The Top 1/10 of the Top 1%

Poverty_and_Wealth - Copy

We recently learned that Hillary Clinton’s income places her and her husband not only in the top 1% of income “earners” (among those hated one-percenters) but also in the top tenth of that top 1% (quite an elite group)!

Oddly enough, “income inequality” is one of the “four pillars” of Hillary’s platform. She tried to explain her gripe on behalf of We the Peons: [emphasis added to quotes]

There’s something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the typical worker. There’s something wrong when American workers keep getting more productive, as they have, and as I just saw a few minutes ago is very possible because of education and skills training, but that productivity is not matched in their paychecks. And there’s something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers that I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the last two days.

Doesn’t she mean as she was being driven (as in chauffeured) there over the last two days? I digress …

There is most definitely something wrong when a woman like Hillary Clinton and her husband “earn” hundreds of thousands of dollars simply for speaking. Talking, and for how long? A few minutes? A few hours? How much is that per hour? A cool hundred thousand dollars? Maybe more? Sure beats flipping burgers at McDonald’s. Nice work if you can get it. If only I got paid by the word!

Hillary, despite her own wealth, imagines that she can

be a champion for those against whom the economic deck remains “stacked” in favor of “those already at the top.”

Does she mean the deck that’s stacked in favor of people like herself, who are at the top? Privileged ones like her husband? Her daughter? Her erstwhile opponent, Barry Obama?

So there Hillary is, campaigning against herself. Interesting.

David Limbaugh put it well, while commenting about Hillary’s faux populism:

Hillary Clinton’s pseudo-populist campaign requires that she position herself as a public servant who lies awake at night agonizing over the plague of income inequality and contemplating what she can do to rescue the bedraggled, impecunious and deprived 99 percent of Americans, with whom she could once identify and now can only imitate.

She’d be better to lie awake at night and worry about how she’ll keep her butt out of the Big House. Scooter Libby knows all about what can happen to someone accused of obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements. But, again, I digress …

Recently the world lost “a beautiful mind” when mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr. passed on. Here’s his take on the disparities between rich and poor nations:

Well, these are popular themes, but you find something that people are talking about and you may find that there are differing opinions. There’s the most widely held opinion, but there are maybe some other opinion that is more scientific or more subtle. It is easy to say that there are the rich and the poor and so something should be done. But in history there are always the rich and the poor. If the poor were not as poor we would still call them the poor. I mean whoever has less can be called the poor. You will always have the 10% that have less and the 10% that have the most. But maybe comparatively they’re not so bad.

Subtlety, however, is not a Clinton forte. Nor logic. Nor science. Nor mathematical genius.

How “poor” is poor? Are there any persons in the USA who truly are poor, taking into account all the social benefits available to them, courtesy of earners?

What, then, does Hillary want? Income equality? If so, then she ought to stop taking millions of dollars merely for speaking and begin to redistribute her excessive wealth immediately.

While she’s at it, Hillary can explain exactly how she, as president, plans to achieve income equality for all without overturning our Constitution and imposing communism.

Speaking about the ideology of Progress, Karl Kraus once said,

Progress will make wallets out of human skin.

We the People need to think more than twice about electing this woman to the presidency.

Here be dragons.

#####

Advertisements

120 responses to “The Top 1/10 of the Top 1%

  1. Obama, a Jew? They Ain’t Makin’ Jews Like Jesus Anymore!

    “I am the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office.” – Barack Obama

  2. a survey reveals the Obama administration, in fact, appears to have far more scandals than any other in U.S. history.

    WND counted more than 3-dozen scandals, many of which are considered impeachable offenses by constitutional scholars and numerous lawmakers.

    Obamacare
    IRS
    Benghazi
    Supplying ISIS
    Blaming the video
    Libya
    Veterans Administration
    Executive orders
    Executive amnesty
    NSA
    Spying on reporters
    Fast & Furious
    Hillary Clinton’s emails
    Losing Iraq
    Syria Red Line
    Egypt
    Muslim Brotherhood ties
    Apology tours
    The bow
    Iran treaty
    Supporting Netanyahu opposition
    Investigating Ferguson
    New Black Panthers
    Secret Service
    Solyndra
    EPA puddles
    Suing Arizona
    Cap & Trade
    Unapproved czars
    GSA training conference
    IRS parties
    Biden harasses reporters
    Birth certificate
    DOMA
    Extortion 17
    HSBC / Lynch
    Miriam Carey
    Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/06/survey-says-obamas-forged-birth.html#pF9uKEBALrH9fqAD.99

    • Brooks just goes to show you how delusional a person can be. It’s amazing. The MOST scandals ever and he says Obama’s administration is scandal free! I think his context is they’re free of sex scandals like Hastert. That’s because they don’t think it’s scandalous when it’s done by DemoncRATS. In addition, as he well knows, they don’t bother to investigate nor report on Barry’s personal sex scandals. Larry? Reggie? What Joan said? Crickets. Don’t ask; don’t report.

  3. I posted that snippet about bilderburg holding their spring planning session at the Interalpen Hotel in Austria because of the headline of this topic being the top 0.1% of the top 1% etc.
    I suppose you would put them in the top 0.1% of that.

    This is just pure speculation – but interesting – from infowars.com

    Jeb Bush is set to visit Poland, Estonia and Germany in “early June” a Bush aide revealed Monday, raising questions on whether the likely presidential candidate plans to attend the nearby Bilderberg conference during the trip.

    According to Reuters, Bush intends to get a “first-hand view of European economic and security challenges” while in the region, specifically in light of increased unrest throughout Ukraine.

    Bush will speak to the governing Christian Democratic Union economic conference while visiting Germany, although further information has been limited due to requests for “anonymity.”

    The 2015 Bilderberg meeting, confirmed to be at the Interalpen Hotel in the Austrian mountains, just miles from the German border, will begin on June 11th and continue until the 14th.

    Reuters also stated that “other sources close to Bush’s camp have said his team has discussed the possibility of an announcement in June, after the trip.”

    Secrecy around Bush’s itinerary will likely fuel speculation, especially in light of other high-level politicians’ attendance prior to presidential runs.

    Infowars correctly predicted in 2007 that former Texas Gov. Rick Perry would run for president in 2012 after traveling to the Bilderberg conference in Istanbul, Turkey.

    Barack Obama also reportedly visited the Bilderberg conference just prior to becoming the presidential frontrunner after he “infamously disappeared to a secret location with Hillary Clinton in June 2008 in Northern Virginia, at precisely the same time and location the Bilderberg Group were convening in Chantilly,” noted Infowars Paul Joseph Watson.

    Despite being in violation of the Logan Act, a US law barring American citizens from negotiating with foreign officials without the authorization of the country, politicians continue to descend on the global think tank’s annual meetings. Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker, who investigated the group for decades before passing in 2013, stated that the Clinton White House had even been fined $300,000 for joining the confab one year.
    ___________________________________________________________
    SNIP
    The attendee list usually gets published after the event. the UK paper, The Guardian often publishes it.
    Wouldn’t surprise me if bushy-wushy went.
    Hope we can keep the rinos out of the election.
    Hope there IS an election.

  4. Here are some attendees from previous years, from the UK and the USA that you may recognize:
    from https://en.wikipedia./wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants#United_States
    Prime Ministers

    Tony Blair (1993),[73][92] Prime Minister 1997–2007
    Gordon Brown (1991),[93] Prime Minister 2007– 2010
    Edward Heath,[14] Prime Minister 1970–1974 (deceased)
    Alec Douglas-Home (1977–1980),[94] Chairman of the Bilderberg Group, Prime Minister 1963–1964 (deceased)
    Margaret Thatcher (at least 1975, 1977, 1986),[95][96][97] Prime Minister 1979–1990 (deceased)
    David Cameron (2013) Currently Prime Minister

    United States

    Thomas E. Donilon (2012),[3] Executive Vice President for Law and Policy at Fannie Mae (1999–2005), National Security Advisor (2010 – 2013)
    Roger Altman (2008, 2009, 2013),[2][12][98] Deputy Treasury Secretary from 1993–1994, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners
    George W. Ball (1954, 1993),[99] Under Secretary of State 1961–1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968 (deceased)
    Sandy Berger (1999),[100] National Security Advisor, 1997–2001
    Timothy Geithner (2008, 2009),[2][98] Treasury Secretary
    Dick Gephardt (2012),[3] former Congressman and House Majority Leader
    Lee H. Hamilton (1997),[8][better source needed] former Congressman
    Christian Herter,[101] (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State (deceased)
    Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960),[102] Special Assistant to the President (deceased)
    Joseph E. Johnson[103] (1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (deceased)
    Henry Kissinger (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 2008, 2009, 2010,[22] 2011, 2012,[3] 2013[12]),[67][104] 56th United States Secretary of State
    Mark G. Mazzie (1986, 1987),[3] Chief of Staff, The Honorable George C. Wortley, U.S. House of Representatives.
    Richard Perle (2011), Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee 2001–2003, United States Assistant Secretary of Defense 1981–1987[68]
    Colin Powell (1997),[8][better source needed] 65th United States Secretary of State
    Condoleezza Rice (2008),[2] 66th United States Secretary of State
    George P. Shultz (2008),[2] 60th United States Secretary of State
    Lawrence Summers,[98] Director of the National Economic Council
    Paul Volcker[when?],[98] Chair of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979–1987
    Terry Wolfe (2010),[22] author and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
    Robert Zoellick (2008–2013),[2][3][11][12][42][22] former Trade Representative, former Deputy Secretary of State and former President of the World Bank Group

    Presidents

    Bill Clinton (1991),[92][93] President 1993–2001
    Gerald Ford (1964, 1966),[14][105] President 1974–1977 (deceased)

    Senators

    Tom Daschle (2008),[2] Senator from South Dakota 1987-2005
    John Edwards (2004),[106][107] Senator from North Carolina 1999–2005
    Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000),[108] Senator from Nebraska 1997–2009, Secretary of Defense 2013–present
    John Kerry (2012),[3] 68th United States Secretary of State and Senator from Massachusetts (1985–2013)
    Sam Nunn (1996, 1997),[8][better source needed] Senator from Georgia 1972–1997

    Governors

    Mitchell Daniels (2012)[109] Governor of Indiana 2004–2013
    Jon Huntsman, Jr. (2012),[3] Governor of Utah 2005–2009
    Rick Perry (2007),[110] Governor of Texas 2000–2015
    Mark Sanford (2008),[111] Governor of South Carolina 2003–2011
    Kathleen Sebelius (2008),[2] Governor of Kansas 2003-2009

  5. Why does it matter?

    It matters because to whom are the pledging representation?
    It can’t be to Hillary’s ordinary working people, because theire is nothing ordinary about those attendees.

    Is my rant about class warfare?
    No.
    If this meeting was in the open, then there would not be a problem.
    We could no what was said and we could then vote out any politicians we did not want to “rule over us” nor might we give our business to any corporations who think our enslavement would be a convenience.

    Because it is held in secret – it is a huge problem.

    • She thinks she’s going to pull an Obama. Can she? How much whiter than white can she be? But she’s playing the race card. She makes me sick. Just more Clinton LIES. Hey, isn’t it racist to have a “black university?” Seems that I remember other white candidates being roundly criticized and called racist for speaking at religiously conservative colleges or mostly white colleges that the media call racist. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

    • He (Jenner) can do all the science projects to himself that he wants to do; what I object to is gays being allowed to perform science and social experiments on innocent CHILDREN. Children are gifts from God; they are not status symbols.

      • Obviously, I guess you can call me “vile,” too, if you want to. After all, I’m still calling him Bruce, he, and a man because THAT’S WHAT HE IS. It’s similar to the news that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not vice versa. In addition, here’s another news flash: the Earth is roundish, not flat. And anyone can call me vile if they wish. THAT’S WHY WE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT. YOU’RE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION AND SO AM I. You’re NOT entitled to force me to speak or THINK differently, especially when what you want me to think defies logic and common sense.

          • ~ Jenn[d]er and Other Confusions ^^^
            By Clarice Feldman

            Bruce Jenner’s decision to take hormone treatment, wear a wig, call himself Caitlyn, get tarted up and pose in a corset for the cover of Vanity Fair has created a media avalanche, despite the fact that transgendered folk make up a truly small percentage of Americans. It’s been estimated that 700,000 or 0.03 percent of Americans are transgendered and most but not all of these are what’s called transitioning to another sex.

            If this confuses you, it’s because the terms “gender” and “sex” have themselves been undergoing transition, as Grammarist explains:

          • A whole new vocabulary. I like both “transjenner” and “jennder”. The American People have got to be the funniest people on Earth. Maybe it’s because we have far more to laugh at than anybody else.

                • I watched that entire 38-minute video about Justin Bieber and I’m convinced. I always thought, especially when “he” was younger, that he looks like a girl and I couldn’t believe so many little girls found “him” attractive. But then, I reasoned, it’s in the vein of a lot of girlish previous “safe” sex symbols for prepubescent girls, starting with, probably, Ricky Nelson and guys like Davey Jones of the Monkees. I’d read once a theory that very young girls feel safer fantasizing about not really very macho teen idols. It’s not that they’re attracted to females but to men who are less extremely male (say, like Charles Bronson and Arnold Schwarzenegger). But that Bieber did always puzzle me because “he” was SO effeminate. Now we know why. It’s so interesting how they point out that when teen magazines put Justin on their covers, they seem to always make it a point to use PINK LETTERING when describing “him”. I’m convinced. Enuf said. It’s a shame that the media, the entertainment industry, and the person “himself” chose to deceive so many little girls, but it’s totally consistent with the tactics of the progressive left, which cares not a bit for individual autonomy or the right to self-actualization. They DELIBERATELY mess with the emotions and sexual self-image of these girls by encouraging them, subliminally, to be “attracted” to another woman.

                  • If you watch that video, they point out a few other characteristics that are typically male and cannot be disguised. The one that struck me, with regard to the possibility of Michael Obama, is the waistline being above the navel in females and below in males. Does THAT explain why Mooch so consistently wears those wide belts below the nearly non-existent boobs? To create the impression of an indentation where none exists?

                  • IF the ‘beiber” in the video is Bieber. There was a female contestant on one of the talent shows that looked and sang like bieber.

                    • That’s a thought. I wouldn’t know, but what I’ve seen of the real Bieber still makes me ponder.

                • This is a good refresher. I’d forgotten about that magazine cover with the Michelle lookalike. At the time, was there a huge outcry that this was disrespectful to Mooch? I don’t recall. You’d think it would have been, if she’d been insulted (as I would have been in her place). The thing about Bruce is at least he’s up front about it. But really, what choice did he have, given that everybody in the world has known him all these years as male?

              • True? I don’t know. But you can clearly see the photo manipulation of the kid’s shoulders and waistline in many of the shots. The “halos” give it away.

                Check out 38:43 as an example of what I see throughout this video.

                • Could be. Everybody has an agenda. I don’t know enough about Bieber to make an educated guess, but nothing would surprise me after the last 7 years and how quickly the LGBTQ agenda has moved forward.

        • I will call him Caitlin if he had a formal, legal name change. Lots of people change their name. But I will always refer to him as he and him and male and father and uncle and man and son. He is a man, albeit a distorted, funny looking man, but a man. And he can call me anything he wants from bitch to jerk to bigoted to it to whatever because this is America (still) and he And I can speak……even if it is hurtful and full of crap.

      • “He (Jenner) can do all the science projects to himself that he wants to do; what I object to is gays being allowed to perform science and social experiments on innocent CHILDREN. Children are gifts from God; they are not status symbols.”

        Alot said in so little words. Bravo.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s