Suggestion: I'd love to hear a legitimate discussion about US poverty. Reality is that not everyone can work, due to health or circumstances, and we simply don't have jobs for all who need one. Millions of low-wage workers are a single job loss from losing everything, with no way back up. How do you get a job without a home address, phone, bus fare? Because we cut the rungs off of the proverbial ladder out of poverty, permanent, desperate poverty has grown as the middle class has shrunk. But we haven't even begun to talk about what to do about all those who are unable to provide for themselves, and how this impacts all of society. They don't just vanish. Prisons have increasingly become the only social services available to the very poor, at tremendous taxpayer cost. Shouldn't we at least start talking about this?

...Know what you mean, Alice...

When I was young, I worked at a hunt club. I took care of the hounds in the kennels and waited on elites in the club. I overheard a lot of conversations. At the time, I thought they had simply had to much to drink. In terrifying retrospect, I now realize they meant every word. Elites like the Kochs no longer care about how much $$ they have, they only care about how much money you have. They don’t care about defunding Obama care, they care about population control. depriving people of health care and access to resources is all they care about. They don’t mind paying taxes, they DO mind that you get access to resources which is the end result of paying taxes. As far as they are concerned, regular people are too many mouths to feed, now that there are 7 billion of us. They see climate change and pollution the perfect solutions to the population problem. This has happened before in human history. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, ancient Sumerian texts, it says that the Gods (elites) grew weary of their clamoring...

Oh yeah... like DAnneMarc just reminded us, there's also TPP looming on the horizon. Corporate fascism's next level! Be very scared, folks; and this time I say that without sarcasm. - AIW

Everything that is good about this country seems to be imploding right before our eyes. It's very scary; so much so that at times, I have to tune it out just to keep my sanity. Since we don't vote for Supreme Court justices (BUMMER!), I'm at a loss for what to do to counter this. We're still paying the consequences for them handing us "President" Bush, and for Citizens "United" (Yeah- "united" my A$$). I wouldn't put anything past those bastards, no matter how crazy. - Aliceinwonderland

Hey "mw", I don't know enough about communism to claim I'm a communist. But I am definitely a socialist. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if others on this blog could say the same. And I'd sure like to see some of those billionaire psychopaths arrested & convicted for treason! And your sentiments about totalitarianism resonate with me. Thanks for the posts!

Quote DAnneMarc: The DNA in that baby alone might just blow the roof off this story.

chuckle8 ~ Good point! The Constitution does deligate the responsibility for the dept to Congress; however, it clearly states in the 14th Amendment:

US Constitution

Quote 14th Amendment, Section 4:Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

And then in goes on to say

Quote 14th Amendment, Section 5:Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Therefore, in my humble opinion, The Constitution delegates the authority to pay the dept to Congress; however, it stipulates that any such dept "shall not be questioned." That is exactly what is happening at this time. Congress--or certain members thereof--are abandoning their Constitutional responsibility to "pay the dept." For that reason I feel that it is The Constitutional RESPONSIBILITY of the Executive to either remove the members of Congress that are preventing the Constitutionally required mandatory action of the body from proceeding; or, to use an emergency Executive Order to do it himself. Either action should be upheld by the Court; and, if not, the President has more than enough legal recourse to delay the implementation of an Unconstitutional Court decision indefinitely. In this case the President has The Constitution, We the People, justice and righteousness on his side. He can do no wrong with either action mentioned above. In any event, where the Court to overturned such a decision, the President could also use such a circumstance to compel Congress to fulfill its Constitutional obligations without further delay. The President is currently in a situation that he can only lose by gross incompetence or deliberate intention.

mwjeep75 -- You put it in the right place and thank you.

Sorry, a repeat, but not a flood, I worry no one reads all this.

Thom,

Allow me to preface my comment with the realization that I am to the left of almost anyone and not a libertarian by any means.

Oh, and I take my communism (e.g. us) without any totalitarianism, and, if you bring it with totalitarianism I WILL SEND IT BACK.

Ahem. Now the U.S. Constitution makes very specific conditions about what will be regarded as treason. Nixon and Reagan aside, (I wonder, perhaps our hero Mike P. would know) could the provision that requires an OVERT ACT against the United States be made to include the senior editor (s) at Fox–so-called–News that ordered the spin that it's a 'slimdown' or Hannity's 'liberal' shutdown crack OR that it's the President or the Democrats at fault, as being a deliberate falsehood designed to hurt (maybe overthrow, disable etc.) the United States. An OVERT ACT if you will.

I suspect a talented attorney (our hero?) could rattle such a senior editor (s) enough to admit IN COURT that the order came from a billionaire that would not be denied?

Arresting John Boehner for public drunkeness might have a certain sense of poetic justice, but convicting a billionaire of TREASON, especially a visible one, would be…

Well, priceless.

Now Thom, don't get mad when I send much more critical analysis of some of your more funny ideas, like say, James Madison's objective when writing the Constitution was NOT to put in place as many barriers to ordinary people voting their own interests.

Remember, those guys, mainly all slaveholders, thought T. Jefferson had some funny Parisian ideas when he returned.

Good job one of them wasn't the guillotine.

I am, however, poised to set up on a moments notice, a metaphorical, non-violent one.

Guillotine, that is.

Let's hope it's as effective.

So you won't think I am a total moron, here's a poem:

FROM US

Wildcat strike

34 dead

Apartheid is gone

from South Africa

Seniors who don’t drive

Don’t vote

We killed racism in the 60’s

As strange as it sounds

It’s morning

In America

And how the day shapes up

Is up to someone

Make sure it’s us

No cause for which

I am prepared to kill

How about

Prepared to live

Tar sand bribery

War crime whitewash

Where did they get

All the money

From us

Your formatting isn't so hot for verse, you get the gist.

Yer pal,

Michael Willis

mwjeep75@gmail.com

Palindromedary ~ Ok. I slept on it. I stand by my suggestion. Why would an officer approach the car and remove the baby.

1. He must have know there was a baby in the car.

2. He must have know the woman was incapacitated or unarmed.

3. The baby must have been very important and the woman very dangerous. This is the only reason for waiting till the baby was clear of the car to open fire.

4. This was some kind of deliberate assassination. The officer safely retrieving the baby proved to everyone in the vicinity--including the woman watching from the window above--that the driver was incapacitated and/or unarmed. Further shots obviously weren't necessary. Yet everyone continued shooting the woman point blank in the face. The obvious intent was to silence her.

5. This testimony completely invalidates the concept that these officers suspected a bomb in the car. You don't approach a vehicle and open a door if you suspect it is wired with explosives. You disable the vehicle and the driver first. You shoot out the tires and send in the bomb squad.

6. Finally, you don't fire shots directly into a vehicle you think is carrying a bomb. Especially If people are in the vicinity.

Either there was something completely different going on or these are the most incompetent police since the Keystone Kops. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In my opinion, preventing some kind of high level scandal is the only logical explanation for the behavior of everyone involved. The only other explanation, far less logical, is sheer madness and incompetence mixed with "Dirty Harry" vigilantism.

Time will tell. Any scandal displayed on this magnitude is going to leak out sooner or later. The DNA in that baby alone might just blow the roof off this story.

Who? LMAO ;-}

Stranger things have happened...like tough head of the FBI director wearing dresses and playing doctor with Clyde. But, I'm tired too...so nighty night!