BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st amendment

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 01:01 AM

Sept 7 High Court to review 1st Amendment


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.

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.

Perhaps you have read my past personal feelings and misgivings regarding corporations. None the less I want to be fair. 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?
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".
It is time to weigh in and consider which side you are on.
The 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.

Don Hakman 2009-09-08

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 07:54 AM

I have been following this, as well, Donuel and it is mighty scarey... There was a time when our country felt is was necessary to not allow corporations of own the goovernemnt lock, strock and barrel... That was 1906 and since then our Supreme Court has been i agreement that corporations should not be allowed unfettered access to ownership...

Yeah, we have seen that erode over the last 30 years and we are really at a tipping point on Tom Jefferson and Co's little experiement...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: olddude
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 08:21 AM

Everything is nuts ... it is all crazy any more... If one thinks about it too much they just want to hide in the cellar ... The whole world is in the toilet ... When will the good people win huh ... seems like the bad win most often anymore

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 08:25 AM

Seems like the only way that "good people" can win is to become bad people, get a bunch a guns and act uncivily... That's how the right wing loonies get their way...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 09:05 AM

The rugged individualism of American society needs to be preserved.
Today you have to ASK for a job. Pioneers made their own work be it farming, craftmanship or digging for gold.

Corporations now pass laws to drive out individuals and own every damn thing for themselves. They even have people believing that all the money they take from us is the true measure of pride, power, godliness and democracy in America.

If Corporations can pour 5 or 10 billion dollars into getting their goverment representative firmly in place, the individual and the people will be forever smothered.

Writing to the justices of the Supreme Court may not be appropriate but I hope someone organizes a mail campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 09:24 AM

Here is one

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/aclu_sign_on_letter.html


by the way the NRA is siding with the ACLU on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 10:24 AM

Well, the Court is sufficinetly packed with Republican corporate puppets completely willing to be as "activist" as any court in American history... The Walmarts of America do indeed have the votes (5-4) with this court...

But then again, we wouldn't want to stiffle the corporatist's 1sdt ammendment rights to own the governemnt, would we???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Amergin
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 01:09 PM

Ah yes....yet another conspiracy theory brought to us by Donuel....

btw what would an "attempted assignations" are you saying he would cheat on his wife? Or attempt to assign work to some of his staff members?

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 01:21 PM

Garbage.

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 01:50 PM

If you think this Supreme Court case is conspiracy garbage you need only look at the Court's calender.

If being informed is not your thing be sure not to learn more here...
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/09/balancing_big_money_and_free_s.html

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 01:57 PM

One great irony is that the lawyer arguing for the corporations is a famous progressive and the lawyer arguing for limitations on corporations is a former McCain lawyer.








The year 2032
Hey Andy, who's running for president this year?
I'm not sure Amos, I think its Pfizer-Exon against Walmart-Bank of America but I haven't got my check from any of them yet.

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 03:54 PM

I saw that lawyer on a discussion show arguing that the definition of "free speech" should be expanded to allow **corporations** to 'express their views', just like you & me.
   He didn't seem to want to admit that 'you & me' lacking millions of $$$$$ to promote our opinions would give those corporations a wee bit of an advantage.
   The guy on the other side made the point that corporations entire focus IS turning a profit, and that current restrictions recognized that sneaky & misleading advertising is common when $$$$$ are involved.

Let's hope the court can still see that point.

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 07:18 PM

We can speculate if the court decides to DEREGULATE elections, that we will see an electoral version of what Wall St. did with our markets.
We will see a California version of what Enron did with the deregulation of energy prices.

However we could trust corporations to not abuse their enormous wealth and fix elections from now on. Just because you are suspicious of corporations does not guarantee that they will act in their best interests and against the United States.

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. Perhaps we can trust a multinationalcorporation like FOX to do the right thing.


To me a corporation is like a shark.
They are like a shark doing what it is perfectly designed to do, eat and make a profit of energy to go and eat even more.

They are not evil for simply being sharks. Should we hold a shark up to standards of morality? Of course not.


Simply put, a shark is not a person But why on earth should we grant super personhood to a shark?!

Because the shark wants to eat every god damn thing it can.


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.



Of course we will need some new songs to bless America Inc. like...


God bless our share holders
no matter who they may be
From Pakistan or
from Bangor
its the cash that they stash and adore.

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st ammendment
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 07:26 PM

OMG   its a land shark!

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st amendment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:15 PM

Here is something interesting Bobert.

It shows the SCOTUS decisions in 2008/09 and who voted for what.

Can you tell us which "Republican corporate puppets" decided which cases in favor of "The Walmarts of America"

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st amendment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:27 PM

Interestingly enoguh, Sawz, the predictions made in September about the corporate snagging of unlimited paid speech from the SCOTUS just came true.

Remarkable, that.

By the way, Walmart is not a decision mentioned in your link. Which decision does it refer to? Are you trying to communicate? Or just bloviate?


A

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st amendment
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:36 PM

There is one ray of hope for US democracy Donuel.

The one right that even the corporations can't abridge, because it's their very own lackeys who are fanatically opposed to any change in it.

As was the intention of the founding fathers, democrat citizens will still have the right to bear arms, and blow the shit out of the corporate CEOs.

Those founding fathers knew, even then, that the day would come when the government of the USA would turn on the people, and they provided the remedy.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:46 PM

Once again Sawz misses the point... When I use "Walmart" I use it, unless specified, as the figurative evil corporation... IT's kinda like Boss Hog... I knew what the case was about and predicted the exact oucome, down to the 5-4 split, the activism, etc...

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st amendment
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 07:25 PM

This is pretty much the way it works in the UK. The 1997 election was largely between two party sponsors, Sainsbury's vs. Tesco. We are now living in a tescocracy thanks to Tony Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:32 PM

'February 17, 2010

Polling reveals weak support for First Amendment
At WashingtonPost.com, "Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing":


Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.


The story casts the Citizens United ruling and the issue of a legislative response in partisan terms, as a dispute in which political parties have lined up and that's what matters.

Also, we don't see the immediately see the polling document, and do hope the pollsters asked: "Should Congress be able to make a 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?"'

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st amendment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:50 PM

Opposing the SCOTUS does not make us weak on the First Amendment; it makes us strong on the fact that human rights and corporate rights are two different sets.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 9-7 High court to review 1st amendment
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 12:05 AM

You'd think that'd go without saying, wouldn't you?

O..O
=o=