On the eve of tomorrow's healthcare summit where it will be made plain for all to see that GOPstructionist party has no real solutions, our company has received word that our health insurance premiums will rise by 22% again this year. I suppose we should be thankful that this broken system isn't delivering the 39% skyrocket attempted by the profiteers in California, yet. Yet our cost has doubled twice in the last 8 years even with more out of pocket costs, and at 22% it will double again in 4 years. this is unsustainable and somethings got to give, so far it's us. Well of course even more so the 30,000 Americans who die annually due to lack of health coverage while the party of "right to life" dithers and obfuscates for their corporate masters.
Meanwhile the GOPsters are talking out of both sides of their face, with Paully "wanna-cracker" Ryan, such a pretty boy ahhhhhhk, parroting the talking points puffed out in his finest plumage. Below is an insightful piece authored by Kelly Gallaher which was posted on Yes We CA Racine and run in the Racine Journal times.
The past few weeks have been very exciting for Congressman Paul Ryan(R-WI). On January 29, the Congressman had the opportunity to spar with President Obama at the televised GOP retreat in Baltimore in front of thenational press. The attention continued with the unveiling of his budget plancalled “A Roadmap for America’s Future 2.0.” Ryan’s budget was initially regarded as a serious effort to propose a counterpoint to the Administration’s 2010 budget. That is, until people read it.
Congressman Ryan’s limelight became a glaring spotlight when closer examination revealed the Roadmap for America’s Future sought to radically dismantle Medicare by replacing the current system with vouchers andreplace a traditional safety net with a sweeping effort to privatize SocialSecurity for Americans under 55 years old. His plan would undermine the securityof these programs for millions of Americans and subject them to the volatilityof Wall Street and unabated greed of corporate health care. Nobel Prizee conomist Paul Krugman called it a “breathtaking act of staggering hypocrisy.”GOP members staking their future campaigns on protecting Medicare and Social Security scattered.
Then came the Wall Street Journal that singled out Ryan this past week for his hypocrisy in slamming the stimulus plan, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Ryan called the stimulus a"wasteful spending spree" while requesting these same funds last October from the Department of Labor saying “I support the Energy Center of Wisconsin’s grant application for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Energy Training and Partnership Grants.” He went further in his request tosay the grant “would make effective use of the funds they would receive. ”
How does a program like the stimulus that "misses the mark on all counts” and “hasn’t created the jobs” also manage to “propose to develop an industry-driven training and placement agenda that intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs” as he stated in his stimulus request? Easy, it’s called dishonesty. It is dishonest to say the stimulus doesn’t create jobs atthe same time you ask for stimulus money to create jobs. In December, Ryan called for the repeal of the Recovery Act even though his own hometown of Janesville had received more than $4 million of stimulus money for jobs and newprograms.
Erroneously characterized as a “deficit hawk,” Paul Ryan’s public profile completely contradicts the way he votes. Ryan voted for record spending, unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest, the bank bailouts and trilliondollar wars which created our deficit nightmare. Also called a policy “wonk;”Ryan championed unsustainable expansions of Medicare Advantage resulting inbillions of overpayments while he seeks to create a policy to dismantle Medicare and Social Security for Americans long after he’s gone from office.
Democrats are not the only people who have questions about Ryan and his agenda. He has mystified conservatives as well. In response to his votes in favor of the auto bailout and the AIG confiscatory bonus tax even conservativepundit Michelle Malkin was moved to scold him to “practice what you preach when itmatters. Not after the fact.” Perhaps Wisconsinites could take comfort that his vote was in support of workers. Sadly this was not the case. When questioned about his vote on the auto bailout just last week to Daily Beast writer, Benjamin Sarlin, Ryan confessed he was moved to vote for it not to keep autoworkers employed, but because he believed “that a second Depression would threaten capitalism—and rescue Obama's presidency.”
Congressman Ryan has been practicing the most cynical kind of political hypocrisy and hoping we would not notice. In this age of internet communication, that kind of pretense is no longer possible, and hisconstituents must hold him accountable. Ryan deserves credit for having an idea; not many of his colleagues have shown the same initiative. However, it has alsogiven us the opportunity to look deeper in to what the future would look like if many in the GOP had their way. Ryan perhaps said it best in a recentinterview with the New York Times, “I’m worried that if we get the majority back by default, we’ll screw up again.” On that, we can both agree.
Kelly Gallaher
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Stamp Out Socialistic Fire Fighters!
1 Million Strong Against our SOCIALIST Fire DepartmentsCategory:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=111256528714
For too long now, fire departments across the United States have been SOCIALIST organizations, resulting in TAXES on the American people.
FACT: Most Americans never use the socialized services of the fire department. We have the best fire departments in the world in the US, but that doesn't mean that anyone (even non-US citizens) should be able to dial up and have fires put out, etc. There are private companies (Halliburtion, Etc.) who could step in tomorrow and take over every fire department in America and charge the consumer directly.
This is AMERICA. NO FREE FIRE SAFETY.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in asbestos and carrying a fire hose."
This is THE new political movement in America. The Birther movement and The Teabagger movement have FAILED. We are The Flamer movement, and we are succeeding at tearing down ALL forms Socialism - starting with our Fire Departments.
Please tell everyone you know about this group.
When it comes to ObamaFireCare, remember, we are: Taxed Enough Already For American Red Truck Socialism.
"This is America. Pay to Spray."
- Member Susan Weinberg
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=111256528714
For too long now, fire departments across the United States have been SOCIALIST organizations, resulting in TAXES on the American people.
FACT: Most Americans never use the socialized services of the fire department. We have the best fire departments in the world in the US, but that doesn't mean that anyone (even non-US citizens) should be able to dial up and have fires put out, etc. There are private companies (Halliburtion, Etc.) who could step in tomorrow and take over every fire department in America and charge the consumer directly.
This is AMERICA. NO FREE FIRE SAFETY.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in asbestos and carrying a fire hose."
This is THE new political movement in America. The Birther movement and The Teabagger movement have FAILED. We are The Flamer movement, and we are succeeding at tearing down ALL forms Socialism - starting with our Fire Departments.
Please tell everyone you know about this group.
When it comes to ObamaFireCare, remember, we are: Taxed Enough Already For American Red Truck Socialism.
"This is America. Pay to Spray."
- Member Susan Weinberg
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Real Conservatism v Activist Reactionary Ideologues
Milwaukee native William Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon and elevated to Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan. As a true conservative, he stands out from and head and shoulders above the ideologues whose radical activism has swept away 100 years of legislation and judicial precedent at both the federal level and in the states and confered the rights of personhood on legal entities created soley by the laws of those states.
Below is Rehnquist's well reasoned dissent against a decision made by the "liberal" justices on the court, that overturned both state law and a ruling by a state Supreme Court with regard to the rights of corporations. It should be noted that the Supreme Judicial Court whose judgment Justice Rehnquist is affirming below is the Massachusetts Supreme Court. I bid you, read the words and know the mind a REAL conservative instead of a robed judicial royalist (emphasis added below).
Case Argued November 9, 1977 Decided April 26, 1978Case # 435 U.S. 765 Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, and Stevens, joined. Justice Burger also filed a concurring opinion. Justice White filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan and Marshall joined. Justice Rehnquist filed a separate dissenting opinion.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting.
This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a "person" entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., (1886). Likewise, it soon became accepted that the property of a corporation was protected under the Due Process Clause of that same Amendment. See, e. g., Smyth v. Ames, (1898). Nevertheless, we concluded soon thereafter that the liberty protected by that Amendment "is the liberty of natural, not artificial persons." Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, (1906).
Before today, our only considered and explicit departures from that holding have been that a corporation engaged in the business of publishing or broadcasting enjoys the same liberty of the press as is enjoyed by natural persons, Grosjean v. American Press Co., (1936), and that a nonprofit membership corporation organized for the purpose of "achieving . . . equality of treatment by all government, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community" enjoys certain liberties of political expression. NAACP v. Button, (1963).
The question presented today, whether business corporations have a constitutionally protected liberty to engage in political activities, has never been squarely addressed by any previous decision of this Court. 1 However, the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Congress of the United States, and the legislatures of 30 other States of this Republic have considered the matter, and have concluded that restrictions upon the political activity of business corporations are both politically desirable and constitutionally permissible. The judgment of such a broad consensus of governmental bodies expressed over a period of many decades is entitled to considerable deference from this Court. I think it quite probable that their judgment may properly be reconciled with our controlling precedents, but I am certain that under my views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States, which I share with the two immediately preceding occupants of my seat on the Court, but not with my present colleagues, the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts should be affirmed.
Early in our history, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall described the status of a corporation in the eyes of federal law:"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created." Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819).
The appellants herein either were created by the Commonwealth or were admitted into the Commonwealth only for the limited purposes described in their charters and regulated by state law. 2 Since it cannot be disputed that the mere creation of a corporation does not invest it with all the liberties enjoyed by natural persons, United States v. White, (1944) (corporations do not enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination), our inquiry must seek to determine which constitutional protections are "incidental to its very existence." Dartmouth College, supra, at 636.
There can be little doubt that when a State creates a corporation with the power to acquire and utilize property, it necessarily and implicitly guarantees that the corporation will not be deprived of that property absent due process of law. Likewise, when a State charters a corporation for the purpose of publishing a newspaper, it necessarily assumes that the corporation is entitled to the liberty of the press essential to the conduct of its business. 3 Grosjean so held, and our subsequent cases have so assumed. E. g., Time, Inc. v. Firestone, (1976); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, (1964). 4
Until recently, it was not thought that any persons, natural or artificial, had any protected right to engage in commercial speech. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, (1976). Although the Court has never explicitly recognized a corporation's right of commercial speech, such a right might be considered necessarily incidental to the business of a commercial corporation.
It cannot be so readily concluded that the right of political expression is equally necessary to carry out the functions of a corporation organized for commercial purposes. 5 A State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere.
Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist. So long as the Judicial Branches of the State and Federal Governments remain open to protect the corporation's interest in its property, it has no need, though it may have the desire, to petition the political branches for similar protection. Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed. 6 I would think that any particular form of organization upon which the State confers special privileges or immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to like regulation, whether the organization is a labor union, a partnership, a trade association, or a corporation.
One need not adopt such a restrictive view of the political liberties of business corporations to affirm the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court in this case. That court reasoned that this Court's decisions entitling the property of a corporation to constitutional protection should be construed as recognizing the liberty of a corporation to express itself on political matters concerning that property. Thus, the Court construed the statute in question not to forbid political expression by a corporation "when a general political issue materially affects a corporation's business, property or assets." (1977).
I can see no basis for concluding that the liberty of a corporation to engage in political activity with regard to matters having no material effect on its business is necessarily incidental to the purposes for which the Commonwealth permitted these corporations to be organized or admitted within its boundaries. Nor can I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court's factual finding that no such effect has been shown by these appellants. Because the statute as construed provides at least as much protection as the Fourteenth Amendment requires, I believe it is constitutionally valid.
It is true, as the Court points out, ante, at 781-783, that recent decisions of this Court have emphasized the interest of the public in receiving the information offered by the speaker seeking protection. The free flow of information is in no way diminished by the Commonwealth's decision to permit the operation of business corporations with limited rights of political expression. All natural persons, who owe their existence to a higher sovereign than the Commonwealth, remain as free as before to engage in political activity. Cf. Maher v. Roe, (1977).
I would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court.
It should be noted that the Supreme Judicial Court whose judgment Justice Rehnquist is affirming is the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
Below is Rehnquist's well reasoned dissent against a decision made by the "liberal" justices on the court, that overturned both state law and a ruling by a state Supreme Court with regard to the rights of corporations. It should be noted that the Supreme Judicial Court whose judgment Justice Rehnquist is affirming below is the Massachusetts Supreme Court. I bid you, read the words and know the mind a REAL conservative instead of a robed judicial royalist (emphasis added below).
Case Argued November 9, 1977 Decided April 26, 1978Case # 435 U.S. 765 Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, and Stevens, joined. Justice Burger also filed a concurring opinion. Justice White filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan and Marshall joined. Justice Rehnquist filed a separate dissenting opinion.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting.
This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a "person" entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., (1886). Likewise, it soon became accepted that the property of a corporation was protected under the Due Process Clause of that same Amendment. See, e. g., Smyth v. Ames, (1898). Nevertheless, we concluded soon thereafter that the liberty protected by that Amendment "is the liberty of natural, not artificial persons." Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, (1906).
Before today, our only considered and explicit departures from that holding have been that a corporation engaged in the business of publishing or broadcasting enjoys the same liberty of the press as is enjoyed by natural persons, Grosjean v. American Press Co., (1936), and that a nonprofit membership corporation organized for the purpose of "achieving . . . equality of treatment by all government, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community" enjoys certain liberties of political expression. NAACP v. Button, (1963).
The question presented today, whether business corporations have a constitutionally protected liberty to engage in political activities, has never been squarely addressed by any previous decision of this Court. 1 However, the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Congress of the United States, and the legislatures of 30 other States of this Republic have considered the matter, and have concluded that restrictions upon the political activity of business corporations are both politically desirable and constitutionally permissible. The judgment of such a broad consensus of governmental bodies expressed over a period of many decades is entitled to considerable deference from this Court. I think it quite probable that their judgment may properly be reconciled with our controlling precedents, but I am certain that under my views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States, which I share with the two immediately preceding occupants of my seat on the Court, but not with my present colleagues, the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts should be affirmed.
Early in our history, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall described the status of a corporation in the eyes of federal law:"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created." Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819).
The appellants herein either were created by the Commonwealth or were admitted into the Commonwealth only for the limited purposes described in their charters and regulated by state law. 2 Since it cannot be disputed that the mere creation of a corporation does not invest it with all the liberties enjoyed by natural persons, United States v. White, (1944) (corporations do not enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination), our inquiry must seek to determine which constitutional protections are "incidental to its very existence." Dartmouth College, supra, at 636.
There can be little doubt that when a State creates a corporation with the power to acquire and utilize property, it necessarily and implicitly guarantees that the corporation will not be deprived of that property absent due process of law. Likewise, when a State charters a corporation for the purpose of publishing a newspaper, it necessarily assumes that the corporation is entitled to the liberty of the press essential to the conduct of its business. 3 Grosjean so held, and our subsequent cases have so assumed. E. g., Time, Inc. v. Firestone, (1976); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, (1964). 4
Until recently, it was not thought that any persons, natural or artificial, had any protected right to engage in commercial speech. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, (1976). Although the Court has never explicitly recognized a corporation's right of commercial speech, such a right might be considered necessarily incidental to the business of a commercial corporation.
It cannot be so readily concluded that the right of political expression is equally necessary to carry out the functions of a corporation organized for commercial purposes. 5 A State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere.
Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist. So long as the Judicial Branches of the State and Federal Governments remain open to protect the corporation's interest in its property, it has no need, though it may have the desire, to petition the political branches for similar protection. Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed. 6 I would think that any particular form of organization upon which the State confers special privileges or immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to like regulation, whether the organization is a labor union, a partnership, a trade association, or a corporation.
One need not adopt such a restrictive view of the political liberties of business corporations to affirm the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court in this case. That court reasoned that this Court's decisions entitling the property of a corporation to constitutional protection should be construed as recognizing the liberty of a corporation to express itself on political matters concerning that property. Thus, the Court construed the statute in question not to forbid political expression by a corporation "when a general political issue materially affects a corporation's business, property or assets." (1977).
I can see no basis for concluding that the liberty of a corporation to engage in political activity with regard to matters having no material effect on its business is necessarily incidental to the purposes for which the Commonwealth permitted these corporations to be organized or admitted within its boundaries. Nor can I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court's factual finding that no such effect has been shown by these appellants. Because the statute as construed provides at least as much protection as the Fourteenth Amendment requires, I believe it is constitutionally valid.
It is true, as the Court points out, ante, at 781-783, that recent decisions of this Court have emphasized the interest of the public in receiving the information offered by the speaker seeking protection. The free flow of information is in no way diminished by the Commonwealth's decision to permit the operation of business corporations with limited rights of political expression. All natural persons, who owe their existence to a higher sovereign than the Commonwealth, remain as free as before to engage in political activity. Cf. Maher v. Roe, (1977).
I would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court.
It should be noted that the Supreme Judicial Court whose judgment Justice Rehnquist is affirming is the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
American "People" Hostile to Corporate Serfdom
8 out of 10 Americans are opposed to the Extreme Court ruling endowing inalienable rights on corporations and other artificial "persons" and allowing them to make unfettered purchases of campaign advertising during elections, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html
In fact 65% of Americans are STRONGLY OPPOSED!
72% of the American Citizenry favor Congressional action to curb the ruling!
Furthermore, this opposition to the theft of OUR democracy crosses partisan lines with Democrats (85 %), Republicans (76 %) and independents (81 %) opposed.
3/4 of conservatives are opposed and most of them are strongly opposed.
2/3 of conservative Republicans favor Congressional action to curb corporate and union spending on elections.
Looks like there's still at least one thing that most rational Americans can agree on, we don't want more special interest influence in our politics.
In fact 65% of Americans are STRONGLY OPPOSED!
72% of the American Citizenry favor Congressional action to curb the ruling!
Furthermore, this opposition to the theft of OUR democracy crosses partisan lines with Democrats (85 %), Republicans (76 %) and independents (81 %) opposed.
3/4 of conservatives are opposed and most of them are strongly opposed.
2/3 of conservative Republicans favor Congressional action to curb corporate and union spending on elections.
Looks like there's still at least one thing that most rational Americans can agree on, we don't want more special interest influence in our politics.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
How to Steal Elections and Influence the People
Benito Mussolini the father of fascism which he also called corporatism must be grinning from the grave through his scrotum clenching teeth as America, who defeated him, now follows in his footsteps. In fascist Italy the legislative body, the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni (Chamber of the Fascists and the Corporations) was made up completely of representatives of Italy's corporations. With Extreme Court's ruling the creeping fascism of the last decade has quickened to a head-long run. Some clues about how the final steps of the corporate takeover of OUR government and OUR representation are to be found below.
A DC lobbying firm has posted advice to it's corporate clientel on it's website:
http://www.klgates.com/newsstand/Detail.aspx?publication=6214
on how to warp OUR democracy and steal OUR elections. Not only that, they're telling the corporatists how to do it as anomymously and as under the radar as possible as evidenced by the following passage:
10) How will corporations likely take advantage of their opportunity to make independent political expenditures?
Just because a corporation may make an independent direct advocacy expenditure doesn't mean that it should. Since the entity or entities financing independent expenditures must be disclosed, a corporation leading the way against a particular candidate risks alienating a significant block of its potential customer or shareholder base. Moreover, upon the first major corporate-funded public communications airing, media coverage is likely to focus on the corporation's involvement in the campaign rather than the content of any advocacy.
Therefore, most corporations will probably proceed cautiously. If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.
Corporations could further lower their profile in such cases by not making contributions specific to a particular expenditure by that third-party corporation. Such independent expenditures can also take the form of advertisements in "under-the radar" sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks. Since state and local laws preventing corporate political expenditures will also likely be repealed as a result of Citizens United, small corporations may also become involved in state and local races through regional media.
They also advise their clients that they needn't be excluded just because they are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corps as follows
2) Will U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations be exempt? (from the ban on foreign nationals contributing to elections).
Yes. The definition of "foreign national" exempts any person that is "not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States." 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2). The Federal Election Commission ("FEC") has determined that this exemption includes a U.S. corporation that is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation, so long as the foreign parent does not finance U.S. political activities and no foreign national participates in any decision to make expenditures. Many of the legislative proposals that "respond" to Citizens United seek to tighten or close this exemption.
So Obama was right and Alito in his flow robes of political hackery was either wrong or disengenous when he shook his head at the State of the Union address.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini, the father of fascism
"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis
America, it was nice while it lasted.
Sean Cranley - Corporate Serf No. 387-22-0812
A DC lobbying firm has posted advice to it's corporate clientel on it's website:
http://www.klgates.com/newsstand/Detail.aspx?publication=6214
on how to warp OUR democracy and steal OUR elections. Not only that, they're telling the corporatists how to do it as anomymously and as under the radar as possible as evidenced by the following passage:
10) How will corporations likely take advantage of their opportunity to make independent political expenditures?
Just because a corporation may make an independent direct advocacy expenditure doesn't mean that it should. Since the entity or entities financing independent expenditures must be disclosed, a corporation leading the way against a particular candidate risks alienating a significant block of its potential customer or shareholder base. Moreover, upon the first major corporate-funded public communications airing, media coverage is likely to focus on the corporation's involvement in the campaign rather than the content of any advocacy.
Therefore, most corporations will probably proceed cautiously. If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.
Corporations could further lower their profile in such cases by not making contributions specific to a particular expenditure by that third-party corporation. Such independent expenditures can also take the form of advertisements in "under-the radar" sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks. Since state and local laws preventing corporate political expenditures will also likely be repealed as a result of Citizens United, small corporations may also become involved in state and local races through regional media.
They also advise their clients that they needn't be excluded just because they are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corps as follows
2) Will U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations be exempt? (from the ban on foreign nationals contributing to elections).
Yes. The definition of "foreign national" exempts any person that is "not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States." 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2). The Federal Election Commission ("FEC") has determined that this exemption includes a U.S. corporation that is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation, so long as the foreign parent does not finance U.S. political activities and no foreign national participates in any decision to make expenditures. Many of the legislative proposals that "respond" to Citizens United seek to tighten or close this exemption.
So Obama was right and Alito in his flow robes of political hackery was either wrong or disengenous when he shook his head at the State of the Union address.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini, the father of fascism
"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis
America, it was nice while it lasted.
Sean Cranley - Corporate Serf No. 387-22-0812
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Joe Camel for Senator!
The inalienable right to free speech was endowed on We The (mere mortal) People by our Creator. But in the most arrogant example of judicial activism ever, Chief Judicial Activist John “Benedict Arnold” Roberts and his merry band of royalist robed reactionary ramblers have both betrayed the founders vision of democracy and bestowed this right on corporations based on the notion that corporations are “persons” something any four year old would immediately recognize as foolishness. Corporations are not people. Did you go to school with any corporations; have you ever seen one walking down the street? Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not against corporations, I’m a VP at one and we derive our livelihood from our clients, most of which are also corporations. I just don’t want to be ruled by corporations, for people governed in the interest of others cannot remain truly free.
Yes, I said royalists, you know aristocrats, which our founders fought a revolution against to throw off our backs! Thomas Jefferson warned America to, “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” After all, the Boston Tea Party was as much about the corporate stranglehold that the monopolistic and transnational East India Company sought to place on the colonist’s livelihoods as it was about defiance of the despotic British monarch.
The extreme court could have simply ruled on the merits of the Citizens United v FEC case, they chose activism, expanding the breadth of the ruling and sweeping away 100 years of state and federal legislation and legal precedent from Teddy “Trust Bustin” Roosevelt to McCain-Feingold. Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt recognized the threat to democracy that large corporations posed in the last gilded age when he proposed public funding of all elections and said, “All contributions by corporations to any political committee for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.” But the five corporatist appointees on the bench did their master’s bidding and loosed the floodgates of the corporate ownership’s cash on our elections, allowing unlimited advertising during election campaigns for political propaganda. Injustices Roberts and Alito should be impeached for lying under oath since both provided sworn testimony during their confirmation hearings that they would respect existing law and uphold established precedent. Priestly robes aside, these were either exhibitions of very poor judgment by Roberts and Alito or worse, outright lies.
Ask yourself, what is an American Corporation? Corporations aren’t born, they’re not naturalized, and don’t get to vote when they turn 18, they are not citizens. Saudi Arabia’s or China’s government owned oil companies ARAMCO or PetroChina, respectively can incorporate in Delaware for $20 making them legal “American” Corporations. Transnational and foreign corporations with American subsidiaries will be able to use unlimited funds to fill the airwaves with slanted information and outright lies during elections from Dog Catcher to President. Once corporations have successfully used legalized blackmail to cow a couple of our representatives or bribery to install their representatives to replace ours, the rest will dutifully fall in line for free out of fear of the corporate funds, yielding a tremendous return on their investment.
Imagine a corporation approaching a lawmaker with positions in the public interest, but not theirs and making it known that they are prepared to launch a media blitz smearing him or her in the last weeks of their campaign. Or a corporation buttonholing a sympathetic, attractive person and telling them, you don’t need to raise funds from the citizen constituents of the office we’ve selected you for, we will run all your campaign ads for you, oh and here is a list your positions on the issues. Heck, why not just cut to the chase and introduce the altruistic representative from the Altria Group, Senator Joe Camel?
This anti-democratic atrocity must not go unchallenged. Laws must be enacted to restrain this aggregated corporate power, because when profits are involved we certainly cannot count on corporate restraint. Passing the Fair Elections Now Act, requiring shareholder approval for such expenditures and holding CEO’s (actual persons) personally accountable for such messages would be a good start. But ultimately the Constitution must be amended to reserve the rights of personhood to real human beings only and to deny super-personhood to these immortal, omnipresent, amoral, faceless artificial beings. Go to movetoamend.org or freespeechforpeople.org for information.
Are we going to replace the word “men” with “corporations” in the Pledge, Preamble and Declaration of Independence? Will we still yet hold the truth self evident that our government is instituted among Men and derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? Or will we hoist the logo spangled banner of corporate servitude?
The Burlington Area Progressives are hosting Attorney Eugene Gasiorkiewicz to present “The Ethics of Corporate Entitlement in U.S. Elections” and psychologist Dr. David Nichols, Ph.D. to speak about “The Electorate’s Feelings of Disenfranchisement and Suppression of the Vote”. The event will be Thursday February 18th – 7:00 PM at the CATHE Center, 125 East State St. in Burlington. The public should be outraged and all are encouraged to attend! Admission is free however donations are accepted to defray the costs. Speak now or forget about it! For more information call (262) 237-4351.
Sean Cranley – Corporate Serf No. 399-22-0812
Burlington, Inc.
Yes, I said royalists, you know aristocrats, which our founders fought a revolution against to throw off our backs! Thomas Jefferson warned America to, “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” After all, the Boston Tea Party was as much about the corporate stranglehold that the monopolistic and transnational East India Company sought to place on the colonist’s livelihoods as it was about defiance of the despotic British monarch.
The extreme court could have simply ruled on the merits of the Citizens United v FEC case, they chose activism, expanding the breadth of the ruling and sweeping away 100 years of state and federal legislation and legal precedent from Teddy “Trust Bustin” Roosevelt to McCain-Feingold. Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt recognized the threat to democracy that large corporations posed in the last gilded age when he proposed public funding of all elections and said, “All contributions by corporations to any political committee for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.” But the five corporatist appointees on the bench did their master’s bidding and loosed the floodgates of the corporate ownership’s cash on our elections, allowing unlimited advertising during election campaigns for political propaganda. Injustices Roberts and Alito should be impeached for lying under oath since both provided sworn testimony during their confirmation hearings that they would respect existing law and uphold established precedent. Priestly robes aside, these were either exhibitions of very poor judgment by Roberts and Alito or worse, outright lies.
Ask yourself, what is an American Corporation? Corporations aren’t born, they’re not naturalized, and don’t get to vote when they turn 18, they are not citizens. Saudi Arabia’s or China’s government owned oil companies ARAMCO or PetroChina, respectively can incorporate in Delaware for $20 making them legal “American” Corporations. Transnational and foreign corporations with American subsidiaries will be able to use unlimited funds to fill the airwaves with slanted information and outright lies during elections from Dog Catcher to President. Once corporations have successfully used legalized blackmail to cow a couple of our representatives or bribery to install their representatives to replace ours, the rest will dutifully fall in line for free out of fear of the corporate funds, yielding a tremendous return on their investment.
Imagine a corporation approaching a lawmaker with positions in the public interest, but not theirs and making it known that they are prepared to launch a media blitz smearing him or her in the last weeks of their campaign. Or a corporation buttonholing a sympathetic, attractive person and telling them, you don’t need to raise funds from the citizen constituents of the office we’ve selected you for, we will run all your campaign ads for you, oh and here is a list your positions on the issues. Heck, why not just cut to the chase and introduce the altruistic representative from the Altria Group, Senator Joe Camel?
This anti-democratic atrocity must not go unchallenged. Laws must be enacted to restrain this aggregated corporate power, because when profits are involved we certainly cannot count on corporate restraint. Passing the Fair Elections Now Act, requiring shareholder approval for such expenditures and holding CEO’s (actual persons) personally accountable for such messages would be a good start. But ultimately the Constitution must be amended to reserve the rights of personhood to real human beings only and to deny super-personhood to these immortal, omnipresent, amoral, faceless artificial beings. Go to movetoamend.org or freespeechforpeople.org for information.
Are we going to replace the word “men” with “corporations” in the Pledge, Preamble and Declaration of Independence? Will we still yet hold the truth self evident that our government is instituted among Men and derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? Or will we hoist the logo spangled banner of corporate servitude?
The Burlington Area Progressives are hosting Attorney Eugene Gasiorkiewicz to present “The Ethics of Corporate Entitlement in U.S. Elections” and psychologist Dr. David Nichols, Ph.D. to speak about “The Electorate’s Feelings of Disenfranchisement and Suppression of the Vote”. The event will be Thursday February 18th – 7:00 PM at the CATHE Center, 125 East State St. in Burlington. The public should be outraged and all are encouraged to attend! Admission is free however donations are accepted to defray the costs. Speak now or forget about it! For more information call (262) 237-4351.
Sean Cranley – Corporate Serf No. 399-22-0812
Burlington, Inc.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Morons Cut off Nose to Spite Face
"Charlie Sykes says some towns are going back to gravel roads" was my first clue about the pervading mentality at our special town meeting of electors last night to vote on a proposal by the Board to borrow $1.5 million to reconstruct some roads and build a new community center: http://www.springprairiewi.com/
Essentially, the Town borrowed $5M several years ago to reconstruct some aging roads that were getting too expensive to continue repairing. They did it when the economy was down and they could borrow and hire cheaply and they promised not to raise taxes, a promise which they kept.
The Board is very fiscally conservative and not prone to promoting fanciful projects and the Chairman laid out the rationale masterfully. The Town hall was built in 1885 as a one room school house and had a small addition put on in the 50's. Both are in sad shape and will require significant cost to repair which is unknown until they actually open up walls, foundations and the roof and see what's there. Two retired residents who worked in construction said it's a money pit and putting more into it for maintenance and repair is just throwing money away. Reading the list of defects is hilarious, like "Furnace goes out when the wind blows." and "Septic tank has not been pumped in at least 35 years", no one living knows.
We're going to need a new town hall eventually, hell there wasn't enough room (I was in the kitchen other were in the hallway) fror everyone who showed and cars were parked up and down Spring Prairie Road on both sides of busy HWY 120 in the snow in the dark. We can borrow money and hire conctractors cheaply in this economy so it''ll cost more later. AND they promised again not to raise taxes and laid the figures plain as day. Not only that but our taxes would actually drop for the first two years at a minimum due to the finances and the lower maintenance costs for the new building. People kept asking the same dumb questions over and over that either someone else had already asked or that had been explained in the first place and some people were just plain rude and hostile. They voted it down with 60 to 70% against, because of the moronic belief that any government borrowing or spending is evil!
So instead of wrapping the $1M from the previous loan in with the new $1.5M, speading it out over 6 years, lowering taxes and getting a new hall that will serve for the next 100 years we're going to keep and repair the deteriorating spithole at unknown expense, keep taxes the same and wipe the $200K in the reserve fund that needs to be tapped to to pay off the old loan without raising taxes. The Board could have just done it on their own, but they wanted to take it to the voters. The voters elected these people, they are their friends and neighbors and they're not spend thrifts by any stretch. Yet they thumbed their noses at their studied recommendations and threw the money spent on an architect down the spitter. What a bunch of buffoons. Honestly, what a thankless job. I wouldn't be surprised if they resign. They're all older retired guys, who the hell the needs those kind of headaches?
I mean people were upset that there was going to be an office available to the sherriff where they could do paper work. "That's the county's responsibility!" Yeah and the county would pay for the supplies and equipment (phone, radio, computer). We wouldn't want a sherriff's deputy right here in our "community" (using the word very loosely) more often, hell it's only 20-25 minutes from Elkhorn!
How much longer do I have on this planet? I won't have to spend eternity with these "spirits" right?
Essentially, the Town borrowed $5M several years ago to reconstruct some aging roads that were getting too expensive to continue repairing. They did it when the economy was down and they could borrow and hire cheaply and they promised not to raise taxes, a promise which they kept.
The Board is very fiscally conservative and not prone to promoting fanciful projects and the Chairman laid out the rationale masterfully. The Town hall was built in 1885 as a one room school house and had a small addition put on in the 50's. Both are in sad shape and will require significant cost to repair which is unknown until they actually open up walls, foundations and the roof and see what's there. Two retired residents who worked in construction said it's a money pit and putting more into it for maintenance and repair is just throwing money away. Reading the list of defects is hilarious, like "Furnace goes out when the wind blows." and "Septic tank has not been pumped in at least 35 years", no one living knows.
We're going to need a new town hall eventually, hell there wasn't enough room (I was in the kitchen other were in the hallway) fror everyone who showed and cars were parked up and down Spring Prairie Road on both sides of busy HWY 120 in the snow in the dark. We can borrow money and hire conctractors cheaply in this economy so it''ll cost more later. AND they promised again not to raise taxes and laid the figures plain as day. Not only that but our taxes would actually drop for the first two years at a minimum due to the finances and the lower maintenance costs for the new building. People kept asking the same dumb questions over and over that either someone else had already asked or that had been explained in the first place and some people were just plain rude and hostile. They voted it down with 60 to 70% against, because of the moronic belief that any government borrowing or spending is evil!
So instead of wrapping the $1M from the previous loan in with the new $1.5M, speading it out over 6 years, lowering taxes and getting a new hall that will serve for the next 100 years we're going to keep and repair the deteriorating spithole at unknown expense, keep taxes the same and wipe the $200K in the reserve fund that needs to be tapped to to pay off the old loan without raising taxes. The Board could have just done it on their own, but they wanted to take it to the voters. The voters elected these people, they are their friends and neighbors and they're not spend thrifts by any stretch. Yet they thumbed their noses at their studied recommendations and threw the money spent on an architect down the spitter. What a bunch of buffoons. Honestly, what a thankless job. I wouldn't be surprised if they resign. They're all older retired guys, who the hell the needs those kind of headaches?
I mean people were upset that there was going to be an office available to the sherriff where they could do paper work. "That's the county's responsibility!" Yeah and the county would pay for the supplies and equipment (phone, radio, computer). We wouldn't want a sherriff's deputy right here in our "community" (using the word very loosely) more often, hell it's only 20-25 minutes from Elkhorn!
How much longer do I have on this planet? I won't have to spend eternity with these "spirits" right?
Thursday, February 04, 2010
NFL a Triumph of Socialistic Capitalism
This Sunday millions of Americans will gather watch the spectacle of the NFL Superbowl, a triumph of socialistic capitalism. The NFL is by far the most successful professional sports enterprise in America today. And the reason for this great success? Revenue sharing among the individual franchises that make up the league, you know socialism. They share revenue on everything from tickets and TV to towels and t-shirts, with the individual franchise keeping a portion of the sales and the rest going for equal distribution among all the teams.
Make no mistake about it, the NFL and the individual franchises (except for the most-glorious Green Bay Packers) are capitalistic ventures intent on making a profit and a return on investment and that is as it should be. But the NFL, unlike it's now weaker cousin MLB (America's former passtime) long ago realized that the health and well being of the whole is directly related to and dependent on the health and well being of each individual member.
By socializing their success the NFL has been able to produce a superior product with most of the teams being competative at any given time and a fairly rapid turnover of championship teams. And this has been good for their customers, the fans who get competative teams to root for and close , entertaining games to watch, which in return is good for the NFL and all it's members. There are no Yankees in the NFL, using their big media market renvue advantage perenially to buy their way to success. There are no Cubs, perpetually refusing to re-invest revenue in a superior product, secure in the monopoly over their mindlessly loyal and long suffering fans. It's better to be successful on a wheat pile than king of a dung heap.
Purity is not always a good thing and often comes with severe drawbacks and shortcomings. It's true with dogs and horses. Constant inbreeding in the quest for purity ends up accentuating inherent weaknesses and in general, mutts tend to be healthier than purebreads. The same is true with economic systems. Pure capitalism and pure socialism soon show the cracks of their inherent weaknesses that inevitably lead to crisis and failure. But the balancing act of a healthy blend allows the strengths of both to come through while keeping expression of the weaknesses of each to a minimum.
So remember this Sunday when when your witnessing a prime display of sucessful socialistic capitalism that even the Saints can, at long last have a chance to reach the top and enjoy their day in the sun when there is a reasonable sharing of resources and a level playing field. Go NFC Saints!
Make no mistake about it, the NFL and the individual franchises (except for the most-glorious Green Bay Packers) are capitalistic ventures intent on making a profit and a return on investment and that is as it should be. But the NFL, unlike it's now weaker cousin MLB (America's former passtime) long ago realized that the health and well being of the whole is directly related to and dependent on the health and well being of each individual member.
By socializing their success the NFL has been able to produce a superior product with most of the teams being competative at any given time and a fairly rapid turnover of championship teams. And this has been good for their customers, the fans who get competative teams to root for and close , entertaining games to watch, which in return is good for the NFL and all it's members. There are no Yankees in the NFL, using their big media market renvue advantage perenially to buy their way to success. There are no Cubs, perpetually refusing to re-invest revenue in a superior product, secure in the monopoly over their mindlessly loyal and long suffering fans. It's better to be successful on a wheat pile than king of a dung heap.
Purity is not always a good thing and often comes with severe drawbacks and shortcomings. It's true with dogs and horses. Constant inbreeding in the quest for purity ends up accentuating inherent weaknesses and in general, mutts tend to be healthier than purebreads. The same is true with economic systems. Pure capitalism and pure socialism soon show the cracks of their inherent weaknesses that inevitably lead to crisis and failure. But the balancing act of a healthy blend allows the strengths of both to come through while keeping expression of the weaknesses of each to a minimum.
So remember this Sunday when when your witnessing a prime display of sucessful socialistic capitalism that even the Saints can, at long last have a chance to reach the top and enjoy their day in the sun when there is a reasonable sharing of resources and a level playing field. Go NFC Saints!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)