Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Money’

The corporate news media does not want you to know a lot of things, and this includes such liberal media outlets as the Washington Post and the New York Times, as well as all of the conservative media, such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. Democratic and Republican Party politicians also do not want you to know certain things.

When Supreme Court Cheif Justice John Roberts went through his Senate confirmation hearings, Democratic senators grilled him on his abortion stance, but never on his insistence that “corporations are people” and “spending corporate money is free speech.” There was never any question asked about the latter two issues, although both are significantly more important to the vast majority of citizens than the abortion issue. The same was true of the confirmation hearings for Justice Neil Gorsuch. The abortion issue was just a distraction, and deliberately so.

The rich, as well as their news media and their politicians of both major political parties, do not want you to know how your legal system and the US Constitution have been undermined in their favor by the so-called justices of the United States Supreme Court. It is all about massive corruption and redistributing income, wealth and political power from the 99 to the 1 percent. They do not want you to know these things.

Below is the editorial the rich, their corporate media, and their politicians don’t want you to see.

A political coup has taken place and much of the US Constitution has been overthrown. Now the corporate wing of the court appears ready to bury more constitutional rights of the 99 percent under a flurry of lies and make-believe.

On February 26, of 2018 the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, a case that could profoundly affect the ability of public-sector workers to improve their wages and working conditions. If successful, this case will make the United States a right-to-work-for-less nation, and it is expected that the corrupt corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court will unanimously vote yes, despite the fact that the lower courts have consistently rejected arguments in favor of Janus.

The corporate/rich man’s wing of the court has been waging class warfare against the 99 percent for thirty-five years in violation of the US Constitution and legal precedence. So it is considered a foregone conclusion that the majority corporate wing of the court will vote yes in the Janus case.

These corrupt activist members of the United States Supreme Court blithely favor conservative money, wealth and power over all else, and they are about to subvert the United States Constitution once again. Those justices corrupted by powerful vested interests are John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Anthony M. Kennedy. All claim to be “original intent jurists.” In other words, when they rule on legal issues, they claim they follow the original intent of the founding fathers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All five have shown that their jobs are to rob the 99 percent of as many of their constitutional rights as possible by giving more constitutional rights to the rich, which they have done time and again. This legal corruption makes it easier for the rich to steal from the rest of us, which is why their rulings have coincided and aided the massive redistribution of income and wealth from the 99 to the 1 percent in the United States over the last four and half decades.

The rich derive most of their political, economic and legal power from their ownership of limited liability corporations. Quite naturally, all five so-called original-intent justices argue that publicly traded corporations are persons with all of the legal rights of human citizens. These justices are not ignorant little boys, but they are corrupt to the bone.

They know publicly traded corporations did not come out of the wombs of women. They know corporations are simply an idea of a form of business structure given legal rules to exist by state legislation. They know the United States Constitution does not even mention the word “corporation.” They know that not a single one of the founding fathers ever mentioned “persons” and “corporations” together in any sentence, paragraph, or chapter of any of their voluminous writings. The idea that corporations are people subverts the original intent of the US Constitution, which gives only human individual’s legal rights. Ideas of business models were never given any constitutional rights by anybody until conservative Supreme Court justices decided it was so.

Since the rich control the mechanisms of publicly traded corporations, the court’s decision in this regard is to hand greater constitutional rights to these legislatively created tools of the rich, giving the 1 percent greater power than the founding fathers wanted or were ever able to imagine. Then the corrupt wing of the court issued another class war decision.

The activists of the Supreme Court declared in its 2010 Citizen’s United ruling that corporations were exercising their constitutionally protected free speech rights when they spent money on political advertisements, but nowhere in the United States Constitution was such power granted or even recognized. Nowhere in any founding father’s writings was such power to be found. Now corporate advertisements are drowning out the free speech of all others, especially during election seasons.

Two corrupt US Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, “participated in political strategy sessions…to advance this case, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision,” according to Common Cause. These two so-called justices were clearly biased in this case, and they voted accordingly, rather than recuse themselves.

In addition, Citizen’s United eliminated one hundred years of campaign finance laws. United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted in favor of Citizen’s United, gave sworn testimony in his confirmation hearings before the US Senate that he would respect legal precedents. He, obviously, lied under oath. Think about it; the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court is a well-known perjurer. His job appears to be to overthrow the US Constitution on behalf of the rich, just like the other corrupt corporate members of the US Supreme Court.

These activist justices have been creating make-believe stuff up in order to give the rich and their business tools called corporations greater constitutional rights while diminishing the constitutional rights of the 99 percent in the process.

The lies, the made-up make-believe that ideas are people and that money is free speech, the numerous perjuries, and working with the rich on cases the justices are about to rule on demonstrate without a doubt that the sole purpose of the corrupted members of the court has been to wage class warfare against the 99 percent on behalf of the rich by subverting the US Constitution. Doing so has allowed for greater political power and additional constitutional rights for the wealthy and the court’s activist class warriors have succeeded against the original intent of our founding fathers.

Read Full Post »

A decade in the making, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) reached a climax two weeks ago when corporations paid enough money to politicians in the US Senate and the House of Representatives to give President Obama Fast Track Authority, which makes it easier to ramrod the TPP through congress against the wishes of the US public. The TPP is the largest income and political power redistribution scam in US history, but it’s being falsely being marketed as a free trade agreement. Congress must still pass the TPP, and that is not necessarily a done deal. However, big money talks louder, and is more important to politicians, than voters, as noted during the debate over fast track authority. Click on the link below for a reasonably good analysis by the Guardian UK. 54 percent of US voters were against giving Fast Track Authority to the president. This is proof enough democracy does not exist on the federal level in the USA.

Here’s how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill–The Guardian

Read Full Post »

“Land grant universities’ dependence on industry money has corrupted the independence of public science, as academics align their research projects with the ambitions of the private sector. Industry funding also diverts academic resources and attention away from projects that benefit the public, including research that challenges corporate control of food systems.
Donors can and do influence the outcomes of research to meet their business needs. More than 15 percent of university scientists acknowledge having “changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.”

Paid by Monsanto–farmwars.info

Read Full Post »

money2If money is free speech, then so too are cocaine, cigarettes, gold, silver, services of a prostitutes, and just about everything else you can think of.

If, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the government is severely restricted in regulating money in politics because money is free speech, then the government also has to be severely restricted in how it regulates cocaine, cigarettes, child pornography, services of prostitutes, and just about everything else you can think of.

There is a simple reason why these assertions are true.

Money is not speech. Money is a medium of exchange. That’s the heart of the matter.

A medium of exchange is something that buyers will exchange with a seller when they want to purchase goods or services from the seller. While many things could be used as a medium of exchange in an economy, money is the most common and useful medium of exchange in our society.

In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that spending money was speech. Thirty-four years later, the US Supreme Court rolled back 100 years of legal precedence in the Citizen’s United case and severely restricted the US government’s ability to regulate the expenditure of money in politics, since money was speech. Since then, the court has further rolled back the US government’s ability to regulate the money being spent in politics. Strange as it may seem to the court’s less honest jurors, the First  Amendment doesn’t mention money, but it does protect speech, not money.

If a medium of exchange such as money is free speech, then no government anyplace under the US Constitution can restrict your use of it to purchase anything, such as prostitutes and illegal drugs. Based on the logic of the US Supreme Court, the next time you’re arrested for using your free speech rights to purchase cocaine or prostitutes, you should defend yourself through the “spending money is free speech” legal illogic, and take it all the way to the US Supreme Court. The corrupt wing of that court (Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy) have no choice but to side with you if they desire to be consistent in their opinions.

Obviously, any medium of exchange has free speech rights. What about gold? What about bartering? What about cigarettes? Cigarettes and gold have been used as medium’s of exchange, and they too have free speech rights.

Dictionary.com defines barter as, “to exchange in trade, as one commodity for another; trade.”

People trade dollars for goods and services, and so anybody who uses money or any other medium of exchange to purchase anything is merely exercising his or her free speech rights.

Since money is a medium of exchange, and is now considered free speech (even if not one cent of US currency can speak a single syllable of English), it stands to reason that the equal protection clause of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment protects the free speech rights of other forms of medium of exchange–such as bartering.

Long before money was even an idea, people bartered in order to exchange goods and services.

Say that Short Fat Fanny wants to purchase political advertising on the local television station in Fargo, North Dakota. She doesn’t have any money, but she can offer services. And since Fanny is a prostitute and is willing to barter with William, the manager of the television station, for air time, Fanny’s services are clearly just as much free speech as say a Political Action Committee (PAC) using money to purchase air time on William’s station. Fanny’s services are a medium of exchange. Just like a PAC exchanges money for air time, Fanny exchanges services for air time, and maybe tosses in some crack heroin as part of the bargain. Crack heroin now becomes free speech and has First Amendment rights.

People have used cigarettes, gold, fish, crack heroin, sea shells and other things as medium of exchanges, and therefore anything that can be used as a medium of exchange in the purchase of goods and services should be protected First Amendment rights, according to the logic of the court.

In effect, although the corporate propaganda machine doesn’t want you to know this, the supreme court’s decision to give the action of spending money free speech rights, and the court’s later decisions in Citizen’s United and other cases that rolled back the government’s ability to regulate money in politics, extends beyond politics and into every area of government regulation, since spending money is protected as free speech by the First Amendment.

Citizen’s United and Buckley v. Valeo have opened a whole new ball game in the world of politics, and in everyday life.

One can only conclude that the corrupt corporate wing of the US Supreme Court has made some incredibly stupid decisions in these cases, or they made some deliberate political decisions in helping the 1 percent in their war against the middle class.

However, these are not stupid little boys on the court, we can be rest assured that the decisions made in equating spending money to free speech, and limiting the government’s abilities to regulate money in politics, was done in order to allow the 1 percent to use as much money as they could to purchase every iota of advertising space on the air waves and in print during election cycles. That way, the corrupt wing of the court no doubt reasoned, they can keep the 99 percent ill informed and confused as to where politicians actually stand on issues, and to confuse the voters on ballot issues, as well.

The justices made the above rulings in order to rig the economic and political games for the 1 percent and against the 99 percent. In other words, the justices mentioned above are avowed class warriors on behalf of the super rich.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: