Votes for sale! Free Speech for sale!
Free Speech IS for sale and the final auction is currently in progress. Cui Bono or follow the money started in 1819.
First Step - Corporations Are People
The 1819 Supreme Court Decision in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Dartmouth College had been granted a corporate charter by King George III awarding land and the right toadminister the college. In 1819 the trustees deposed the college president.
The New Hampshire legislature passed legislation taking away the college's King George charter, putting the State of New Hampshire in charge making it a State college.
The Supreme Court ruled while all political ties had been severed with King George III as a goverenment, the charter still constituted a contract with King George, the person.
The Supreme Court held this contract fell under the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution which forbids laws overturning contracts among persons, and held it applied to corporations as well. Dartmouth College remained private and under control of trustees.
Rights of contract and property now applied to corporations." (and did not limit the type nor the purpose.)
Second Step - Corporations as Citizens
The First Clause of the 14th Amendments you will recall set forth the privileges, immunities of citizens, banned depriving life, liberty, or property without due process and banned denying any person equal protection of the laws.
Corporations then challenge the powers of the State Governments under 14th Amendment.
The corporations held the 14th separated the properties of group entities from individual properties of their members for purposes of protecting investors from claim s against the corporation and also held the properties of the group with the properties of the members. Since corporations were persons they had the same constitutional protections as persons had"...(in effect wanting to have it both ways.)
"...in 1886 the railroads brought" suit to the Supreme Court in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. In Santa Clara County. Using a tax exemptio that allowed people paying mortgages on their property to deduct the amount of their mortgages from their taxes.
The precedent of corporate as a citizen with full rights of Citizenship came out of this case. Not from any anything written in favor or against by any of the justices. The precedent came from an remark made by Chief Justice Waite that was taken down by a clerk and appeared in the head notes for the case.
'The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids any state to deny any person with in it's jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are of the opinion it does not.' The Chief Justice at that time was former Railroad attorney.
Third Step.."Corporations as Persons and as Citizens gain wider advantages.
3A 1889 the court overtly granted due process Amendment to corporations;
3B 1893 it was Fifth amendment protections of double jeopardy;
3C 1906 Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure.
Fourth Step - Corporations Gain the Right to interfere in balloting.
3D 1978 the right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns."
Fifth Step - Money As Free Speech
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice
Though a corporation could not go to the polls and vote, as a 'person' it has the right of free speech since it's shareholders have the right of free speech.
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm
Sixth Step "Money Is Free Speech applies to Corporations."
Since eople have a right to as much speech as they want and since money is speech, corporations including LLC's and non profits have the right to spend as much money as they want on elections with only one limit. The 5 to 4 vote by a conservative court."
Seventh Step - The left came out against that decision as it supported corporate support to anyone from anyone. is corporate power of purchasing votes. Since the left enjoys a large group of support from billionaires an millionaires one has to wonder why. The answer is they are using the anti-corporate method to gain the direct method currently denied by the court.
"Any individual should be able, under free speech, to contribute to any campaign in any part of the nation." Or as I put it some months ago. "I have the right without explanation to take away your rights without exception."
http://endcitizensunited.org/about-us/ as an organization is now reversing the steps again to get rid of the need for 'bagmen" and allow direct access to candiates and issues in any part of the nation.
That is the current goal and last step.
Which means anyone especially the big money billionaire can interfere in your local precinct, district, town, county or State and buy all the candidates, officials, and heavily influence balloting anywhere they want they need no geo-political ties to interfere in your elections.
How much can you afford to contribute in the purchase of free speech if George Soros decides to target your local election?
Which should give you a clue as to who is behind all this. Like Same Sex it's George, http://moveon.org, ACLU and the secular progressives who saw a good deal and acted on it. But not to your benefit.
I got all of the above direct from Yoda's writings....George Lakoff. They are very open about it and believe you and I can do nothing to stop them.
Votes For Sale will be followed by Government for Sale - A Progressive Production coming soon to a precinct near your doorstep.
PS there is something that can be done ....Couch Potatoes need not apply.
The same method used to get Same Sex passed. Get it into the courts,Use a friendly bought and paid for judge. Bingo!
The antidote is any number of citizens rights violated especially due process based on no valid geo-political connection. Those who MAY not vote MAY not contribute which if applied does not violate any free speech as all ballots are level by level inclusive of every registered voters interests. All the way from top to bottom
It also addresses the issue of buying politicians
First Step - Corporations Are People
The 1819 Supreme Court Decision in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Dartmouth College had been granted a corporate charter by King George III awarding land and the right toadminister the college. In 1819 the trustees deposed the college president.
The New Hampshire legislature passed legislation taking away the college's King George charter, putting the State of New Hampshire in charge making it a State college.
The Supreme Court ruled while all political ties had been severed with King George III as a goverenment, the charter still constituted a contract with King George, the person.
The Supreme Court held this contract fell under the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution which forbids laws overturning contracts among persons, and held it applied to corporations as well. Dartmouth College remained private and under control of trustees.
Rights of contract and property now applied to corporations." (and did not limit the type nor the purpose.)
Second Step - Corporations as Citizens
The First Clause of the 14th Amendments you will recall set forth the privileges, immunities of citizens, banned depriving life, liberty, or property without due process and banned denying any person equal protection of the laws.
Corporations then challenge the powers of the State Governments under 14th Amendment.
The corporations held the 14th separated the properties of group entities from individual properties of their members for purposes of protecting investors from claim s against the corporation and also held the properties of the group with the properties of the members. Since corporations were persons they had the same constitutional protections as persons had"...(in effect wanting to have it both ways.)
"...in 1886 the railroads brought" suit to the Supreme Court in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. In Santa Clara County. Using a tax exemptio that allowed people paying mortgages on their property to deduct the amount of their mortgages from their taxes.
The precedent of corporate as a citizen with full rights of Citizenship came out of this case. Not from any anything written in favor or against by any of the justices. The precedent came from an remark made by Chief Justice Waite that was taken down by a clerk and appeared in the head notes for the case.
'The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids any state to deny any person with in it's jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are of the opinion it does not.' The Chief Justice at that time was former Railroad attorney.
Third Step.."Corporations as Persons and as Citizens gain wider advantages.
3A 1889 the court overtly granted due process Amendment to corporations;
3B 1893 it was Fifth amendment protections of double jeopardy;
3C 1906 Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure.
Fourth Step - Corporations Gain the Right to interfere in balloting.
3D 1978 the right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns."
Fifth Step - Money As Free Speech
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice
Though a corporation could not go to the polls and vote, as a 'person' it has the right of free speech since it's shareholders have the right of free speech.
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm
Sixth Step "Money Is Free Speech applies to Corporations."
Since eople have a right to as much speech as they want and since money is speech, corporations including LLC's and non profits have the right to spend as much money as they want on elections with only one limit. The 5 to 4 vote by a conservative court."
Seventh Step - The left came out against that decision as it supported corporate support to anyone from anyone. is corporate power of purchasing votes. Since the left enjoys a large group of support from billionaires an millionaires one has to wonder why. The answer is they are using the anti-corporate method to gain the direct method currently denied by the court.
"Any individual should be able, under free speech, to contribute to any campaign in any part of the nation." Or as I put it some months ago. "I have the right without explanation to take away your rights without exception."
http://endcitizensunited.org/about-us/ as an organization is now reversing the steps again to get rid of the need for 'bagmen" and allow direct access to candiates and issues in any part of the nation.
That is the current goal and last step.
Which means anyone especially the big money billionaire can interfere in your local precinct, district, town, county or State and buy all the candidates, officials, and heavily influence balloting anywhere they want they need no geo-political ties to interfere in your elections.
How much can you afford to contribute in the purchase of free speech if George Soros decides to target your local election?
Which should give you a clue as to who is behind all this. Like Same Sex it's George, http://moveon.org, ACLU and the secular progressives who saw a good deal and acted on it. But not to your benefit.
I got all of the above direct from Yoda's writings....George Lakoff. They are very open about it and believe you and I can do nothing to stop them.
Votes For Sale will be followed by Government for Sale - A Progressive Production coming soon to a precinct near your doorstep.
PS there is something that can be done ....Couch Potatoes need not apply.
The same method used to get Same Sex passed. Get it into the courts,Use a friendly bought and paid for judge. Bingo!
The antidote is any number of citizens rights violated especially due process based on no valid geo-political connection. Those who MAY not vote MAY not contribute which if applied does not violate any free speech as all ballots are level by level inclusive of every registered voters interests. All the way from top to bottom
It also addresses the issue of buying politicians
Corporations are not evil by nature. They are voluntary associations of people organized for a specific purpose. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of corporations of many kinds, many good, others not. Whether or not you like what some of them do is not a reason to denounce corporations in principle. Attempts to muzzle "corporations" are attempts to muzzle people and are a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.
I'm disappointed that Ted Cruz's tax plan is that onerous. I was of the opinion, previously, that he was pretty close to conservative perfect! (Maybe he's doing what all the RINO's do and placing that in there to attract the big-government lovers votes. Then when in office, he'll say "gotcha!" like they do to conservatives all the time. LOL! I know, probably stupid wishful thinking.) I'll give him a harder look.
The flat tax is another form of income tax the firs tone was 7% and went to 77% in 11 years. By any name it's purpose is control. That's a tax for fascists.
The simple flat tax infers it is a a form of income tax and as explained businesses pay no taxes they just up the price to cover the overhead costs as with any other form of overhead.
They are trying to make it sound like a Fair Tax. I fail to see anything fair about it....But a Pelosi Tax by any name is unacceptable except to Pelosi.
I've looked at Fair Tax since it was first introduced. I really don't know if it would still work given the 'draconian' increase in government expenses primarily interest on the national debt. The figure would have to be redone
However the fair tax or consumptin tax puts control in the hands of the end user making the purchase. Which item to buy, when to buy and how much to spend. which in turn drives the amount of tax collected I's only usable if the various form of business and individual income taxes meaning pass the cost to the consumer are removed and banned..
For myself, I think any tax on income is immoral and not the way to go to reform our tax system. I've looked at the FairTax quite a bit and I really like that choice. Ted Cruz has mentioned the FairTax, too. But the flat tax is what he is pushing on his website. Have you looked at the FairTax?
I completely agree regarding any form of "leftism" whatever name they are choosing to call it this week.
Cruz came out with Paul Rand and publicly backed Pelosi's VAT Tax which is a tax on a series of embedded taxes. and subtracts not adds value. Routing it through corporations only makes it worse. They are both at this point self confessed Rino supporters and like all the rest of the 'approved list' dirty. His mistake.Not my problem.
I will never compromise my principles nor sell my self respect to support any leftist for any reason. The proper move would be breaking with the Republican party who has so far showed nothing substantial except talk. Rino or enabling supporter they are at best the right wing of the left and too far to the left of the Constitution for me to spend more than a moment rejecting them.
My one exception is somebody who is eminently acceptable to the left wing of the left such as Carly Fiorino IF They choose an acceptable VP who miight be able to gain THE office in four to eight years.
That's a very very very long shot.
As I last resort as it would be both legal and non violent I would fully support the the US Military if they chose to uphold their oath of office in the form of a counter revolution.After all it is the oath of office I myself took for many years.
But voting for self proclaimed supporters of the left is the same as voting for self proclaimed leftists. Not going to happen. I have not and I will not choose socialist evil in any degree. They read their part in the script. That's their shame not mine.
In the meantime with none of the above likely I will continue to work to weaken the numbers of those registering and or voting until such time as it's apparent to all they have no representation and are effectively disenfranchised. Which under the present voting system is a a factual truth. Destruction of credibility by lowering the percentage of restraints and voters meaning None of the Above might cause one of the other options to occasion itself.
After that there are only two choices. Martial Law and reinstatement of the Constitution or a leftist dictatorship with non- removed from violence. I can't support that. But if that's what the rest of you want go for it. Cover up your mirrors first.
Thus ends my daily rant....back to being the good humor man.
And every time some outsider tried to interfere I'd haul him and his toadies into court and fine them double what they had spent interfering. The second time triple. If the local newspaper or other media complained cancel the subscription. They are after all not journalists but reporters and why would I trust them? Local pressure works when it comes to loss of advertising revenue. Oh your store has adds in the Daily Blather? Sorry I'll shop elsewhere.
The meme Trump is stuck on is "it's ok to do whatever you have to, to succeed"...
Just like in nature, there should always be a line not to be crossed.
Jan
If you do then you are being manipulated. However when someone walks up and says I'll give you a dollar for buying Pepsi versus Coca Cola when your choice is RC.that's still ok but if they say we're running a vote to make Pepsi illegal in town and and fines every store that violates the new law AND for everyone that votes yes we'll give them a case of 'Coca Cola legitimate that's trade interference or if the pepsi plant is just across the state line interfereing with interstate trade. So how is that different with interfering
However if RC says we only produce in Minnesota and want to buy your vote to make it illegal not to sell RC in the other states ..How is that acceptable...and then you find out a subparaqraph makes it legal for the Minnesota RC workers to interfere with your town's vote on the matter or for that matter Bubble Up or Big Orange and Moon Pies.? None of them can vote in your Wyoming county can they?
Or is that the next step after direct contributions and access? After all if the corporation can then the citizens can.
How about Tecate from Mexico? Or Steinlager from New Zealand.
I gave the next step - doesn't mean it's the last step.
How about vote in every precinct, town, country or State where there product does business? People are the same as corporations no? And vice versa.
Same with candidates and measures.
I am not of the school that says "corporations are evil". I think some of the people running them are evil and most are not. However, I cannot comment on the corporate laws discussed above as I have little knowledge.
The bare truth of it, though, is that money is speech. I go to my grocery store to buy something, I am informing others of my opinion. You cannot get around it.
From this end of time, we must find common-sense ways to correct what the founders did not see and what other, lesser men put in place. Most of this is for smarter people than I. However, the 16th amendment must go. Term limits for federal legislators is another way to try to eliminate the cronyism. The president is term-limited, why not all the rest of them? Loser pays laws will help to rein in the out of control marriage of the legal profession with politicians.
None of these things will fix it all. However, if the government were much less powerful, the corporations would have to turn their efforts to what really makes or breaks them, competition. Don't you think that would fix a lot of the problems we are seeing today?
Load more comments...