Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Best Congress (and Supreme Court) Money Can Buy

Will Rogers said it long ago. "We have the best congress money can buy". 


The Washington Post says: 91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins. Don’t act surprised.

Now we have the best Supreme Court money can buy.

In 1971 Lewis F. Powell, Jr wrote his famous memo to the US Chamber of Commerce. It was as close as anything we’ve seen to a declaration of a corporate class war against most Americans.

Powell realized that their class warfare would need to be waged on multiple fronts, from manipulating the content of textbooks in public education to taking their lawyers to the Supreme Court.

Neglected Opportunity in the Courts

American business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change. Other organizations and groups, recognizing this, have been far more astute in exploiting judicial action than American business. Perhaps the most active exploiters of the judicial system have been groups ranging in political orientation from “liberal” to the far left. The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. It initiates or intervenes in scores of cases each year, and it files briefs amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in a number of cases during each term of that court. Labor unions, civil rights groups and now the public interest law firms are extremely active in the judicial arena. Their success, often at business’ expense, has not been inconsequential. This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.

Yes, it turns out business is more than willing to provide funds in order to dismantle democracy and to transform it into corporatocracy. And do note how defense of civil liberties is considered “far left” by the Chamber of Commerce.

But those were the “bad old days” of 1971. Much has changed.

The Supreme Court is now stacked with judges who are not only very corporate friendly, but also willing to subvert the Voting Rights Act in last year’s Shelby County v Holder.

It’s been a long climb for corporations to be anointed with rights that supersede individual rights. It’s been an incremental process that has opened our elections to the highest bidders. There were significant decisions that have added to the rise of corporatocracy. Here are the most important:

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886 was the first decision infected with the notion of corporate personhood. It wasn't in the decision itself, but added by a clerk sympathetic to the railroads.

Buckley v Valeo in 1976 opened the door for campaign money as free speech.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010 struck down McCain-Feingold.

And the final nail in Democracy’s coffin:

McCutcheon v FEC in 2014 swept away aggregate limits of “free speech money”.

The Corporate Lawyer led Supreme Court has effectively expanded corporate and wealthy individuals’ rights proportional to their wealth.

If "Money is free speech" then Big Money has more freedom of speech. 

What is diminished is the standing of free speech for the 99.9%. You and I can’t buy TV ads for millions to see. That’s not a right, but a privilege of wealth. More money equals more "free speech". 

And that aint rocket science. 

Roberts’ opinion in McCutcheon defines the word “corruption” so narrowly that it is practically meaningless. 

The only type of corruption Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties.

If you buy that, I have some real cheap land in Florida for you. 

So Roberts, you're telling us there's no expectation of favors behind all that donated money? You're telling us all that "free speech" is simply their selfless support of democracy?

Yeah, right.

103 comments:

free0352 said...

Will Rogers said it long ago. "We have the best congress money can buy".

Long ago? How long ago? Using my best google-foo I'm pretty sure he said it in 1931, though some claim it was in 1921. Who knows. I long fucking time ago.

Rogers also said in 1979 - "This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.

He was right. Congress is 1/3 of the federal government, and Government is the biggest problem facing Americans today.

McCutcheon v FEC in 2014 swept away aggregate limits of “free speech money”.

Yes, it swept away any limits on free speech. That's in keeping with the law that says

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." [EM]

So there you have it. No law abridging speech. This has nothing to do with campaign finance. Zero. 100% of the limits and reporting requirements to donate money to a political candidate remain 100% in place. What the ruling did, was stop any law from stopping any citizen from making any movie, advertisement or any print media of any political nature.

And apparently you're butt hurt about it Dave, because as we've long established here you are an avowed enemy of free speech and freedom of expression when the speakers happen to be rich people you hate. If you were not you couldn't possibly be against The Court's ruling in McCutcheon v FEC, because that decision reinforced the rights of Americans to express themselves politically... and had no effect on the amount of money that can be donated to a political candidate. Here is the FEC's own chart that dictates how much individuals and companies may donate to a political candidate.

Of course the speech exercised via the resources of the speaker which can at times be financially considerable may vicariously benefit a candidate... and this is of course what Dave and crew object to. They wanted laws that kept speakers from speaking because it would hurt the politicians they like and help the ones they love.

The SCOTUS said this was unconstitutional... that Government can make NO LAW abridging speech.

Thank you SCOTUS for denying the likes of Dave and his ilk the power to silence the voices of those who dare disagree with their socialist agenda.

free0352 said...

I challenged Dave to list the rights the SCOTUS or the free exercise of political speech have taken from Dave.

He couldn't come up with any. All he could do, was complain that some political philosophies are better funded than his. Instead of making his brand of socialism more palatable to voters, he insists we should kick the knees out of his side's political opponents to make things more "fair."

All because nobody wants a socialist America. Dave can't grow his belief system, so he insists government hobble the popular side's speech through force of law.

The SCOTUS rejected that, and good on them for doing it. This is the best SCOTUS in its history as a Court. What a turn around from the dark days of Kelo vs New London.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Rogers also said in 1979 - 'This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.'"

Neat trick, given that Rogers died in a plane crash in 1935 -- which, by the way, was a very long time ago.

You have no sense of history, I see.


"I challenged Dave to list the rights the SCOTUS or the free exercise of political speech have taken from Dave."

I believe Dave articulated his answer very succinctly and to the point.

Possibly you might want to reread the post he provided, or even return to his comments on the previous one. What is it about his response that you're having trouble understanding? I'll be happy to help you.

By the way, if you still believe corporations are entitled to the same Constitutional rights as natural living persons, I'm guessing that these same rights are equally (or should be) enjoyed by all living creatures -- great and small. Is this correct?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...and Government is the biggest problem facing Americans today."

No, it isn't. The biggest problem is the symbiotic relationship between government and corporate-America (i.e., the "corporate-state") that is systemically destroying both our natural rights and our Constitutional rights.

It's starting to concern me that you haven't figured this out.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,

Kelo vs New London was just another case of the Court asserting the ongoing precedence supporting superiority of corporate rights, in name of the public good. That was Pfizer’s “free speech” money working as intended.

we've long established here you are an avowed enemy of free speech and freedom of expression when the speakers happen to be rich people you hate

“We”? You got a mouse in your pocket, sport?

So there you have it. No law abridging speech.

There we don’t have it. Not a peep about bribery money being free speech.

Rights are proportional to wealth. This is now dictated by the Corporate Court.

The more you senselessly whine about me being an “enemy” of free speech, the more it is clear you have no concept of corruption, or that you actually support it.

All because nobody wants a socialist America.

But most people want social security and Medicare. THAT is socialist America, and it is very popular.

Then there’s corporatist America.

Look what ALEC’s “free speech” buys:

In November, 2011 Florida state Rep. Rachel Burgin (R) introduced a resolution that would officially call on the federal government to reduce corporate taxes, but she apparently forgot to remove ALEC’s mission statement from the top of the bill, which she seems to have copied word-for-word from ALEC’s model bill.

And for another epitome of corporatocracy we have NC sides with Duke in appeal of coal ash ruling

RALEIGH, N.C. North Carolina regulators are joining with Duke Energy in appealing a judge's ruling on cleaning up groundwater pollution leeching from the company's coal ash dumps.

Republican “regulators” at work. Gee, you’d think they and their governor worked for Duke Energy…Oh he did….and still does.

It is called corruption. Corporate “Free speech” bought it.
Lucky for ALEC, “Good Ameirkaners” like Free will insist that opposing this corruption is identical to being an “enemy of free speech”.

Good little totalitarian lapdog. “Woof.”

Scare those evil socialists away.

free0352 said...

Whenever he said it, He said it.

The full quote is - "This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as we do when the baby gets hold of a hammer," Rogers continued. "It's just a question of how much damage he can do with it before you can take it away from him. Well, in 18 months these babies have left a record of devastation."

The above link said Rogers said it in 1930. It was true then, its true today.

Government is the problem.

The biggest problem is the symbiotic relationship between government and corporate-America

By all means, divorce it. Separate business from government the way we separate church from state. No corporate taxes, no "regulation" other than the civil and criminal codes and conventional justice system.

“We”? You got a mouse in your pocket, sport?

You helped a great deal, by typing your thoughts out for us to read.

Not a peep about bribery money being free speech.

This is your typical deceptive labeling. You'd see government in control of political speech... then claim you are a fan of democracy. Hypocrisy as usual from Dave.

Republican “regulators” at work.

By all means, end GOP "regulators" along with the Democratic ones.

Let people "regulate" themselves. If they break the law, there are courts for that.

The only totalitarian lap dog here is you and Jeff. Demanding "the man" control political speech with an iron fist.

That isn't Democracy Dave.

That's totalitarianism. But then again, you're an unabashed communist apologist... so why should any of us be surprised. You've spent so much time defending a system that crushes a lot more than free speech. It crushes lives.

But they don't have any "corporate free speech money" (actual free speech) so yay! They must be free in North Korea and China right?





Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "By all means, divorce it. Separate business from government the way we separate church from state. No corporate taxes, no 'regulation' other than the civil and criminal codes and conventional justice system."

At first glance (for about a microsecond) your idea sounds almost reasonable, but then reality sets in. That still wouldn't separate the influence (e.g., big money, lobbyists) that, in reality, controls and runs big government. The only thing libertarianism will accomplish, is it will reduce the size of government. Big Money and lobbyists ("corporations") will continue to run government -- whether big or small.

That's why I refer to it as the "corporate-state". Get it?! (Probably not...)

Dave Dubya said...

Free has detached himself from reasonable discussion again.

Opposing the corruption of our elections and government is "totalitarianism" and doing so makes one an "unabashed communist apologist"

Yes, the tradition of wild accusations and the Famous Radical Right Commie Card (TM) continues when rational discussion must be abandoned by extremist ideology.

I think Free has confused Wayne Rogers with Will Rogers. Will Rogers was talking about the GOP that plunged us into the Great Depression.

Corporatists did it again in 2008, and the will do it again thanks to tools like Free. THAT is what "free speech" money ultimately buys.

The failure of deregulated capitalism will continue to plunge America into the abyss.

The Kochs will do nicely though. Thanks to their limitless "free speech" and their bought and paid for politicians.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Since Free0352 is adamant that money equals speech (and therefore, logically, speech equals money), I suggest that instead of sending a check to the IRS tomorrow, that he write and send them a letter.

In this letter he should express that due to recent Supreme Court decisions equating money and speech as being indistinguishable from each other, that his words should suffice as his 2013 tax payment.

If the IRS accepts his words as legal tender toward his tax obligation, I'll surrender to his argument that money equals speech.

free0352 said...

Jeff

At first glance (for about a microsecond) your idea sounds almost reasonable, but then reality sets in. That still wouldn't separate the influence (e.g., big money, lobbyists) that, in reality

Explain how separating economy and state the way we do religion and state wouldn't reduce the influence of any interest?

The only thing libertarianism will accomplish, is it will reduce the size of government

Why is that a bad thing?

Dave,

Opposing the corruption of our elections and government is "totalitarianism"

No, YOU have thrown out a reasonable position when you label crushing free speech as "opposing corruption." Bottom line, a government in charge of political speech isn't a free Democratic system now is it?

Yes, the tradition of wild accusations and the Famous Radical Right Commie Card (TM)

By all means Dave, prove me wrong. Call communism what it is, the most blood thirsty system of government ever devised by human kind - responsible for the murders of 40 million people, the destruction of every economy it ever managed, and that it is antithetical to human rights. Karl Marx is the worst philosopher ever.

When you do that, I'll pick up my Commie-Card™ right off the ground where I threw it figuratively at your feet.

Since Free0352 is adamant that money equals speech

No I'm not. I'd adamant that speech equals speech. The 1st Amendment is very, VERY clear.

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.

NO LAW isn't ambiguous. If you support a law that limits free speech, you are against the 1st Amendment. Something the left has a long history of doing.












Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Explain how separating economy and state the way we do religion and state wouldn't reduce the influence of any interest?"

Because the "separation" of religion and state is a misnomer. As previously mentioned, libertarianism would only reduce the size of government; it wouldn't solve the real problem confronting us: corporate influence in government. You continually hone in on "big government", as if that is the problem. It isn't! The problem is the "corporate-state".


"Why is [reducing the size of government] a bad thing?"

Because it doesn't solve the problem! (See answer above.)


"No I'm not [adamant that money equals speech]. I'd adamant that speech equals speech."

No, you've continually supported Supreme Court decisions that corporations (which are not human persons) should have the same rights, both natural and constitutionally, that were originally intended to only apply to human beings. Your stance has always been that money equals speech.


"The 1st Amendment is very, VERY clear."

Yes, you're right, it is. It's clear that it applies to the personal freedoms of real, flesh-and-blood, human beings -- not property.


"If you support a law that limits free speech, you are against the 1st Amendment."

If you support a law that grants free speech (along with other constitutional rights) to property, then you've bastardized and corrupted the intent of the Constitution as written by the Founders.

Persons are not property (which was the basis of a civil war in this country's history), and property is not a person (which may be the reason for a next one).

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Now, here's a topic that I very much agree with Noam Chomsky.

Dave Dubya said...

you label crushing free speech as "opposing corruption."

Actually YOU are labeling opposing corruption as “crushing free speech”. YOU are insanely equating opposition to corruption by superior corporate rights and power as “communism”.

Bottom line, corporations in charge of political speech isn't a free Democratic system now is it?

I'd adamant that speech equals speech.

No, you’re adamant that corporate money buying elections and politicians equals speech. It is therefore louder and “more equal” than the free speech of 99.9% of Americans.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" in Free’s democratic republic of superior corporate rights to power, and domination of government.

Rule by “Divine Right of Wealth” is the only rule in a “Free state”.

Dave Dubya said...

JG,

Good Chomsky link. Obviously Chomsky is just another commie for suggesting corporate money corrupts our government.

Note how it’s more important for Free to play his Radical Right Commie Card ™, than to recognize the chilling examples I showed of corruption by corporate “regulators” in government and corporate written legislation

”Republican “regulators” at work.”

By all means, end GOP "regulators" along with the Democratic ones.

Let people "regulate" themselves. If they break the law, there are courts for that.


Dismissal, distraction, and deflection are all he has to offer. Good faith discussion…not a peep.

Only a brainwashed cult would insist that money doesn’t corrupt, and almost non-existing voter impersonation at the polls is the real threat to democracy.

It’s also interesting that Free loves Will Rogers’ condemnation of congress, but ignores the “best congress money can buy” observation.

The cognitive dissonance of the radical Right is truly Orwellian.

Dave Dubya said...

Let's look at just who's "crushing free speech" for a second.

How about OWS? No free speech or right to assembly.

The Koch Tea Party? More media attention than any other group, despite its unpopularity.

The Koch-Republican-Adleson-party (KRAP) wants its dictatorship...and it will probably get it.

Dave Dubya said...


Here’s an interesting study that Free will ignore:


Testing Theories of American Politics:
Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens


Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts… When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

Somebody needs a lecture on corporate “free speech” v. democracy.

free0352 said...

Here’s an interesting study that Free will ignore:

Here's a law Dave will ignore.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

YOU are insanely equating opposition to corruption

No Dave, YOU are insanely equating free speech with corruption with the motive of silencing people in opposition to your point of view.

How DARE those evil Koch brothers use their evil money to try and convince people to vote for candidates they like. You claim to be such a fan of Democracy Dave, then when certain groups you don't like try to participate in it - you can't stop shouting to silence them. You're too weak to bully these people yourself - so you want to pass laws and have American Law Enforcement through the FEC do it for you.

Bottom line, corporations in charge of political speech isn't a free Democratic system now is it?

Notice Dave assumes "someone" has to be in charge of free speech. Thats a freudian slip if I've I've seen one.

The answer Dave - is no one in charge of speech. That's what free means.

The Koch Tea Party? More media attention than any other group, despite its unpopularity.

Notice I didn't bring up the Tea Party - Dave did. Perhaps the reason the TP gets so much attention is liberals and socialists can't stop screaming about it.

You continually hone in on "big government", as if that is the problem.

That's because... it is.

You're crying about influence - I'm suggesting not having much to influence. You're suggesting we grow the tool of those you claim are oppressing us Jeff.

That's just dumb.

Yes, you're right, it is. It's clear that it applies to the personal freedoms of real, flesh-and-blood, human beings -- not property.

Listen to what Jeff is saying here. Would then if this were true - if I as a Police Officer told you to take a campaign sign out of your yard or pull a bumper sticker off your car you'd have no protection - because your house or car isn't a person.

That's just asinine. Of course PEOPLE can use their property freely.

After all, your car isn't a person either... so if the Kochs can't use their company for political purposes because it isn't a person... how can you use YOUR property.

But OOOOOOOH NOOOOOOES that's not what Jeff means. That's because Jeff is demanding a double standard of law. One that blatantly violates the Constitution - which he does not support.

Dave Dubya said...

“Bottom line, corporations in charge of political speech isn't a free Democratic system now is it?”

Notice Dave assumes "someone" has to be in charge of free speech. Thats a freudian slip if I've I've seen one.

Notice Free is oblivious that I just changed one word of his original sentence. Whoosh! Over his head. “Freedian slip” if I ever saw one.

if I as a Police Officer told you to take a campaign sign out of your yard or pull a bumper sticker off your car you'd have no protection - because your house or car isn't a person.

That's just asinine.


At least Free sees his straw man is asinine.

Perhaps the reason the TP gets so much attention is liberals and socialists can't stop screaming about it.

Or perhaps it is because the Kochs give their tea party all the that “Free speech” money? NAWWW!

Speaking of evil liars, are the Kochs still pushing lies about their dupe Julie in Michigan? She’s paying less under Obamacare, but doesn’t want to believe it.

And THAT is how Free’s bubble cult works. Beliefs trump facts. And Free wants corporations and secret foreign ”dark money” influences to saturate the media with lies to promote false beliefs

Now Free’s hysteria has decided ending corporate political personhood means “silencing people”, and we can’t have yard signs and bumper stickers.

Deep thinker.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "That's because... [big government] is [the problem]."

No, the corporate-state is the problem. It's the fine nuances that you're not comprehending. Reducing the size of government so that it's "small enough to be drowned in a bathtub", will not eliminate or reduce the corruption caused by "big money". When all three branches of government are beholden to corporate and banking interests -- which they are -- democracy, and liberty and justice for all, suffers. It's when these three branches serve only a minority, to the detriment of the majority, that corruption reigns. Which is exactly what is happening today.


"You're crying about influence - I'm suggesting not having much to influence."

You're suggesting we eliminate the presidency?...or Congress?...or, possibly, the Supreme Court? That sounds like anarchy to me! You've been claiming you're not an anarchist, yet you are "suggesting not having much to influence".

Sounds like anarchy to me.


"You're suggesting we grow the tool of those you claim are oppressing us Jeff."

I've never been a proponent of "growing" the government. I thought I've made it quite clear, on previous posts, that the military-security apparatus, and it's budget, should be chopped to about a quarter of what it is now. That's certainly not a suggestion of growing government, is it?

I'd also like to suggest that we eliminate the NSA, and make the CIA's budget transparent and its management accountable to the people; no more "secret government" creating havoc and mayhem around the world.


"...if I as a Police Officer told you to take a campaign sign out of your yard or pull a bumper sticker off your car you'd have no protection - because your house or car isn't a person."

If I incorporate myself, thus creating an artificial and "fictional legal self" with millions of other created names, this artificial "fictional self" should be able to vote under any or all of these names legally and justifiably. After all, according to your logic (or lack, there of) each artificial "fictional self" has all the rights granted by the Constitution.

And if any of these "fictional selves" poisons your well, or burglarizes your home, then none could be prosecuted for criminal acts in a court of law. How could they?...they're not real persons!


"That's because Jeff is demanding a double standard of law."

No, not really -- only a single standard that applies to everybody. Well, every "body" that's real and made of flesh and blood. Not your legal fictions.

The only "double standard" is the one that you promote and have agreed to -- that money, as a medium of exchange and store of value, is also speech.


"One that blatantly violates the Constitution - which he does not support."

No, a Constitution that applies only to the natural and legal rights of human persons -- not to artificial characters and legal fictions.

That's the Constitution that I support.

Obviously, you do not.

Dave Dubya said...

It's when these three branches serve only a minority, to the detriment of the majority, that corruption reigns.

Free will read this as, "It's when these three branches serve only a minority, to the detriment of the majority, that "free speech" reigns.

We've seen him ignore the real examples given. He MUST ignore the the corrupting influence of money. Greed is a virtue and money is free speech, therefore money is freedom itself.

In Free's ideological neo-feudal state, "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Rule by divine right of wealth is establishing the neo-feudal dictatorship that Free and his fellow authoritarians are creating.

Money buys politicians. Money buys laws. Money buys the police. Money buys prisons. The loop is complete.

In Free's ideology, this is called "freedom".



Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Money buys the police."

It's my guess that Free0352 is a cop -- a dirty and corrupt one. I bet he's been bought more times than a $10 whore on la 42.

free0352 said...

Notice Free is oblivious that I just changed one word of his original sentence.

No its not. And its still quite creepy you want the government in charge of free speech. That's antithetical to the Democracy you so claim to support... but really don't.

Beliefs trump facts

Who's beliefs and who's facts? I support a system of free speech in where anyone can advocate anything they want. You support a system that would keep a person or person's from using their own property to engage in speech.

That's not a free society Dave. It looks like a statist totalitarian regime.

Free will read this as, "It's when these three branches serve only a minority, to the detriment of the majority, that "free speech" reigns.

I support the 1st Amendment, which guarantees the minority AND the majority the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want with their own property. I don't support changing the law so that people are limited in their speech by people like you who seek to hobble them and restrict the use of their property to engage in political discourse. Your side bans films, silences voices of opposition and limits property rights purely out of class bias. That is not a free society.

We've seen him ignore the real examples given.

No I haven't. I don't have a problem with them. Let George Soros make 40000 campaign commercials. I don't care. He has that right. I don't have to agree with him, and I can turn the channel. People aren't mind numbed victims of political discourse as you'd have us believe. Your point of view isn't about protecting people or preserving democracy - its about silencing opposition and power and control.

In Free's ideological neo-feudal state, "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

No Dave, its you advocating a double standard of law where your side has unlimited use of private property for speech while stockholders and even individuals you have a class bias against have limited access to their own property for purposes of political discourse.

That is not a free society, that creates a class of people with more freedom of property than others. That is not conducive to political discourse and paralyzes the ability of regular, ordinary people to pool money in a 501c and organize politically. It doesn't enhance the freedom of speech of the poor, it destroys it along with the access of stockholders to the company they own.

That is not conducive to a free society. But it is in keeping with the net result of your leftist ideology.

It's my guess that Free0352 is a cop

Former cop. I liked the military more so. I left law enforcement because I was disgusted with civil asset forfeiture laws.

I remind Dave of this frequently in our debates on drug legalization. Dirty cops don't quit because they don't like to take money away from people.

Dave Dubya said...

That's not a free society Dave. It looks like a statist totalitarian regime.

And which one would that be? One that allows complete free speech to individuals and limits corporate money in elections and government. Please educate us of this dreaded totalitarian free country.

If you can’t, then this is another of your unsubstantiated and false assertions.

Your side bans films, silences voices of opposition and limits property rights purely out of class bias. That is not a free society.

This is another of your unsubstantiated and false assertions.

“We've seen him ignore the real examples given.”

No I haven't. I don't have a problem with them.

You don’t have a problem with corporate written legislation pushed by corporate puppets. Fine. You don’t have a problem with corporate insiders as “regulators” letting their corporations pollute. Good for you. Corporatocracy is not good for Americans and our air and water.

Your point of view isn't about protecting people or preserving democracy - its about silencing opposition and power and control.

This is another of your unsubstantiated and false assertions.

See the above corporatocracy you support for what really “isn't about protecting people or preserving democracy - its about silencing opposition and power and control”.

No Dave, its you advocating a double standard of law

This is another of your unsubstantiated and false assertions.

That is not a free society, that creates a class of people with more freedom of property than others.

Exactly the point we’re making. More money = More “free speech”. Billionaires and corporate “free speech” will be the loudest voices and greatest influence on public policy. This is, and always has been, destructive to democracy.

Our government is not the business of Big Business, That is the inverted totalitarianism we’ve told you about.

free0352 said...

One that allows complete free speech to individuals and limits corporate money in elections and government

Your system doesn't allow complete free speech of individuals, or groups. That's the problem with it.

I guess you can't understand the concept behind Congress shall make no law...

No is to complicated for you.

Please educate us of this dreaded totalitarian free country

Why would I do that when you Dave are doing such a good job telling us about the system you want... where people can't use their property to speak and certain electoral communications are outright banned.

Banning political commercials or people from making them isn't free Dave... not that your FEC didn't ban films outright. Yours is a system where party bosses control speech. Your party.

This is another of your unsubstantiated and false assertions.

Your FEC banned "Hillary The Movie," in 2008. That isn't a false assertion. That happened. And you support the law that empowered the government to ban that political speech, and endlessly whine about the SCOTUS decision that reversed it as "making money free speech" and "Corporate Personhood."

Apparently we libertarians are making corporations humans when we object to government banning films...

How dare Dave Bossie be critical of Hillary Clinton cried the FEC, he must be silenced! And here you are trying to tell me Dave isn't a person... he's a corporation you know... he has no rights to put out his film.

This is another of your unsubstantiated and false assertions.

Michael Moore and Mirimax can put out Fahrenheit 9-11, Dave Bossie and Citizens Untied were banned.

How is that NOT a double standard?

And don't waste my time telling me you don't want to ban films... that's what your law did and that is what you are defending when you disagree with the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens' United vs FEC.

Billionaires and corporate “free speech” will be the loudest voices

Yes... so those evil rich must be hobbled to be more equal.

That's stalinist. How counter revolutionary of them to dare speak louder than anyone else. Or in the case of Citizens' United, speak at all...

Better get the IRS to do a special audit.












Dave Dubya said...

All I did was ask, “Please educate us of this dreaded totalitarian free country”

And off you slithered...

Why would I do that when you Dave are doing such a good job telling us about the system you want... where people can't use their property to speak and certain electoral communications are outright banned.

Your unsubstantiated and false assertions are now accompanied by dodging and distraction. In other words, you failed to back your false assertion. And there you go again, conflating rights of people with corporations.

Yours is a system where party bosses control speech. Your party.

This is another of your unsubstantiated and false assertions. I have no party. We’ve shown nothing to suggest we mean a partisan one-way street. Both parties are open to corruption.

Yours is a system where corporations and Koch party bosses control speech. Your party. Yours is a system that cannot, and will not, acknowledge “free speech” cash can be bribery and corruption.

Your FEC banned "Hillary The Movie," in 2008. That isn't a false assertion.

More evasion. That is not the false assertion I was referring to. You really do this kind of evasive distraction a lot, you know. And how many times do you need to be told CU v FEC was not just about the damn movie?

What happens when corporate media decides to show nothing but Right wing material? What if Murdoch and Ailes gain control of even more of the corporate media? In corporate media, corporations already have the monopoly on political “free speech”. Corporate media know better than to tread on their corporate owners and advertisers. Your party has brainwashed much of the public into believing corporate media is “liberal media”. That sets up only information from the far Right party as the truth to their cult of true believers. Goebbels would be proud.

Sound far fetched? Check out how the “liberal media” is feeding the public:

Sunday shows love Republicans. “Meet the Press,” “Face the Nation,” “This Week,” “State of the Union,” and “Fox News Sunday,” hoping to reflect and help shape the conventional wisdom for the political world, collectively favor GOP guests over Democratic guests every year. 10 of the top 13 are Republicans, as are six of the top seven.

How’s that for “fair and balanced”?

Yup, your party has duped Americans into believing the Right leaning corporate media is the evil “liberal media”. And they want corporate money to do ALL the talking.

Again, Goebbels would be proud.

And why should foreign interests be allowed to spend their “free speech” on our elections and government in complete secrecy?

You needn’t bother responding with more evasions, accusations, or distractions.

free0352 said...

Your unsubstantiated and false assertions...

... are not unsubstantiated or false. Tell us all how the Citizen's United Decision "made corporations people" when really all it did was prevent government from banning a movie that said mean things about past and soon to be again Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton.

. I have no party.

Yet you echo its talking points about corporate personhood? Strange. It seems your only objection to the Democrats is that they are not extreme enough for you.

Yours is a system that cannot, and will not, acknowledge “free speech” cash

...notice the attempt to vilify contrary free speech with class bias.

CU v FEC was not just about the damn movie?

Actually it was about a damn movie. The FEC tried to ban Hillary The Movie. Citizens' United sued, took it all the way to the SCOTUS, and won. Those were the facts of the case. ...Notice Dave divorce himself from the facts.

What happens when corporate media decides to show nothing but Right wing material?

What happens when they show only left wing material. Oh wait... that happened. CNN, MSNBC... Mirimax and Disney's Michael Moore franchise. ... I'm standing by for Dave to schoff at that because he's so extreme Michael Moore's "Capitalism, A Love Story" is right wing in his book. Oops - too late Your party has brainwashed much of the public into believing corporate media is “liberal media”.

What happens when government and authoritarians like yourself stop caring about the speech of free people? That's my question.

Sunday shows love Republicans

How dare they show an opposing opinion to your orthodoxy!

How’s that for “fair and balanced”?

Since when does government have to make sure things among free people is fair? Here again is Dave demanding government be in charge of speech. Next thing you know he'll be demanding government give all the anchors a trophy so none of them feel left out.

And why should foreign interests be allowed to spend their “free speech” on our elections

How dare they engage in the democratic process through free speech! We all know that real freedom and democracy can only exist under the iron fist of a government bureaucrat (and loyal party member) making sure everything is fair. And by fair we mean shut up all decent.

You needn’t bother responding with more evasions, accusations, or distractions.

I know, you've made it clear you're not a big fan of giving the opposition to your views much of a voice.














Dave Dubya said...

So it's back to evasions and distractions.

CU v FEC was not just about the damn movie?

Actually it was about a damn movie.


Note the word "just" that you threw out. More evasions and distractions, not to mention lack of honesty.

You are utterly incapable of good faith discussion. Cherry picking apart sentences, ignoring context, distractions and evasions, and even ignoring the entire point with irrelevant blather is what you do.

YOU are the one incapable of staying on point and dealing with contrary views.

How authoritarian.



free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Note the word "just" that you threw out. More evasions and distractions, not to mention lack of honesty.

No, its YOUR "evasion" Dave to keep from admitting your arguement is about silencing political opposition you hate because of your class bias.

The "free speech money" you are so loudly complaining about in the case of Citizens United vs FEC, was when CU made a movie critical of Hillary Clinton - and the FEC had it banned. CU sued saying that they had a right to release their movie based on the 1st Amendment.

The FEC - "JUST" like you - argumed they didn't have any rights because they were a corporation. JUST like you - these iron fisted government magnates maintained corporations don't have rights like freedom of speech.

Well, turns out CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW... is pretty definitive, and now here you are arguing against free speech using class bias to hide your totalitarian knee jerk to silence opposing opinions.

And when I point that out, you cry like the second place queen at prom about how unfair I am. Perhaps someone can get you a tissue.

How authoritarian of me Dave... to stand up for the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech. You on the other hand arguing for iron fisted government control of free speech, must be so much kinder and gentler and full of good faith... to unleash your class bias against anyone who dares speak against your side of the argument with force of law. How compassionate of you to argue for silencing people. How supportive of Democracy you are, to argume to exclude so many people from free speech and therefore the Democratic process.

Dave Dubya said...




Wow. There you go again with tangential distractions and evasions.

For fun, let's have a happy little review of your dodging and evasions.

You left us hanging on this one, you know:

Free: It looks like a statist totalitarian regime.

DD: And which one would that be? One that allows complete free speech to individuals and limits corporate money in elections and government. Please educate us of this dreaded totalitarian free country.

Your best answer was some imaginary "Dave Land" you pulled from your ass.

Go with what ya got, huh?

And we love your defense of China having the right to buy our elections and politicians:

DD: And why should foreign interests be allowed to spend their “free speech” on our elections

Free:How dare they engage in the democratic process through free speech!

Priceless.

Let's follow your disjointed twisting of words here.

DD: "CU v FEC was not just about a movie."

Free: CU v FEC was not just about the damn movie?

Actually it was about a damn movie...keep from admitting your arguement is about silencing political opposition.


Good projection and twisting dodge.

Actually it was MY point that corporate "free speech" is so loud it practically silences political opposition. The "free speech" voices of Big Money corrupt government and drown out the voices of those who dare dissent against corporatocracy.

You continued dodging and evading the whole truth of the real world effects of CU. It removed a law intended to regulate the "free speech" bribery, money in elections, opening our elections to more corporate "free speech" cash.

It really was about more than JUST a movie. Your rabid dishonesty and fanatical ideology need to ignore so much reality.

And let’s look at this tactic of screaming "class war", a distraction from having to refute my valid points.

Free's edit of my point: Yours is a system that cannot, and will not, acknowledge “free speech” cash

...notice the attempt to vilify contrary free speech with class bias.


Let's reveal how you cherry picked words, and how you countered with an absurd accusation that I "vilify contrary free speech with class bias.

I dared to suggest money corrupts and you freaked out about that being “classs bias”. LOL!

"Yours is a system where corporations and Koch party bosses control speech. Your party. Yours is a system that cannot, and will not, acknowledge “free speech” cash can be bribery and corruption."

Free, you must have been a great dodge-ball player. I can't wait to see the next tangent you take to flee from reality.

free0352 said...

Oh Dave, of course I was talking about "Dave Land." Your ideal, the one you've been telling us about. The place where people can't use their property to voice free speech, or even speak without the approval of a government bureaucrat. A place that looks more like North Korea than modern America.

The place if you had your way, where we would all live. A place where folks like you can wipe your ass with the 1st Amendment.

Notice how dave will mention China and then pivot onto his favorite boodie men... the Kochs. Well, the Kochs aren't from China are they? They're from the United States, and Dave is here arguing they must be silenced, that they shouldn't have access to their own property for purpose of speech. His class bias - which he tries to dismiss by claiming I said class war - is on display.

Truth is, Dave want's them banished from the "Democratic" system he'd force on us, if only he had the power.

It really was about more than JUST a movie.

NO, it really wasn't. It was your side of this argument banning a film critical of once and future Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton. CU made a film, and your FEC banned it. And now since the SCOTUS has stopped that from happening - you've angry with them. You use terms like "Free speech money," and "Corporate Person." But just like the Koch brothers, you want to see the PEOPLE silenced who made that film for daring the criticize Hillary Clinton in an election year.

And let’s look at this tactic of screaming "class war"

I said class bias, not war. Then right after you accuse ME of misquoting YOU. I never, but you have.

The truth is Dave doesn't mind when Mirimax makes a movie critical of George Bush in an election year, but he does when Citizen's United does. That's a blatant double standard, but its the double standard Dave is pushing on us. Mirimax you see, isn't a corporation. It's Michael Moore. Citizen's United? Well who cares. Class bias.

This entire blog is a dedication to your attempts to vilify contrary free speech with class bias. And a call to shut those for whom you have bias up, with force of law. With iron fisted government thugs. You're no morally better than Stalin or Pol Pot, just infinitely weaker.

I dared to suggest money corrupts

No, what you dared to do was to cloak your contempt for the 1st Amendment in the label of fighting corruption.

Fighting corruption doesn't deprive people the use of their own property to speak politically. Fighting corruption doesn't ban films or political commercials. You don't STOP communication when you fight corruption, you START IT. You need MORE OF IT, not less of it as your argument tells us we need. Yes, Dave would give us LESS communications, and therefore more ignorance.

And Dave as he's fond of telling us, knows ignorance is strength for socialists.

People who will shred our Constitution won't come twirling their mustaches and cackling evilly. Nope, they'll tell you its for your own good. That the shredding of your freedom is to "fight corruption" and is only denying "corporate persons."

Don't listen. Its a filthy lie.

Dave Dubya said...

Thanks for the predictable hysteria, accusations and distraction.

I particularly love this one:

You're no morally better than Stalin or Pol Pot, just infinitely weaker.

Beautiful! When you Right wing authoritarian fanatics fail at reason, the Radical Right Commie Card ™ always pops out. Just like I’ve always said.

Thank you again for always proving me correct.

And this beauty, that proved I was correct in your inability and refusal to see the corruption of your Gods of Greed. All you see is “their own property to speak politically”, which is in practice bribery, propaganda and corruption in the real world.

Here’s a notion alien to authoritarians. Free speech is the opposite. Constitutional right to free speech isn’t there to sanctify and promote and bribe powerful politicians. Free speech is not intended to make it easier for their owners to better exercise power over democracy and suppress the representation of we the people.

Real free speech is the right of being able to dissent, to speak to, and challenge POWER. You really don’t get it. Free speech is the right of we the people to call out bribery, propaganda and corruption of power.

This is the free speech you hate, and vilify, and red bait, just like the radical Right authoritarian you are. You are Napoleon the pig of Animal Farm, with your “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others’.

This is the authoritarianism that your ilk have used to suppress democracy and real freedom of speech.

“I dared to suggest money corrupts” This is fact.
Then off you go:
No, what you dared to do was to cloak your contempt for the 1st Amendment in the label of fighting corruption.

Fighting corruption doesn't deprive people the use of their own property to speak politically.


In other words, “What corruption? There’s no such thing. It’s called “freedom” you commie”.

Well, that depends on who’s “property”, and how much “property”, and what their “property” is “speaking” doesn’t it? That depends on the relationship between the “speaker” and “listener” of that “free speech” money.

That also depends on the behavior of the person in power after accepting such “property” and “message” of the “free speech”.

Here’s the sum of your assessment. This is the Radical Right Bubble Cult (RRBC) view of the world:

Money never corrupts politicians. The wealthy elites deserve, and are entitled, to more representation and rights to influence elections, politicians and public policy. In other words aristocracy and corporatocracy are morally superior to democracy by what amounts to rule by divine right of wealth.

And anyone who questions this by exercise of free speech is a commie who’s no morally better than Stalin or Pol Pot.


Yes, Free, we get it. We know your ideology, and we reject it for the same reasons the Founders rejected monarchy and rule without representation.

Dave Dubya said...

And then theirs this classic RRBC nonsense projection.

And Dave as he's fond of telling us, knows ignorance is strength for socialists.

So, Free Napoleon, do you want to see real Orwellian doublethink?

War is peace.

“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” - George W. Bush

Freedom is slavery.

No unions. No minimum wages. No free speech for the working class. No representation for the majority. War on terror. War on drugs. Piss in that jar if you want a low paying job. Piss on democracy if you're rich.

Ignorance is Strength.

See Free's RRBC ideology.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Beautiful! When you Right wing authoritarian fanatics fail at reason, the Radical Right Commie Card ™ always pops out. Just like I’ve always said.

If the shoe fits dave...

You're the one arguing the authoritarian position, and I'm the one arguing for total freedom of speech.

All you see is “their own property to speak politically”, which is in practice bribery, propaganda and corruption in the real world.

No its not. I'm talking about making television commercials, taking out ads, or in the case of Citizen's United making a film. All of those things require a corporation to do, and you'd ban all of them by eliminating people's right to organize within a corporation for any political purpose.

Making a film isn't corruption. Making a TV about something you believe in isn't corruption. But its a film Dave's Federal Election Commission wanted to ban, for being critical of Hilary Clinton - once and future Presidential Candidate. Now thats power crushing the little people, and Dave's all for it!

You know what is corrupt? Politicians like Clinton using the laws Dave is arguing for here, to silence films critical of them. Even as other film makers better politically connected make those more acceptable to the left (Say- Michael Moore.)

THAT is corrupt, Dave is actually arguing FOR corruption as he claims to be arguing against it. He's also arguing for a double standard of law that makes a preferentially treated class of leftists. He'll tell you I want some more equal than others when in reality Dave wants Mirimax and Moore to have total freedom while the decent he claims to support is silenced by the FEC he loves.

I'm arguing the law we have now. The 1st Amendment. I'm arguing the Constitution which Dave wants to wipe his ass with. I sat that says Congress doesn't have the power to regulate speech. Dave calls free speech made by those he doesn't approve of "corruption."

Real free speech is the right of being able to dissent, to speak to, and challenge POWER

Free speech is what it is. Government making no laws against saying anything. It is simply a state where there is no law preventing or punishing it. I'm for that, Dave is for an FEC that can decide who can speak, or ever WHO a person is!?

Pure and simple. Dave is arguing for a law that allowed the FEC to ban a film critical of Hillary Clinton. A woman of considerable power. By Dave's own definition, the SCOTUS was right to rule as it did, and Dave's argument is in conflict with itsself.

This is the free speech you hate

My opinions on what someone says is irrelevant, so long as I don't try to control what they say. I agree with the 1st Amendment when it says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

Period. No law. None.

Instead and contrary to my position, Dave tells us -

"Well, that depends on who’s “property”, and how much “property”, and what their “property” is “speaking” doesn’t it? That depends on the relationship between the “speaker” and “listener” of that “free speech” money."

And here were are again with Dave implying we need some iron fisted government regulator to police free speech. Dave tells us corporations aren't people... and then dares to suggest we need such a government regulator to not only police speech - but decide who is even human enough to have it! There's nothing like a government bureaucrat handing out rights and personhood to crush freedom and a Democratic system.

And perhaps that's just what Dave wants.

Dave Dubya said...

Yes, chatter chatter, blah blah, "Dave hates freedom". I told you we got it, sport.

There's nothing like a government bureaucrat handing out rights and personhood (to artificial entities) to crush freedom and a Democratic system.

Exactly. That is what we get from a corporatist Supreme Court.

"Freedom" for corporate rule.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Free speech is what it is. Government making no laws against saying anything. It is simply a state where there is no law preventing or punishing it."

Sounds anarchist to me...

free0352 said...

Its funny how my support of a basic human right (Free speech) looks like anarchy to the authoritarian left.

Dave Dubya said...

Free means a basic corporate right, not a human right, of course.

We embrace basic human rights for humans.

Corporate rights superseding human rights means corporatocracy superseding democracy.

And that's how we get Free Napoleon's “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Its funny how my support of a basic human right (Free speech) looks like anarchy to the authoritarian left."

Not believing my eyes, I decided to read Dave Dubya's response first before commenting, realizing he'd undoubtedly point out your very obvious Freudian slip.

As I presupposed, he did.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Its funny how my support of a basic human right (Free speech) looks like anarchy to the authoritarian left."

I might also add that I agree there is an underlying twist of humor here, but the chuckles come at your expense as we, once again, see you stepping in your own excrement. ;-)

okjimm said...

//looks like anarchy to the authoritarian left."//

shit...there is dumb, then there is dumber...then there is plain old stupid. I give up.

free0352 said...

And here were are again with Dave implying we need some iron fisted government regulator to police free speech

The bottom line is when your ideal was the law of the land, we had your FEC coming in and banning films critical of Democrats.

Which is why you want the law. To silence decent.

okjimm said...

silence decent

break me up. Free, you are not decent, your thoughts are not decent...and you cannot type a goddam coherent thought. silence decent. Oh gees, Ozzie Fucking Nelson is rolling in his grave.

free0352 said...

Whooooo I misspelled dissent.

I guess okijim wins the spelling bee. But I'm still more right firing out posts on my smart phone that oki is.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "But I'm still more right firing out posts on my smart phone that oki is."

A monkey dressed in silk is still a monkey.

okjimm said...

Tree...it wernt youse spellinz dat was amusing...it wasda freudian aspect of what you spelleding....if wood is dense, you are a forest.

free0352 said...

I may be a lot of things, one of the things I'm not are a person who suggests we have a government in charge of speech as you are.

Dave Dubya said...

I may not know everything, but I do know bribery is not "free speech".

Dave Dubya said...

I may be a lot of things, but I'm not gullible enough to be OK with dark foreign cash being spent on our elections.

free0352 said...

Dave,

Who was citizen's united bribing when they made Hillary The Movie and it was banned by the FEC?

I don't see any bribery, I see incumbent candidates able to more easily stifle political opposition under your system. They did it, it was historical fact.

Dave Dubya said...

I see incumbent candidates able to more easily stifle political opposition under your system

It never was my system. It is the power of wealth/corporatocracy over democracy.

Here’s an interesting study that shows who has the real power:


Testing Theories of American Politics:
Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens


Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts… When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Here’s an interesting study that shows who has the real power..."

I'm positive that Free0352 will now align with what's becoming the prevailing school of thought regarding our times. After all, he's a staunch believer in "the white paper". ;-)

No, I'm only being sarcastic. We all know that Free0352 will never see the forest for the trees. He chooses not to. He ignores the truth right in front of him, preferring to embrace an ideology that can't even be considered out in left-field -- one that's so extreme and irrelevant, as to what's happening today, that it's not even in the ballpark.

He's a tool for the elite and the corporate-state. There's no other explanation.

free0352 said...

Here’s an interesting study that shows who has the real power:

Clearly during McCain Feingold era the FEC had the power. The power over free speech. Clearly Dave, you want to give that power back to them so Government can control what people say about political candidates.

A government in charge of speech is not a democratic free society Dave.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "A government in charge of speech is not a democratic free society Dave."

A corporate-state, beholden only to the whims of the elite, and its corporate power and "speech", is not a democratic and free society.

Free0352, you keep speaking of "government" as if it were a bad thing -- and I concur that it certainly is under today's corruptible structure. Dave's link provided substantial evidence that the democratic processes of "We the People" have been hijacked in favor of a pseudo-democracy that displays all the trappings of justice and liberty, along with a claim to following the supreme law of the land, but it just doesn't deliver. This is not because of "big government", which you feel is so abominable, but rather due to a system that's been so corrupted by big money, and the unfair influence it obtains, that the needs and rights of the vast majority have been marginalized to such a degree that those attributes we hold dear within our constitutional system have become null and void.

The whole system has been corrupted through legalized bribery, which I interpret to be okay within your eyes. But, why wouldn't it be?...you're a tool of the system.

Dave Dubya said...

Free speaks of Power? We've shown over and over again that wealth is power. Wealth buys corrupt politicians. This is the "free speech" of the wealthy and powerful that Free holds dear.

Then there's the REAL free speech rights of ALL the rest of us, that is the intent of the founders. We have the right to speak to power, and to question power.

That right of speech has been vulgarized into protecting the privilege of the elites to buy our government.

Free can't see the difference.

free0352 said...

you keep speaking of "government" as if it were a bad thing

A government in charge of free speech is a bad thing. That's why we have the first Amendment which clearly says government cannot abridge free speech of anyone.

You seem to be against that 1st Amendment protection, and dress that pig up in these words -

A corporate-state, beholden only to the whims of the elite

There is only one elite who can send the SWAT team to your house and put you in jail.

Government. Government has all the real power, and you'd like to put that power in charge of free speech contrary to the founding principles the country was created for.

You'd like to send us back to the policy of King George.

I'd rather not.

I'm convinced the reason you'd like to turn back the freedom clock, is because progressive socialists don't want people to be free, they just want the power of King George. Or, they just hate the rich, some are just full of class bias. The results are still the same, yet another civil liberty flushed down the toilet.

And its always the left flushing them it seems.

that wealth is power

No its not. Guns are power. Weapons and the ability to use them are power. And you want to give the largest, most heavily armed group in the world - the United States Government - power over free speech.

Just like your loyalist forefathers probably did in 1775.



Dave Dubya said...

Free's hysteria would tell us we are now free from the tyranny of McCain/Feingold. That is really funny.

In his head it seems, before that we were under oppression. Free may even believe he's more free.

The sad joke is on him, as he is their tool.

Now we have Bush's police state being expanded by Obama, and all he cares about is corporate money being secure in corrupting our government even more.

Poor Free is babbling incoherently now. The intent of freedom of speech has been defined, but he still wants it primarily for the rich to wield power over our government.

He also knows damn well there is power in wealth. He just can't admit it.

His is a most willful blindness that makes him useful to the powers of inverted totalitarianism

This is the fact he runs from. His far Right belief system is threatened and helpless against that truth.

The power of King George is now the power of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, the Military Industrial Complex, and Wall Street.

The forbidden truth is evident, yet he must cower in fear of it.

Free acts like we want to eliminate the First Amendment. Nothing is further from the truth. His brain can't process the fact we don't consider OUR HUMAN RIGHTS to apply to NON-HUMAN corporations.

This is why he babbles on so crazily.

"Guns are power", but so is the law behind those guns. Guess who's writing our laws now? Who's writing trade agreements? Who's writing our regulations of commerce? Who's nullifying environmental laws?

And who's making sure we have lots of firearms that fool "Second Amendment remedy" idiots into thinking that gives them power over corporate government?

Yes, the ones with the most "free speech" of course.

But again, Free's cult cannot recognize that reality.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "[Free0352's] is a most willful blindness that makes him useful to the powers of inverted totalitarianism."

Yes, he's totally in their camp. Unfortunately, he'll never have the courage to read Sheldon Wolin's exposé of what kind of government has emerged over the course of several decades, and which has created the pseudo democracy that governs today. He's so consumed with yelling fire!...fire! (big government!...big government!), that he's oblivious to the hoses spraying gasoline all over the structure. He knows there's a fire, because he can see the flames and smell the smoke, but he thinks dampening the structure will put it out.

So his solution: Help hold the hoses.

He's such a tool...

free0352 said...

Dave,

In his head it seems, before that we were under oppression.

Would you call banning political documentaries more freedom?

The intent of freedom of speech has been defined

Freedom means um... freedom. That is defined by websters as "Freedom: The state of being free from the control or power of another."

Obviously if you have a government agency managing and controlling speech, we don't have freedom of speech. Your argument is the same argument used for hundreds of years against free speech. That some monolithic government should tell us what we can say, how we can say it, who we can say it with, and when we can say it.

I believe in a system where government can do none of these things. That's the American system. Its the heart of the 1st Amendment.

useful to the powers of inverted totalitarianism

Inverted totalitarianism? That would mean totalitarianism turned upside down. Yes, I am for that. The opposite of totalitarian is freedom. I want that.

The power of King George is now the power of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, the Military Industrial Complex, and Wall Street

Really? Last I checked King George has armies, had no limits to his authority. The worst thing your companies here can do is screw up your credit. This is the laughable power they have that Dave is talking about. The worst thing in the world a bank can do is get a judgement against your bankruptcy. Thats a major difference between King George, who hung men without trial for SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

Which is why we have the 1st Amendment and TOTAL freedom of speech.

If anyone is a tool here, its you Dave. You're the tool of the would be police state, and only the Constitution is standing in their way.

So of course you attack it at every given opportunity. In this case, the 1st Amendment and the freedom of speech which is the heart and soul of Democratic government and Republican Constitutionally guaranteed human rights.

You're such a good little German.

Now retreat into your conspiracy theories about Illuminati corporations while arguing to give the government with the most guns in the world control of what can come out of your mouth.

Dave Dubya said...

Obviously if you have a government agency managing and controlling speech, we don't have freedom of speech.

Agreed. This is a reasonable statement.

Your argument is the same argument used for hundreds of years against free speech. That some monolithic government should tell us what we can say, how we can say it, who we can say it with, and when we can say it.

This would not be so reasonable, because this is not grounded at all in reality. You cannot show us what I said to support this. As I’ve repeatedly shown, the mental image in the radical Right brain of non-right wingers is largley a product of right wing media indoctrination and delusion. Righties all think they know exactly what others think. This is delusional.

Really? Last I checked King George has armies, had no limits to his authority.
That was true. What was also true was King George decreed what was law. Now we have ALEC writing legislation. “The banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis --- that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” - Senator Dick Durban
Which was the point of my analogy. Look up analogy if you need .

SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT

Why are you shouting? Didn’t you see what I wrote?

Wealth buys corrupt politicians. This is the "free speech" of the wealthy and powerful that Free holds dear.

Then there's the REAL free speech rights of ALL the rest of us, that is the intent of the founders. We have the right to speak to power, and to question power.

That right of speech has been vulgarized into protecting the privilege of the elites to buy our government.

Free can't see the difference.


I was correct.

free0352 said...

You cannot show us what I said to support this

Your post. Your post says this.

Clearly if you have government managing speech as you suggest, we have the above. You can try and sugar coat it, but obviously your support of McCain Feingold shows where your real intent is.

Righties all think they know exactly what others think.

I know what you've written and what you support. What I'm talking about isn't theoretical. The FEC banned films, and the Citizen's United vs FEC decision by the SCOTUS stopped this ban. It was the basis for the whole case.

Had you had your way, government would be in control of Citizens United's speech, and therefore all our speech.

That right of speech has been vulgarized

Winston Churchill once said -

"“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”

Its as if he were talking about you. Anyone who dares air an opinion you find "Corporatist," isn't engaging in free speech - he's "vulgarized" it.

So basically speech socialists like Dave don't agree with is vulgar to his mind.

Got it.

Notice Dave, those were you own quotes. I wasn't guessing what you think... I just read what you typed.

The left cannot prevail with free speech intact, which is why Dave is attacking it and why he's always lamenting "they" are winning.

People keep listing to other voices Dave would have silenced... and he's got sour grapes and butt hurt over it.

Let me help you out Dave.

The Constitution is very clear.

"Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech."

Thats a paraphrase, but thats what it says.

No law. None. Zero. Nada. Nope. None.

To hold any other opinion that Congress and government should make a law that abridges any speech of any kind is anti 1st Amendment.

Dave Dubya said...

Ah. you still want make this about a stupid CU movie. Your "straw movie", that is. You keep bringing it up no matter how many times I tell you I don't care about the movie. Let them show it. Let them show any movie. I have never advocated censoring any movie, short of porn in a grade school or something obviously harmful and sick.

There, are you happy? Or are you good with porn shown to grade school kids?

Well?

OK.

Your post. Your post says this.

Really? Where? This is what you claim:

Your argument is the same argument used for hundreds of years against free speech. That some monolithic government should tell us what we can say, how we can say it, who we can say it with, and when we can say it.

Show us where I said that.

YOU are the one who said it.

YOU are babbling like an irrational person, incapable of a simple request for a few words that corroborates your ridiculous accusation.

What. A. Freakin. Authoritarian.



Kulkuri said...

This comment thread reminds me of masturbation, altho with masturbation there usually will be some relief. Free will never be convinced that he is part of the problem as long as he thinks he is part of the solution!!!

Dave, time to do a new post and move on!!

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Kulkuri: "Free will never be convinced that he is part of the problem as long as he thinks he is part of the solution!!!"

So true. Free0352 believes that libertarianism (i.e., "tea party") is the consummate cure-all for everything and anything -- so much so that when anybody points out the obvious fly-in-the-ointment, he either completely ignores it or takes off on some tangent that's either utterly false or totally unrelated.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Inverted totalitarianism? That would mean totalitarianism turned upside down. Yes, I am for that. The opposite of totalitarian is freedom. I want that."

TO: Kulkuri: Above is just one of the latest examples. Free0352 obviously doesn't have a clue as to what "inverted totalitarianism" means. For some obscure reason he thinks it's the opposite of totalitarianism ("freedom"), instead of taking a few moments to read the review that I spoon-fed him about Wolin's book.

As previously mentioned, he wantonly chooses to ignore the truth -- in favor of an ideology that's unproven, untried, ill-conceived, unworkable, and which would be the defining death knell for the vast majority of Americans under the corporate-state and the monopolistic corporate practices of today. And, I believe he knows this.

That's why he's a tool.

Dave Dubya said...

This is how real free speech is suppressed and threatened:

From WSJ.

Occupy protesters win suit over arrest

New York City has agreed to pay nearly $600,000 to settle allegations that police wrongfully arrested a group of Occupy Wall Street protesters, marking what their lawyers Tuesday called the largest settlement to date in a single Occupy-related civil rights case.

The $583,000 pact involves 14 demonstrators who said police ordered them to leave but prevented them from doing so and arrested them in Lower Manhattan early on New Year’s Day 2012. The disorderly-conduct cases got dismissed, according to the protesters’ federal lawsuit, which argues that they were arrested “for expressing their views.”


These were the lucky one. Cecily McMillan sits in jail for reflexively elbowing a cop who grabbed her breast from behind.

Her bruises clearly showed police brutality, but photos of THAT wasn't allowed in her defense.

Meanwhile corporate secret "Free speech" flows unabated into our political process.

Dave Dubya said...

Washington Post, not WSJ.

free0352 said...

Davy,

What. A. Freakin. Authoritarian.


Free believes that government should have no authority over free speech. Free is authoritarian.

Doublethink.

you still want make this about a stupid CU movie.

I want to talk about the SCOTUS defending the 1st Amendment with its Citizen United decision, a decision you are against. I want to talk about McCain Feingold, a law you support that was counter to the 1st Amendment. Yeah, lets talk about that. I want to have a conversation on law, you want to twist and turn and make it about porn movies and kids or something... then you call me unintelligible. Who are you kidding here?

I have never advocated censoring any movie

Sure you have. Every time you've railed against the Citizens United decision you've done worse, you weren't supporting censorship you were supporting outright bans on films. You were supporting the iron fist of the FEC and a government in charge of political speech. The ultimate authority. Cops, guns, lawyers, the man. You're firmly in their corner. The government establishment, you are their drone like automaton spewing things you don't even understand like a good trained parrot.

Show us where I said that.

When you support McCain Feingold, when you oppose the Citizens United decision. You do it when you support a government in charge of speech.

Jeff

Not in the tea party, not a conservative. I'm a Libertarian, we're not the same thing. You reveal your ignorance of the American political landscape when you can't tell the difference.

As for your random link about Occupy, I'm not familiar with the case and I don't want to change the subject off of Citizens United and McCain Feingold... the real subject when it comes to campaign finance and its intersection with the rights of Americans to engage in political speech. You know, your own fucking topic.

Of course, you'd probably want to change that subject and quit defending the indefensible. How authoritarian of me to dare talk about... the actual laws and issues.

Instead we can just call names like you always do when you can't keep up.








Dave Dubya said...

The “Libertarian” and “Not conservative” Kochs finance the tea party. They are one and the same thing. And Free went so far as to travel to Lansing to physically support their union busting. The wet dream of conservatism. Free can pull the wool over his own eyes, but not ours.

His idiotic accusation stands as idiotic and unsupported as ever.

Your argument is the same argument used for hundreds of years against free speech. That some monolithic government should tell us what we can say, how we can say it, who we can say it with, and when we can say it.

Followed by a simple request. “Show us where I said that. YOU are the one who said it. YOU are babbling like an irrational person, incapable of a simple request for a few words that corroborates your ridiculous accusation. What. A. Freakin. Authoritarian.”

The authoritarian personality cannot even go back to reference his own words, let alone mine. His mission is to babble on incoherently. We can call this “Free Form Reasoning”.

As long as Free insists CU was only about a movie, and as long as he limits his definition of free speech as domestic and foreign corporate money, even in complete secrecy, buying and corrupting the political process and government, he will continue to babble like an idiot.

Not a peep of concern for the corporate police state crushing OWS. REAL free speech by common people is despised by the authoritarian radial right.

Hypocrisy.

”about Occupy, I'm not familiar with the case and I don't want to change the subject off of Citizens United and McCain Feingold... the real subject when it comes to campaign finance and its intersection with the rights of Americans to engage in political speech.”

Um, the "real subject" happens to be free speech, and its corporate corrupted definition. Free sees only money as free speech now. Tools do that well.

This from a guy who screamed free speech is for “SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT... which is why we have the 1st Amendment and TOTAL freedom of speech.”

Hypocrisy.

Well, we all know how much Free and the bankers and their government love free speech from the people.

The worst thing your companies here can do is screw up your credit. This is the laughable power they have that Dave is talking about. The worst thing in the world a bank can do is get a judgement against your bankruptcy.

Well with this appalling lack of insight and reality orientation we can ignore the rest of Free’s incoherent rambling.

The worse thing companies can do is kill people. The worse thing companies can do is poison our air and water. The worse thing for a democratic republic is to let companies write our laws.

So the worst thing in the world a bank can do is NOT destroy our economy and pensions? Well that should comfort the victims of the catastrophic FAILURE of capitalism by the Great Bush Financial Collapse, recession, and decline of the middle class.

Welcome to a hint of the de-regulated wasteland of the “Free Libertarian Corporate State”.

Free chooses to be ignorant of the concept of inverted totalitarianism. And with this appalling lack of intellectual curiosity we need never regard a word of his rabid ravings again.

free0352 said...

Free is for gay rights, immigration reform, reduced military footprint over seas, and he's an atheist. Free is a Conservative.

Doublethink.

Followed by a simple request.

I did. Or are you now claiming you've supported the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision and were against the McCain Feingold law and the FEC banning films all along? Which is it Dave?

REAL free speech by common people is despised by the authoritarian radial right.

Baseless accusation, stock and trade for Dave. I simply said I have no knowledge of the case and I'm not going to discuss something I don't know anything about... unlike Dave who is doing this now about Citizen's United.

Free sees only money as free speech now.

The FEC didn't ban Citizen's United's money, it banned its film. Unless you are backtracking, you support the law the FEC used to ban political speech. Thats not any kind of Democratic freedom of speech you claim to support, but it is in line with what Churchill said about people like you. That your speech is sacrosanct but any one else's is an outrage.

Now that is Hypocrisy.

And you can't deny it, the real power in America isn't corporate america, its government america. After all, they have the police, the guns, the lawyers, in most cases they have quantified immunity, and they have billions of dollars. Yeah, that's power, and that kind of power should not be in charge of speech. In fact no one ever should be in charge of speech.

Well that should comfort the victims of the catastrophic FAILURE of capitalism

I'm at a loss why the 2010 recession is reason to put government in charge of free speech?

Free chooses to be ignorant of the concept of inverted totalitarianism

I know what the opposite of totalitarianism is, and that is freedom. That's a concept you seem to be ignorant of. Here's a hint, freedom is when a government agency isn't in charge of it, doesn't regulate it, and you and others can do it whenever and however and with whatever with whoever they want.

You apparently are against this.









free0352 said...

Free is for gay rights, immigration reform, reduced military footprint over seas, and he's an atheist. Free is a Conservative.

Doublethink.

Followed by a simple request.

I did. Or are you now claiming you've supported the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision and were against the McCain Feingold law and the FEC banning films all along? Which is it Dave?

REAL free speech by common people is despised by the authoritarian radial right.

Baseless accusation, stock and trade for Dave. I simply said I have no knowledge of the case and I'm not going to discuss something I don't know anything about... unlike Dave who is doing this now about Citizen's United.

Free sees only money as free speech now.

The FEC didn't ban Citizen's United's money, it banned its film. Unless you are backtracking, you support the law the FEC used to ban political speech. Thats not any kind of Democratic freedom of speech you claim to support, but it is in line with what Churchill said about people like you. That your speech is sacrosanct but any one else's is an outrage.

Now that is Hypocrisy.

And you can't deny it, the real power in America isn't corporate america, its government america. After all, they have the police, the guns, the lawyers, in most cases they have quantified immunity, and they have billions of dollars. Yeah, that's power, and that kind of power should not be in charge of speech. In fact no one ever should be in charge of speech.

Well that should comfort the victims of the catastrophic FAILURE of capitalism

I'm at a loss why the 2010 recession is reason to put government in charge of free speech?

Free chooses to be ignorant of the concept of inverted totalitarianism

I know what the opposite of totalitarianism is, and that is freedom. That's a concept you seem to be ignorant of. Here's a hint, freedom is when a government agency isn't in charge of it, doesn't regulate it, and you and others can do it whenever and however and with whatever with whoever they want.

You apparently are against this.

free0352 said...

Free is for gay rights, immigration reform, reduced military footprint over seas, and he's an atheist. Free is a Conservative.

Doublethink.

Followed by a simple request.

I did. Or are you now claiming you've supported the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision and were against the McCain Feingold law and the FEC banning films all along? Which is it Dave?

REAL free speech by common people is despised by the authoritarian radial right.

Baseless accusation, stock and trade for Dave. I simply said I have no knowledge of the case and I'm not going to discuss something I don't know anything about... unlike Dave who is doing this now about Citizen's United.

Free sees only money as free speech now.

The FEC didn't ban Citizen's United's money, it banned its film. Unless you are backtracking, you support the law the FEC used to ban political speech. Thats not any kind of Democratic freedom of speech you claim to support, but it is in line with what Churchill said about people like you. That your speech is sacrosanct but any one else's is an outrage.

Now that is Hypocrisy.

And you can't deny it, the real power in America isn't corporate america, its government america. After all, they have the police, the guns, the lawyers, in most cases they have quantified immunity, and they have billions of dollars. Yeah, that's power, and that kind of power should not be in charge of speech. In fact no one ever should be in charge of speech.

Well that should comfort the victims of the catastrophic FAILURE of capitalism

I'm at a loss why the 2010 recession is reason to put government in charge of free speech?

Free chooses to be ignorant of the concept of inverted totalitarianism

I know what the opposite of totalitarianism is, and that is freedom. That's a concept you seem to be ignorant of. Here's a hint, freedom is when a government agency isn't in charge of it, doesn't regulate it, and you and others can do it whenever and however and with whatever with whoever they want.

You apparently are against this.

Dave Dubya said...

reduced military footprint overseas Right. That is hilarious. Unless we have a good war started by the neo-cons and Conservatives. LOL!! You are totally in their war-mongering camp.

Baseless accusation… I simply said I have no knowledge

Never heard of OWS? Ignorant of what the police did to their free speech and other rights?

Then you don’t have much place in a discussion of free speech.

Now THIS is a baseless accusation.

Your argument is the same argument used for hundreds of years against free speech. That some monolithic government should tell us what we can say, how we can say it, who we can say it with, and when we can say it.

We know you cannot support this accusation. All you do is squeal about corporate rights of personhood and electioneering. We disagree. You use the words “us” and “we”. This is bullshit and you know it. You and I are not the us and we you’re talking about. The only right you are howling about is a corporate right to greater power of speech than can be realized by any citizen, or even a town or state full of citizens.

We showed you who really influences legislation. You hide behind a willful ignorance.

I told you I don’t care about the Hillary film. It’s about a human right of political speech, and personhood itself, given to corporations. THAT is the effect of CU v FEC. Your narrow focus is a corporate movie that was restricted to 30 days. And that is all you see, apart from your other crazed delusions and wild accusations.

Here is the issue in Stevens’ dissent:

The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

The majority's approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907…


Someone else gets it too:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare to challenge our government to a trial by strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Not in the tea party, not a conservative. I'm a Libertarian, we're not the same thing."

Possibly. You may not be identical, true, but you're fraternal twins.

(I do recall you traveling to D.C. within the last couple of years for a tea party rally. You were bragging about you and some other oafs beating up someone who disagreed with your ideology. That's certainly not libertarian behavior, and must be why I mistook you for a tea party scoundrel. The shoe certainly fit!)

free0352 said...

You may not be identical, true, but you're fraternal twins.

Libertarians are diametrically opposed to at least half of the GOP party platform. They are twins.

Doublethink.

reduced military footprint overseas Right.

Yes, because I think a total military pull out of Korea and Japan is a good idea. How neocon of me.

Doublethink.

Never heard of OWS?

I'm totally unaware of the specific case you linked. Totally, I know nothing about it. I don't even know who the plaintiffs or the defendants to the case in the lawsuit you mentioned are. I know none of the facts. Therefore, I'm not in a position to have an opinion on it. My general opinion on OWS is they have a right to exist, and a duty to follow codes and statues just like everyone else. It would seem they won their suit, so that would suggest the system worked in their favor. But again, I don't know the particulars of the case so I'm in no position to talk about it or answer questions about it.

We know you cannot support this accusation

Do you support the McCain Fiengold law? If you did, then I just supported my accusation.

I told you I don’t care about the Hillary film

Clearly, you support a law that would have banned it.

Your narrow focus...

Is on the court case, yes. That is of course what CU vs Fec was. Its the crux and heart of the issue. Not the fairy dust and unicorns you want to talk about. the reality is you preach free speech out of one side of your mouth and out of the other you support a law that had the FEC running around as the free speech police.

Hypocrisy.

Here is the issue in Stevens’ dissent:

There is an "issue" in his dissent, I thought it was a legal opinion. Here is from THE MAJORITY opinion... the one that became actual law.

Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment ’s meaning and purpose.

Not supporting the majority opinion is the support of an attack on "The First Amendment's meaning and purpose." Its an attack on the First Amendment itself... something central to the idea of a free and democratic society you claim to support and actually oppose in theory.

free0352 said...

You may not be identical, true, but you're fraternal twins.

Libertarians are diametrically opposed to at least half of the GOP party platform. They are twins.

Doublethink.

reduced military footprint overseas Right.

Yes, because I think a total military pull out of Korea and Japan is a good idea. How neocon of me.

Doublethink.

Never heard of OWS?

I'm totally unaware of the specific case you linked. Totally, I know nothing about it. I don't even know who the plaintiffs or the defendants to the case in the lawsuit you mentioned are. I know none of the facts. Therefore, I'm not in a position to have an opinion on it. My general opinion on OWS is they have a right to exist, and a duty to follow codes and statues just like everyone else. It would seem they won their suit, so that would suggest the system worked in their favor. But again, I don't know the particulars of the case so I'm in no position to talk about it or answer questions about it.

We know you cannot support this accusation

Do you support the McCain Fiengold law? If you did, then I just supported my accusation.

I told you I don’t care about the Hillary film

Clearly, you support a law that would have banned it.

Your narrow focus...

Is on the court case, yes. That is of course what CU vs Fec was. Its the crux and heart of the issue. Not the fairy dust and unicorns you want to talk about. the reality is you preach free speech out of one side of your mouth and out of the other you support a law that had the FEC running around as the free speech police.

Hypocrisy.

Here is the issue in Stevens’ dissent:

There is an "issue" in his dissent, I thought it was a legal opinion. Here is from THE MAJORITY opinion... the one that became actual law.

Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment ’s meaning and purpose.

Not supporting the majority opinion is the support of an attack on "The First Amendment's meaning and purpose." Its an attack on the First Amendment itself... something central to the idea of a free and democratic society you claim to support and actually oppose in theory.

free0352 said...

You may not be identical, true, but you're fraternal twins.

Libertarians are diametrically opposed to at least half of the GOP party platform. They are twins.

Doublethink.

reduced military footprint overseas Right.

Yes, because I think a total military pull out of Korea and Japan is a good idea. How neocon of me.

Doublethink.

Never heard of OWS?

I'm totally unaware of the specific case you linked. Totally, I know nothing about it. I don't even know who the plaintiffs or the defendants to the case in the lawsuit you mentioned are. I know none of the facts. Therefore, I'm not in a position to have an opinion on it. My general opinion on OWS is they have a right to exist, and a duty to follow codes and statues just like everyone else. It would seem they won their suit, so that would suggest the system worked in their favor. But again, I don't know the particulars of the case so I'm in no position to talk about it or answer questions about it.

We know you cannot support this accusation

Do you support the McCain Fiengold law? If you did, then I just supported my accusation.

I told you I don’t care about the Hillary film

Clearly, you support a law that would have banned it.

Your narrow focus...

Is on the court case, yes. That is of course what CU vs Fec was. Its the crux and heart of the issue. Not the fairy dust and unicorns you want to talk about. the reality is you preach free speech out of one side of your mouth and out of the other you support a law that had the FEC running around as the free speech police.

Hypocrisy.

Here is the issue in Stevens’ dissent:

There is an "issue" in his dissent, I thought it was a legal opinion. Here is from THE MAJORITY opinion... the one that became actual law.

Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment ’s meaning and purpose.

Not supporting the majority opinion is the support of an attack on "The First Amendment's meaning and purpose." Its an attack on the First Amendment itself... something central to the idea of a free and democratic society you claim to support and actually oppose in theory.

free0352 said...

Any other course would prolong the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused by §441b’s corporate expenditure ban. This conclusion is further supported by the following: (1) the uncertainty caused by the Government’s litigating position; (2) substantial time would be required to clarify §441b’s application on the points raised by the Government’s position in order to avoid any chilling effect caused by an improper interpretation; and (3) because speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process, any speech arguably within the reach of rules created for regulating political speech is chilled.

The opinion continues:

Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions.

It continues:

Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion.

This means Dave, you support a direct double standard of law, that not only violates the First Amendments protections of speech, but also its Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Unequal protection, and speech police. That is your foundation supposition Dave.

The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765 , and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button , 371 U. S. 415 . Addressing challenges to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Buckley Court upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates, 18 U. S. C. §608(b), recognizing a governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. 424 U. S., at 25–26. However, the Court invalidated §608(e)’s expenditure ban, which applied to individuals, corporations, and unions, because it “fail[ed] to serve any substantial governmental interest in stemming the reality or appearance of corruption in the electoral process,” id. , at 47–48.

The Court affirmed that that people and their property are under constitutional protection. You are arguing not only against the CU vs FEC, but also NAACP vs Button which would have banned the NAACP's political activity during the civil rights movement. Your unintended consequence had the court ruled your way in that case would have been to drive a stake through the heart of the american civil rights movement.

There would be Jim Crow in the American south today if you had your way. After all, if the NAACP is a "corporation" with no First Amendment protections, then it has no right to do what it does. Advocate for black people.

free0352 said...

Any other course would prolong the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused by §441b’s corporate expenditure ban. This conclusion is further supported by the following: (1) the uncertainty caused by the Government’s litigating position; (2) substantial time would be required to clarify §441b’s application on the points raised by the Government’s position in order to avoid any chilling effect caused by an improper interpretation; and (3) because speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process, any speech arguably within the reach of rules created for regulating political speech is chilled.

The opinion continues:

Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions.

It continues:

Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion.

This means Dave, you support a direct double standard of law, that not only violates the First Amendments protections of speech, but also its Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Unequal protection, and speech police. That is your foundation supposition Dave.

The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765 , and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button , 371 U. S. 415 . Addressing challenges to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Buckley Court upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates, 18 U. S. C. §608(b), recognizing a governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. 424 U. S., at 25–26. However, the Court invalidated §608(e)’s expenditure ban, which applied to individuals, corporations, and unions, because it “fail[ed] to serve any substantial governmental interest in stemming the reality or appearance of corruption in the electoral process,” id. , at 47–48.

The Court affirmed that that people and their property are under constitutional protection. You are arguing not only against the CU vs FEC, but also NAACP vs Button which would have banned the NAACP's political activity during the civil rights movement. Your unintended consequence had the court ruled your way in that case would have been to drive a stake through the heart of the american civil rights movement.

There would be Jim Crow in the American south today if you had your way. After all, if the NAACP is a "corporation" with no First Amendment protections, then it has no right to do what it does. Advocate for black people.

Dave Dubya said...

Yes, Free. We get your message.

certain preferred speakers

Just what does that mean?

Now we have non-human certain preferred speakers with superior rights of speech by proportional wealth.

Corporations are now de facto "certain preferred speakers". It is "Unequal protection" if there ever was any.

But you don't get that at all, do you?

Rights are human rights and equal rights, or they don't exist.

We need to fix this or submit to corporate rule. That is what we get when their "free speech" allows them to buy candidates and write legislation.

That aint a Republic, is it?

Corporatocracy is here, and it prevails.

That is what we have. That is what will reduce us to neo-feudalism of lords and serfs, distinguished by the power of wealth as free speech.

I am not advocating a return to McCain/Feingold. I am advocating a constitutional amendment that assures human rights are for humans, not corporate privilege of superior speech and power.

And we hold no illusions about it. We know changing it is futile.

Human rights shall from now on be subservient to corporate rights and power.

Your side won. They now own the place. You should be celebrating.

This is the willful blind mess to corruption you support.

The only type of corruption Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties.

If you buy that, I have some real cheap land in Florida for you.

So Roberts, is telling us there's no expectation of favors behind all that donated money; that "free speech" is simply their selfless support of democracy?

Yeah, right.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Yes, Free. We get your message."

Yes, three times for one, two on the other. He was so proud of his copy-and-paste job, he wanted to reread it again (and again, as mentioned).


"Your side won. They now own the place. You should be celebrating."

He's happy. Those who are tools are thrilled. And we all know that he's one of the corporate-state's biggest advocates.

It has occurred to me that Free0352 isn't so much against "big government", as he is against a government that serves the people -- meaning real people. He's in favor of more corporate control of the government...certainly not less. That's very apparent. He loves the Military-Industrial-Security Complex.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Libertarians are diametrically opposed to at least half of the GOP party platform."

If you say so, but I'm a thousandfold more worried about the half you agree with them about, than the half you're opposed to.

That's what makes me lump you with the tea party. (Okay, I'll make it easier for you to understand this time...you may not be the same, but both are seeded from the same source.)

free0352 said...

He's in favor of more corporate control of the government...certainly not less

That fails a very basic logical test.

If I want less government, there will be less for anyone to control. And make no mistake, he who controls the government controls the people.

If there is less government, there is less control of the people by any third party or entity.

Your system simply gives elites yo claim to distrust unlimited power over law.

Doublethink.


but I'm a thousandfold more worried about the half you agree with them about, than the half you're opposed to.

Funny, because the real fear should be the things Democrats and Republicans agree on-

More government.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "If I want less government, there will be less for anyone to control."

Therefore, applying your basic logic:

If I want no standing armies, there will be less war.

Less war means a lot less military spending.

A lot less military spending means a viable road to balancing the budget.


"Funny, because the real fear should be the things Democrats and Republicans agree on - More government."

"More government" means more military spending, and more spending on the security apparatus.

I agree, let's cut it to the bone.

Dave Dubya said...

Let's pretend:

If government is reduced to the point it cannot exercise its constitutional authority to tax and regulate commerce, then corporations will have more power than government.

If corporations have power over government, and if corporations are "persons" with inalienable rights to exercise their power, then we have dictatorship by corporatocracy.

Who am I kidding? This is not pretending. This is what is happening.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Who am I kidding? This is not pretending. This is what is happening."

Although Free0352 pretends it's not happening.

He lives within his own ideological bubble and refuses to acknowledge the reality right in front of his face. Instead, he blames "big government" (which he still hasn't been able to define with any clarity), refusing to acknowledge that it's big money that has corrupted and metastasized itself throughout all three branches of government.

But it stands to reason...he's a tool of the corporate-state. Only a tool would refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

free0352 said...

If I want no standing armies, there will be less war.

If our enemies agreed to this, this would be true.

But they don't.

I agree, let's cut it to the bone

If you can think of ways to secure the nation without the military, let me know. Of course, I'm for ending the entire new deal and taking government to the level of 1925. If the military we had at that time could do the job, I'd be for it today- it certainly would be easier on the tax payers. I just don't see how America could do what is required of it today without it.

Instead, he blames "big government" (which he still hasn't been able to define with any clarity)

Big government is any government service or program that transfers wealth from on person's pocket to another without any expressly rendered service to justify wages or needless services created to justify spending. Also, all taxation from any person over 10% of their gross income.


Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "If our enemies agreed to this, this would be true."

The United States government creates its enemies. It's good business. Ike was spot-on about this.

I'd be an enemy, too, if a foreign nation invaded and occupied my country. You would too.


"If you can think of ways to secure the nation without the military, let me know."

We've already had this discussion. Start with no standing armies. As mentioned, we keep creating our own enemies. It's time to stop.


"Of course, I'm for ending the entire new deal and taking government to the level of 1925."

I know you are. I'm not.

The 1920s were another era of great income inequality -- like now. The unregulated speculation of the capital markets led to devastation in the 1930s. We've already been through a similar scenario the last few years. No thanks!

free0352 said...

The United States government creates its enemies

Yup, the illuminati and skull and bones and the Koch brothers. Oh and the jews. Can't forget the jews. They're all in on it.

Your tin foil hat is showing.

if a foreign nation invaded and occupied my country. You would too.

I'm sure Japan, Germany, and Iraq would have loved us had we just given peace a chance and that Illuminati/Jew/Koch alliance hadn't made them hate us. What was I thinking?

Start with no standing armies.

Of course, because not having an army and being the richest country on earth would totally not entice invaders.

The 1920s were another era of great income inequality -- like now

I don't give a shit about income equality. You'd rather have the poor poorer so long as the rich were less rich. But hey, we've had Democrat hegemony for the last 6 years. If that shit got worse it was on the left's watch.

Oh I forgot, Obama and Reid are really closet neocons working for the Jew/Illuminati/Koch secret BusHitlerBurton conspiracy. I forgot.




Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Yup, the illuminati and skull and bones and the Koch brothers...."

What does the Illuminati, Yale's Skull & Bones secret society, and the Koch Brothers have to do with the Military-Industrial-Security Complex? I don't know. You seem to know a lot about it. Would you like to share?


"Your tin foil hat is showing."

As was told to the American people during the waning days of his presidency, the 34th president of the U.S. forewarned the country that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex."

As I previously mentioned, he was right-on-the-money about that [no pun intended]. Unfortunately, the influence was greater than the opposition.

Now, if you'd like to share how the Illuminati, Skull & Bones, and the Koch brothers specifically play into this, please share.


"I'm sure Japan, Germany, and Iraq would have loved us had we just given peace a chance and that Illuminati/Jew/Koch alliance hadn't made them hate us. What was I thinking?"

The fact that you categorized Iraq with pre-WWII Germany and Japan, as being dangerous to the U.S., is absolutely disingenuous on your part.

Yeah, I wonder myself, what were you thinking?! (Well, besides being deceitful and thinking I wouldn't notice your willful ignorance?)


"Of course, because not having an army and being the richest country on earth would totally not entice invaders."

There you go again...did I mention having no army at all? I don't believe so.

As I've told you on so many occasions, you really have a reading comprehension challenge.

Anyway, I would think having the world's best and most sophisticated navy and air force, not to mention the largest and most deadly nuclear arsenal, would lend itself to dissuading "invaders" or whoever you had in mind.

Please, share this with us too! I'd love to see who you think is going to storm our shores. ;-)

You're an absolute riot! (Paranoid, too.)


"Oh I forgot, Obama and Reid are really closet neocons working for the Jew/Illuminati/Koch secret BusHitlerBurton conspiracy. I forgot."

Can't attest to that, but again, if you have secret knowledge, please share with the rest of us.

Nonetheless, the sitting president along with the vast majority of Congress members, are corporatists.

How you keep missing this very important fact is beyond me.

Oh, I forgot! You haven't missed it! That's why you're a tool...

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

As was told to the American people during the waning days of his presidency, the 34th president of the U.S. forewarned the country that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex."

Lets listen to some other stuff Ike said.

"The greatest threat to mankind is collectivism."

"The first order of business is the elimination of the annual deficit. We must cut spending and taxes."

"Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences."

-Introducing the domino theory, that if Vietnam fell to communism, the rest of Southeast Asia would soon follow. Press conference, April 7, 1954.

"Communism and freedom . . . signify two titanic ideas, two ways of life, two totally irreconcilable beliefs in the nature and destiny of man. The one—freedom—knows man as a creature of God, blessed with a free and individual destiny, governed by eternal moral and natural laws. The second—Communism—claims man to be an animal creature of the state, curses him for his stubborn instinct for independence, governs with tyranny."

And lets talk about his "Military Industrial Complex" quote.

He said it right after he advocated going to war in Vietnam - in the same speech.

So by all means, lets listen to Ike, and fight collectivism and communism. Lets stamp it right out. Abroad but most especially here at home.

Dave Dubya said...

So history teaches us Ike was right and wrong.

So by all means, lets listen to Ike, and fight collectivism and communism. Lets stamp it right out. Abroad but most especially here at home.

Free and the American Nazi party and KKK are tight on this crazy paranoid agenda.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "And lets talk about his 'Military Industrial Complex' quote."

Yes, and let's keep it restricted to this, please. Just because I quoted a Republican president to validate and affirm that the Military-Industrial-Security-Complex is very real, and very much alive, doesn't open it up to other quotations from the same man about unrelated subjects.

Hey, I'm sure he talked about his favorite dog, and the sport he enjoyed watching the most, also, but I wouldn't expect you to divert the discussion to Weimaraners and baseball.

Let's keep it redistricted to the very real M-I-S-C, which is intrinsically linked to the corporate-state that we find ourselves governed by today.


"So by all means, lets listen to Ike, and fight collectivism and communism. Lets stamp it right out. Abroad but most especially here at home."

I asked you in my comment from yesterday to share with us whom you believed was going to storm our shores. Based upon your paranoia about communism, I sense you're expecting Cuban soldiers to invade South Beach. ;-)

As far as fighting "collectivism" at home, you're asking readers to join your craziness and fight against people working together and helping each other. No thanks! I like cooperation and sharing within a society. As I mentioned on another post of Dave's, it's called "civilization".

If you, and the rest of your ideologues prefer "goin' it alone", there's plenty of terrain in Alaska where you can do your own thing. Besides, it would offer you the opportunity to share special moments with your favorite gal, Sarah. The two of you could sit and watch Russia together, making sure that former Soviet expatriates don't make a beach landing. ;-)


Dave Dubya: "Free and the American Nazi party and KKK are tight on this crazy paranoid agenda."

In all seriousness, I suspect that "living in a car" and all the extenuating circumstances relating to being homeless as a kid, and the emotional turmoil and scarring this kind of living creates, may have a lot to do with Free0352's suspicious nature about outsiders and his paranoia regarding their intentions.

In his world, everybody is an adversary.

free0352 said...

Just because I quoted a Republican president to validate and affirm that the Military-Industrial-Security-Complex is very real, and very much alive,

Well in the same speech Ike said

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

... and yet I don't hear you worrying about the educational industrial complex... which hold more public debt than almost any other industry and are the only loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

And I don't hear you talking about the welfare industrial complex he mentioned in the same speech when he said

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.

So beware a huge arms industry, but don't worry so much about communism, and government over reach right? Right? But its typical of the two of you to take quote out of context to make a dishonest point. Its your hallmark really. You've done it with Jefferson and you've done it with Ike.

I asked you in my comment from yesterday to share with us whom you believed was going to storm our shores.

Anyone who wants to if we don't have a standing Army Jeff... and make no mistake you've argued often to disband the Army.

you're asking readers to join your craziness and fight against people working together and helping each other.

Its not crazy to expect that process to be voluntary, and not governed by elites in a capital regulating things they could not create or understand. The system you advocate would put people like yourselves in charge... people who who don't understand anything, can't produce anything, and yet are very good at giving orders.





Dave Dubya said...

in charge... people who who don't understand anything, can't produce anything, and yet are very good at giving orders.

Like Bush and Cheney. Wrong about almost everything. But it's not about right and wrong. It's about wealth and might.

Kulkuri said...

Looks like they got their money's worth with the court this time with their rulings in favor of business and against workers. All I can say is be careful what you wish for, it may turn around and bite you in the ass!!

Dave Dubya said...

Kulkuri,
Gee, whodathunk a corporatist Federalist Society court would be so pro-corporate and anti worker?

The Supreme Court has become a corporate tribunal with these clowns.

free0352 said...

Like Bush and Cheney...

YES. People like Bush and Cheney who get to regulate things they don't understand.

I'm for not doing that. People should "regulate" their own lives.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...and yet I don't hear you worrying about the educational industrial complex..."

You don't "hear me" getting on a soapbox about this because it all comes back to the corporatization of every thing in America -- college education not being exempt. Obviously, it's one of the next big bubbles out there waiting to pop.

It's just another byproduct of the corporate-state.


"And I don't hear you talking about the welfare industrial complex he mentioned in the same speech..."

If you mean the subsidization of corporate America, I think both Dave and I have touched upon this subject several times.

Once again, it's another byproduct of our esteemed corporate-state.


"So beware a huge arms industry, but don't worry so much about communism, and government over reach right?"

Communism? Are you still worried about Cuba? Please tell me what other nations practice communism that should have me concerned.

And yes, I do worry about government "overreach", but I realize where the overreach is derived and who the overreach is designed to serve. You don't -- obviously. And if you do, than it adds credence to my accusation that you're nothing but a tool.

Once again, welcome to the corporate-state.


"But its typical of the two of you to take quote out of context to make a dishonest point."

Taken out of context?!?! It is the context!

"'In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,' he said in his farewell address. 'The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.'

'Eisenhower's farewell address, in the final analysis, is about internal threats posed by vested interests to the democratic process,' he says. 'But above all, it is addressed to citizens — and about citizenship.'

'Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals,' Eisenhower said in his address.
"

It doesn't get any more explicit, or to the point, than this.

Again, welcome to the corporate-state.


"...and make no mistake you've argued often to disband the Army."

Show me. I've contended we should not allow "standing armies" (as did Jefferson and Madison). There is a difference.


"The system you advocate would put people like yourselves in charge... people who who don't understand anything, can't produce anything, and yet are very good at giving orders."

I'm not clear as to what you think I'm advocating -- other than a democracy that's unencumbered and not influenced by corporate persons and their speech ("money").

I understand a lot more than you, apparently.

I produce plenty in the business I'm involved in. For you to make a statement that I don't, when you have no idea what I do, is ludicrous.

Bryan Davies said...

Hello
My name is Mr Bryan P Davies, i am 33 years old and i based in Canada. I want to notify the general public how i was helped by Illuminati temple in regaining back my business position after been sacked for about a year and six months.
I have been in pains and trouble since when i was sacked from in the company where i work called Canada Deposit Insurance corporation in Ottawa(headquarter) in Canada as an agency executive. I have been been hopeless, financially down through out that year. But one day as i was browsing through the Internet i came across the post of Mr Morgan an Illuminati agent saying you can be famous, rich and successful in life by been a member of the great Illuminati temple, immediately i contacted and i explained everything to him and he recommended me and he helped me by
initiating me to the great temple and also he gave me all the guidelines and told me their place worship. With the help of Mr Morgan i was able to go to temple and there i was initiated fully as a complete Illuminati member. Surprisingly 40 hours after i was initiated, i receive a call from the company that i have been accepted back again as the agency executive of the company at first i was shocked and surprised but latter regain myself, i was told to resume work the next day by 7:00am. Starting from that day i am my family had been living a joyful and a luxurious life. So viewers who are interested in becoming a member of the Illuminati and also wants to be famous, rich, wealthy and gain power should peacefully contact Mr Morgan on his email address (Allmightyilluminattitemple@gmail.com or you call him on +2348054049995). Be a member of the the great temple of the Illuminati and achieve all your desire and accomplish your dreams. Thanks to the great temple of the Illuminati.....

Agent Mark said...

Are you a business man or an artist, Politician and you want to become big, Powerful and famous in the world, join us to become one of our official member today. you shall be given an ideal chance to visit the illuminati and his representative after registrations is completed by you, no sacrifice, or human life needed, Illuminati brotherhood brings along wealth and famous in life, you have a full access to eradicate poverty away from your life now. It's only a member who is initiated into the church of illuminati that have the authority to bring any member to the church, so before you contact anybody you must be linked by who is already a member, Join us today and realize your dreams. we also help out our member in protection of drugs pushing, once you become a member you will be rich and famous for the rest of your life, illuminati make there member happy so i will want you all to also be a member of the illuminati Thanks contact email on illuminatix2x@gmail.com