Posts Tagged ‘Citizens United’

Free people own guns, slaves don’t

March 24, 2013
Dred Scott

Dred Scott (Photo credit: elycefeliz)

Found at the Libertarian Christians web site:

http://libertarianchristians.com/2009/02/13/40-reasons-to-ban-guns/

This is an excerpt from the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision, that declared blacks cannot be real people because then they’d be able to bear arms and defend themselves, and then slaves of the same color then would see them with them, and this would encourage “discontent” among the slaves and might result in insubordination among them. This would be a danger to the “state”, said the Court.

 

image

Advertisements

Citizens United decision helps the little guy have a voice

October 28, 2012
Citizens United

Citizens United (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Citizens United was where the little guy got a bit of a voice. I’ve listed four or five reasons below.

In the real world, incumbents re reelected something like 90 percent of the time to Congress, and the majority of times to the presidency. The reason?

The incumbent has a built-in billionaire advantage that comes automagically from (1) using the taxed and borrowed money, collected by taxation extorted from people of opposite sides of their positions and supporters all, for “official” communications, interviews, press releases, and (2) the payback from being a good “patron” for his sponsors’ causes, and (3) name recognition.

In today’s world, item (3) has a dollar value in the millions.

As relates to Citizens United, it is absolutely true that corporations are NOT people.

BUT free speech ensues from natural INDIVIDUAL rights, and one’s contributions to the efforts of an initiative to publicize the views shared by the contributors, provides the individual a way to compete for attention with the big money. Ironic that the excuse they use to protect special interests is that they want to stop the influence of special interests.

Now there are some people that want to throw a mud cover on that, to obscure the fact that people contributing to a corporate initiative with the purpose of supporting their own personal ideas, is a right that ensues from the free speech rights of the INDIVIDUAL doing that contribution. The corporation inherits the rights of the individual owners of that corporation, who have agreed to the terms thereof, and it is the collective voice of those individuals that bestows the right to express opinions.

It is preposterous to argue otherwise. If you do, for consistency you have to ban the corporate free speech of all the newspapers, broadcast studios, and Internet sites that belong to corporations! That means you have to muzzle NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX, huffingtonpost, and God forbid, oh my, NPR!

That is a major, blatant, self-contradiction in laws that restrict corporate speech, obvious when uttered explicitly. The corporate news industry is always “exempt” one group of corporations. This group gives voice to Sony, General Electric, and other such giants. Sometimes I suspect “it goes without saying”.

Another self-contradiction is that the subtler forms of support for a candidate are left untouched by these hypocritical initiatives. Hypocritical because exempted or regular newscasts, news stories, and so on.

Hypocritical also when you consider that a recent survey (1990s I believe) showed that as many as 97 percent of the editors in a recent survey were registered to vote with Democratic Party affiliation, and about 80 percent of the journalists. That may have gone down one or two percent since Fox seems like at least to have about an even mix between the two parties.

Those numbers probably help explain why it’s the Democratic Party that pushes for shutting the mouths of others. Us poor people and middle class cannot pay for a full-page ad to explain our views or influence opinions.

But then there are gobs of independents, and a big part of those independents are people like me who hold to ideas vehemently and brutally opposed by the two-party cartel that holds power right now.

The special-interest group with generally the most influence anyway is the collection of companies that own broadcast and cable networks and print newspapers, and don’t forget corporations with massive Internet presence. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, HN. And remember that NPR is no obscure news source, as shown by the fact that one of its own moderated the first presidential debate of the 2012 campaign.

And remember that those news sources subsist from advertising almost exclusively. NPR has subscribers, and many of the Citizen United contributors may have heard about it from alternate media. Little-guy media.

NPR is a corporate entity, yes it is, and the fact that much of its funding comes from the current incumbent that has the elected office, along with the strings that come along with it. It also outlasts each Congress and presidency with their change in personnel. The effect is that their perspective influences them to favor the idea that government is a benevolent animal, simply because they view themselves as benevolent.

In other words, NPR’s government funding goes hand in hand with the philosophy that government should influence favorably the public’s view of government.

See here a diagram showing much of the interconnections between media corporations and their “cousins” in other industries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Media_corporation_interlocks_-_2004.jpg

Network diagram showing interlocks between var...

 

SPLC is an attack machine against freedom

February 18, 2012

SPLC is a far-left attack machine against freedom, and that’s why they hate Judge Andrew Napolitano, of “Freedom Watch“, and other freedom-loving Americans. SPLC calls him a “conspiracy theorist”, which is presumably a slur, a new epithet to throw at people who respect liberty. Maybe they think it has magical properties.

And when they say “far-right”, you have to remember the real “spectrum” they should be using is not left-right, but more government control and less government control. More dictatorship, less dictatorship.

The other Napolitano, Janet, the freedom-hating one, got most of her enemies-of-the-state list straight from the SPLC’s own hate list, the list of people they hate. Yeah, the list that includes Ron Paul supporters, Chuck Baldwin supporters (Constitution Party), returning veterans. We can see why she hates returning veterans. They are contributing more to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign than to all the rest of the Republicans combined, and way more than to Obama’s bulging money chest.

That’s not “conspiracy theory”, it’s public fact.

Telling the truth about the idea that government can tell certain people and groups of people what they cannot say in ads and tell them when they can say it is not “conspiracy theory”, that is McCain-Feingold, properly struck down by Citizens United, a refreshing nod to free speech. And just these past few days we have a Supreme Court justice saying they should maybe restrict free speech a little bit, in view of the fact that people are actually spending money now to say political stuff that matters in elections.

Elections, by the way, is where free speech matters most and should be protected MOST.

cops violating every right of citizens, cops caught on video telling a driver he has no right to carry a gun in his car when he did (the case against that citizen was thrown out with a rebuke to the cops), these are video clips he has shared on his show.

Those are no “theories”, those are video clips Judge Andrew Napolitano has shared on his show.

Reminds me of the Pharisees, who plotted to kill Jesus after he rose Lazarus from the dead (you can’t make stuff like that up). When Jesus called them on their hypocritical talking about “the law”, saying “Why go ye about to kill me?”, they protested: “Thou hast a devil; who goeth about to kill thee?”

Nowadays they can’t say “devil”, so they say “Thou hast a conspiracy theory” and they might as well add, “We declare our sin, we hide it not”.

Justice says Supreme Court should revisit campaign finance

February 18, 2012

Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness [which] they have prescribed; (Isaiah 10:1)

+———————-+

Ruth Bader Ginzburg is probably the most unconstitutional Supreme Court judge, and she just gave us another proof of it:

Justice says Supreme Court should revisit campaign finance:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/17/justice-says-supreme-court-should-revisit-campaign/

She seems to think that once Congressmen in office they should enjoy the advantage of the incumbent without having to worry about what the private sector or the private economy might have to say about it.

Private money is supposed to be more powerful than the government but not by using government. The incumbent has name-brand recognition and free publicity from their public acts and pronouncements, dutifully reported in the press. Ask any product marketing consultant if that is not already worth millions of dollars (without charge) to somebody who’s already in office. What’s Ginzburg say about that?

Where is the fairness in that? With the incumbent having the built-in advantage, and if the Big Corporate Money IN MEDIA give an advantage without the worry of campaign finance laws, what’s fair about that?

Any restriction on speech, especially political speech above all, of any kind, is an outrageous attack on free speech.

You can’t pass a law to ban flag burning, but you can pass a law that says a group cannot print (or buy print for) an advertisement that says what they think about the government? Or about the policies of government? Or expressing an opinion about candidacy?