one has left at the end of the year. There are no 'loopholes' as you claim -- all expenditures are deducted from yearly revenue

Do you know what tax credits are?
Loopholes.

That's total B.S. We can't make a tax system just to attempt to squeeze money out of criminals, and, in the process, screw over all the poor and lower income folks.

I notice you never even commented on my solution to this, tax everything other than groceries.

Besides if we've got a flat sales tax it's FAIR...
You're whining about fairness and when when I propose an actually fair system you complain. Listen, the poor aren't going to buy expensive items, fancy cars, TVs, high end electronics, etc... Their majority is stuff to live on (which is exempted). The more wealthy, that do buy big ticket items, will be paying the same exact tax rate but we'll be collecting more from them because they buy more. It's simple, and fair.
The essentials (groceries) aren't taxed. Everything above essentials (pleasure items) is. The more you buy for self, the more you pay to government. Simple.

If those responsible in gov't do not provide the service required of them [put the criminal in prison or protect borders]

There's no "if". The government doesn't do it.

The state currently has the rights to sue the government if they want to for failing to protect the borders. "Your system" won't change any of this.

Not a weak argument at all. It is very sound morally and fiscally. The gov't has no moral right to a commission in a private transaction. The gov't has done nothing in the transaction to the benefit of either party.

What do you think income taxes are?

In my system, the gov't does not get money unless people prosper.

The same thing a sales tax would do. With the added benefits of taxing tourists, illegals, military, and foreign visitors.

Well, it is good that Oklahoma expressed their opinion. But, it should not have to come to this as people have the right to repudiate any judge ruling that is outside the constitution of the state.

You realize a man that beat his wife to death in New Jersey got off free and clear because he cited his Islamic beliefs, don't you? Oklahoma is simply taking preventative measures.

 

[242006]

So is this you admitting I'm right and your prior statement that the rich pay more was.... wrong?

No. You wanted the rich to pay a higher percentage, which leads me to conclude that you are a liberal and believe in class warfare.

I will let you know when you are correct.

Do you know what tax credits are?
Loopholes.

Do you know what a loophole is???

Courtesy of American Heritage Dictionary -

loophole n. 1. A means of evasion.

Hence, a tax credit is not a loophole as the gov't intends to give it.

I notice you never even commented on my solution to this, tax everything other than groceries.

What's there to comment on again?? I already stated that you have a terrible idea. We should be taxing nothing relative to commerce. A per capita tax was allowed in the Constitution [prior to the 16th Amendment]. Until the 16th Amendment is repealed, income taxation should be based solely upon what a person has left at the end of the year.

Besides if we've got a flat sales tax it's FAIR...
You're whining about fairness and when when I propose an actually fair system you complain. Listen, the poor aren't going to buy expensive items, fancy cars, TVs, high end electronics, etc... Their majority is stuff to live on (which is exempted). The more wealthy, that do buy big ticket items, will be paying the same exact tax rate but we'll be collecting more from them because they buy more. It's simple, and fair.
The essentials (groceries) aren't taxed. Everything above essentials (pleasure items) is. The more you buy for self, the more you pay to government. Simple.

I am not a 'whiner'. I set forth the solution which would bring forth sanity in the relationship between the citizens, the states, and the federal gov't. Moreover, my system would bring back prosperity to the populace. The only way to control gov't is to limit the amount of money they can confiscate from the populace. My system caps all taxation at 10% of what is leftover at the end of the year.

I already explained to you how your system hurts the poor the most and is immoral.

There's no "if". The government doesn't do it.

That's not true. The SC does rule upon issues that they allow to be brought before them. Obama-care, as legislation passed by Congress, will eventually be heard by the SC.

The state currently has the rights to sue the government if they want to for failing to protect the borders. "Your system" won't change any of this.

How naive are you?? If the Federal gov't had to rely upon the yearly tithe from the states for funding of their endeavors and border states withheld all or a portion thereof the yearly tithe to cover costs associated with a failure to protect the border, the system would work. Back in the 1990's, California Governor Pete Wilson sued the U.S. over illegal immigrant costs. The Federal Court, instead of dealing with the issue at hand, simply dismissed the lawsuit. It would be far better for the states to retain taxes, which are supposed to go to the Federal gov't, to address federal gov't failures then it is to sue the federal gov't, which has the power to disallow suits against them.

What do you think income taxes are?

Today, they are not what they should be. The gov't takes a cut of a person's gross revenue -- not what is left at the end of the year. The current system is immoral.

The same thing a sales tax would do. With the added benefits of taxing tourists, illegals, military, and foreign visitors.

That's a terrible idea -- already addressed. Sales tax is the worst system possible.

You realize a man that beat his wife to death in New Jersey got off free and clear because he cited his Islamic beliefs, don't you? Oklahoma is simply taking preventative measures.

I support Oklahoma's efforts as there is little doubt that many judges need to be impeached and removed. Voting for judges will not cure the situation in NJ.

 

[kiwimac]

Nonsense?

His birth certificate was a proven forgery.
His selective service card was a proven forgery.
He's been proven to use multiple social security numbers, at the least he's a felon of Social Security fraud and should be in prison.
That's just the public info that's been provided.

So in short, any documentation that's been provided that he's a citizen has been proven to be fake. And then everything else he hasn't provided speaks against it.

It's not nonsense. The only nonsense is people willing to ignore the evidence.

I'm sorry, proof of these claims please!