TheWorx

In this The Guardian article we learn how our police got to be so militarized. To my way of thinking, this is just a circumvention of the Third Amendment prohibiting boots on U.S. soil for if you can't bring in the soldier, you make soldiers of the cops by arming them to the hilt. What a creative way for the MICC to stay in business, though, "Oh, Congress. We gave our stuff to the municipalities. We need to replenish, please," and Congress dutifully replenishes for there is no auditing when it comes to the Departments of Defense or Homeland Security. Not only do we the taxpayers have to pay double for weapons and equipment but we are faced with militarized police to help us deal with those who would like to exercise their First Amendment rights. Which is why, incidentally, I support the Tea Party when it grandstands in Congress; it shows that the First Amendment is alive and well, if not in the streets, then in those hallowed halls where no one gets sent to jail for mo...

If they throw the book at Bradley Manning, there are others who should then be prosecuted under the Espionage Act 18 USC § 793(f) to wit: Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint , plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both....

This matter of small businesses and their taxation needs to be put to rest with regard to the effect  increased taxation has on hiring. The owner of an established business deducts, among his numerous expenses, the cost of labor from his taxes. The labor he employs in his business is the minimum required to fulfill his obligations to his customers and meet demand--no more, no less. If he hires beyond what is required, he is doing so for an ulterior purpose other than profits and, as such, obtains some degree of personal satisfaction from the superfluous hiring--that's his prerogative and is not to be considered here. But the true businessman hires only what he needs and deducts the expense from his revenue so as not to subject it to taxation. This businessman then obtains a profit that can be taxed by the government. At this point, it is no different than the salary that is obtained by the vast majority of U.S. taxpayers. If profits over 250,000 dollars are taxed at a hig...

Have you see Obama's take on the race issue? The man understands the races as no individual I've ever heard or read. He sees the White man festering economically and naturally resentful of any group that's not his own. He sees the Black man being civil to the White man but expressing his anger at home and at the pews. He knows the solution lies in leveling the economic disparity at the root of all our problems. Look for major outpouring of contributions to the Clinton Campaign by the rich.