Democracy Now has the transcript of the  interview Jeremy Scahill on Obama’s Orwellian War in Iraq: We Created the Very Threat We Claim to be Fighting.

JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, Hillary Clinton is-I actually think, is more hawkish than Barack Obama, and Barack Obama has emerged as a pretty significant hawk in terms of his policies. He can talk all he wants about, you know, how he wants to change and reset relationships around the world; this has been a total militarized presidency. Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, acted as though she was also sort of secretary of defense. And her State Department was deeply involved with plotting covert action around the world, using the State Department as cover for CIA operations. And, you know, the Clintons, Bill and Hillary Clinton, are two of the most fierce projectors of the politics of the American empire, and they also have very close relationships with some of the most nefarious characters from the Bush family. So, you know, those two families together, the Bushes and the Clintons, it’s almost like a monarchy in this country. I mean, Jeb Bush very well may run. I mean, it’s unclear what-you know, George W. Bush said the other day that he’s putting pressure on his brother to try to run for president. But, you know, Hillary Clinton is a fierce neoliberal who believes in backing up the so-called “hidden hand of the free market” with merciless, iron-fisted military policies.

Among all the scary things about this interview is the thought that we Democrats might actually get Hillary Clinton elected as the next President of the USA.

At least the investment advice is good news. My investment in Lockhead Martin is up 29.1% since investing in it in November 2013. That is even counting the big drop this week.

Naked Capitalism has the article David Quentin and Nicholas Shaxson: The “Patent Box” – Proof That the UK is a Rogue State in Corporate Tax.

Perhaps most importantly, it is the very existence of intellectual property rights that spurs innovation, so there is no need for them to have a special extra subsidy. However socially useful a patented technology may or may not be, a patent is a privately-held and transferable monopoly over the commercial exploitation of an idea, and that monopoly only exists because the state chooses to enforce it. Bringing into being and protecting such privately-held monopolies is a way for the state to reward human creativity. Owning such an asset is not something the state needs to subsidize with a tax break; simply owning it should be enough.

This article makes it clearer to me than it ever has been the nature of the fight to protect “intellectual property rights.”  You hear President Obama tout this protection in the trade deals he wants to foist on us.  He excoriates countries like China for not protecting our companies’ “intellectual property rights” inside China.  In fact, “intellectual property rights” has turned into another scam to allow the oligarchs to avoid their fare share of taxes.  They are using this as a weapon against us, and want us to fight for their ability to use it against us.