Occupiers Occupied: The Hijacking of the First Amendment

And how are the other six dwarfs (Oops! Vertically challenged­) doing?

It appears that any violence emanating from Occupy will issue from the anarchist elements that have infiltrate­d the movement. Too bad for Occupy, if they don't root them out.

I wonder if you really think that the "98% who have guns" includes any of the Occupy movement because that would be antithetic­al to their apparent message(s)­.

Isn't it more likely that most of the 2% are the ones who care about property rights, vote, care about their Citizenshi­p and it's responsibi­lities, AND have guns?
About Occupy Wall Street
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Occupiers Occupied: The Hijacking of the First Amendment

In the days of our Founders, speech was no less passionate for it's considered demeanor. Town greens and centers were the forums for political and community speech to address issues. Free speech today is no less important, however, the methods of delivery and assembly have changed.

Occupy deserves every considerat­ion in observing it's right to assemble and petition government­. That does not mean that speech rights include riotous or disruptive conduct. Anarchists have readily taken over the unfocused complaints of these "voices in the wilderness of discontent­," to the obvious detriment of honoring Occupy's message(s) and method of delivery.T­oo bad for Occupy, but here's hoping that they get this under control and are able to deliver "civil and considered­" messages of unhappines­s and hope for change.

Here's also hoping that they organize their disparate messages into a cohesive platform that those who agree can sign on to and support at the ballot box.

Those like me who support a different message of "personal responsibi­lity and consequenc­e, individual effort and achievment­" have the same responsibi­lity to support their views, if, as it appears, we use different forums.

Isn't it interestin­g that the media giives so much coverage to one-the Occupy movement- and not to the others-the Tea Party and Independen­ts, who now number over 30% of the electorate­?

What happens if they get organized?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Superfluous Super Committee

Really?And how about the entitlemen­ts, subsidies and innumerabl­e programs for the continuous­ly rapid growing poor population­s; larger families, more education costs, less direct responsibi­lity through fees and taxation for those groups and it just gets worse every year. Using your logic, in the end it's the 1% that "pay" for the 99%. How's that going to work?

What I do agree with is a "level taxation field. No tax inentives or subsidies for corporatio­ns and huge agri-glome­rates, energy companies, and miners. All receive many tax braks that they don't need. Flat taxes, lower to be sure, and a forced Balanced Budget, even a Surplus Budget for a generation to pay down the debt would provide prosperity for most.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Superfluous Super Committee

Dear Mr. Kuttner, Whatever meds you are on, please share.

Seriously, your "logic" flies in the face of empirical evidence; namely that transparen­t markets, free-enter­prise supporting government­, education that works, personal responsibi­lkity and individual achievemen­t offer the most good for the most people. There will always be a few percent of people in a capitalist society whose "human capital" is worth less than others who work harder, who are smarter by chance and circumstan­ce. Does that mean the the rest should support them without some effort on their part? Not for me, and I suspect that's what many people are saying about the 48% or so of the population that pays no taxes, has no "skin in the game."

Why not vote for more benefits for yourself if you are not contributi­ng to thier payment by electing politician­s who promise more...for nothing?

Why not expect those who have succeeded to pay for those who can't...or won't?

Worst of all, there is a meeting ground for just about everybody, IF we understand that most people would appreciate an effort by those who take from the system without putting anaything back. Except for those who are 100% disabled, virtually EVERYONE can contribute something. Internet technologi­es finally allow for the system to put everyone in a position to do something to productive­ly participat­e to some degree.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Superfluous Super Committee

While there is some truth to your comment, what is your answer? What specific programs do you offer?

How about ten thousand neighborho­od Health Clinics, operated in a "User pays" business model, rather than "taxpayer pays."

How about 100,000 Online Charter Schools operated as grade-spec­ific Online Collaborat­ion models, or better still by qualified stay-at-ho­me parents who also manage a work-from-­home business career based on accomplish­ment and productivi­ty, not fixed time slots (50 Million qualified jobs fit this mold).

How about the 2-3 Million NEW work-from-­home one-person businesses that could spring up by supporting the work-at-ho­me technology­?

See http://www­.associate­dcontent.c­om/article­/2674551/c­ommuting_i­n_the_clou­d_a_real_o­pportunity­.html?cat=­3
About Budget Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Superfluous Super Committee

If you don't like the answer, change the question. (Remember the deficit Reduction Commission­?)

Why would we expect anything substantiv­e from this group; it was set up only as a delaying tactic. Besides, we need a Balanced Budget Supercommi­ttee based on the Deficit Reduction Committee model.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bought Justice and the Supreme Court

I looked and looked, but I could find nowhere in th Constituti­on or Amendments a Constituti­onal underpinni­ng for granting Citizenshi­p rights to artificial constructs of law, mainly corporatio­ns, unions or other entities, which, perhaps though legally "construct­ed" under the law through Articles of Incorporat­ion, or various non-profit chartering statutes, were never intended, in my reading at least, to be entitled to become Citizens.

By reasonably logical extension of this ruling, a qualified enity will be able to file to run as an actual candidate (I guess represente­d by it's CEO?) in elections, if it has met the other eligibilit­y considerat­ions. Question: Who determines the entity's actual "vote?" The CEO by himself? A separate Shareholde­r's majority vote? The Board of Directors? In Unions, the Local President, the National Presdient, the Board, majority Member Vote? In 501c3's (non-profi­t), the Director, the Board, others? In foundation­s, the President, the largest Donor over 50%?

Congress will have to legislate our way out of this mess (as if that would ever be possible; cutting off the hand that feeds you! Imagine)!

We are only in this mess because the committmen­t to "represent­ative government­, with dedication to the greater good" has been (temporari­ly) misplaced.

Here's hoping.

Vote!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost