I too saw Jesus this weekend. I asked him about Glen Beck and he said' "Imagine Sarah Palin farting into a balloon and then you put a wig on it...that's Glen Beck."

A corporate 10 commandments need exposure.

Corporations are now on the brink of obtaining super personhood.
Justice and equality need not apply to entities with super personhood. Recapping another post...

Lets imagine a hypothetical situation.

The year is 2011 and our election is being held with twitchy armed National Guard on duty in 28 States due to the shootings of "Democrat" candidates and the attempted assignations of Barack Obama. Some pundits agree that three full length movies released in September are at the heart of the horrible violence.
The first movie released was 'The Kenyan Candidate' followed by 'The Need to Know'.
The Barak Obama film portrayed a violent rape of a Wesleyan co ed by a young Mr. Obama and "The Need to Know" explored the above top secret defusing of nuclear weapons in seven different states under the executive supervision of Richard Cheney.

A smaller feature called 'Only a Mother's Strength' is the inside story of Sarah Palin's experience at top level briefings in national security policy meeting deep within the Pentagon and her actions during her European trip in 2007. It shows her learning the secret struggle against the emerging evil that plans for the destruction of their great Satan, the United States. The most dynamic scene portrayed Sarah Palin is that of striking fear into the heart of then president of Pakistan Mussarev by showing him the spread pattern of 50 US multiple warhead nukes and their overlapping blast zones covering his entire country.   

All the movies were produced, funded and distributed by the following Corporations: Pfizer, Bank of America, Exon, United Health Care, Kaiser Permanente, Squib, Johnson and Johnson, Fox networks, Peabody Energy, Lockheed, Black Water and others.

In November the Cheney Palin ticket wins in a landslide losing only 25 electoral votes.


How could this happen? How could this happen aside from most Americans being highly gullible with short memories?   This could happen because the Supreme Court can rule that Corporations not only have free speech rights via the press and political action committees, but also have the free speech to pay for, produce and distribute full length films to promote candidates of their choice. Unions however were not granted this special free speech provision. Essentially the McCain Feingold campaign reform had been found unconstitutional and the 100 year precedent of limiting the Corporate financing of political elections was now completely unregulated. The $85 billion profit of Exon alone contributed two billion dollars to their new found freedom of speech.


Leaving the world of hypothetical speculation, Free speech today is limited for certain government employees with the Hatch Act while the military has even more severe and far reaching limits on free speech. Corporations, acting as an artificial life form with built in limits to economic liability and never die, except for Lehman Brothers, are limited in 24 states regarding campaign contributions. Today 28 states do not limit corporate contributions, one of which is California. Corporations have not been kind to California.   Poor California, they still have not recovered from the devastating multi billion dollar debt incurred by the legal deregulated energy distribution schemes by Enron. but I digress…

Today Corporations spend an average of $500 million on political action committees that all bear the camouflage of struggling middle class folks gathering to just get a fair shake and not let their employers get taxed to death or some other similar cry for help. Corporations spend one hundred million dollars on issue ads on TV. Believe me Networks like CBS Viacom and GE NBC are happy to get that money as well as the Australian based multinational media giant.
Yet corporations say this is not enough. They want super personhood with expanded free speech.

On September 7th the Supreme Court will begin to hear the dispute by corporations that their free speech has been denied. The case started with the movie 'Hillary' being with held from distribution before the 2008 election because it was funded solely by corporations. Corporations have cried foul and now argue they are treated unfairly and unconstitutionally. Corporations cite the Bill of Rights; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The lawyer for the Corporations Lawrence Abrams will argue that Corporations are being denied free speech and participation in our democratically held elections.

Everet Potter represents 50 friends of the court and will argue that certain limits on a Corporate economic entity is just and constitutional. He may say "It is not necessary for corporations to have free unlimited speech to provide for fair and just elections. In fact undue corporate influence could do our republic great harm while aiding only corporations."

Abrams for the corporations will say "If we ban movies prior to an election perhaps tomorrow it will be books!"
(well… not really, the law already has special exceptions for commercial concerns including selling of books and of course exceptions for the press.)

The Corporate argument will reverse legislation going back to Theodore Roosevelt who pleaded with Congress to do something to limit corporate influence on politicians.    This presidential plea of course followed the discovery that Teddy had already taken enormous corporate contributions. Corporations will present evidence that John McCain himself can not recall one instance of corporate influence on a single politician or legislative process. The other side will argue that they have dozens of "former" Senators and Congressmen and women who say otherwise.

The corporate stand will always be stated as "Corporations and UNIONS" but sadly Unions are not considered for this above and beyond free speech. The lawyers for corporations will include unions in their argument but not in their desired outcome which is to have no limits only upon Corporations and the management who decides who shall win or lose an election based on their special self interest.

Corporations owe nothing in the way of patriotism or practice of religion or raising a child. Their only purpose and motivation is for establishing "economic rents" commonly known as profits. They are like a shark doing what it is perfectly designed to do, eat and eat well. They are not evil for simply being sharks. Maybe my bias is showing but honestly should we hold a shark up to standards of morality?


Simply put, a shark is not a person Why should we grant super personhood to a shark?!


What of Multinational Corporations? Currently it is illegal to have a foreign government or individual finance our political campaigns. Most of our corporations list their head office off shore for special tax reasons anyway.
It will be argued whether or not there is too little free speech for corporations starting September 7th. The Corporate position will certainly quote the Bill of Rights; Congress shall make no law to limit their speech, their movies, their networks or untold amounts of money assigned to candidates in US elections or the critical times in which they choose to do so. Today nearly a billion dollars is spent to sway public opinion. Corporations are hoping that $20 billion spent will earn them even more "sway".

The court decision will either let you see Hillary the movie 3 weeks before an election or not. I for one hope we never get to see 'The Kenyan Candidate' or 'The Need to Know"
Personally I would like to see "A Mother's Strength" .
It might actually become a classic cult film like attack of the killer tomatoes.