PDA

View Full Version : Veterans Today: Call For Immediate Arrest of 5 Supreme Court Justices for Treason




FrankRep
01-24-2010, 02:03 AM
CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/22/call-for-immediate-arrest-of-5-supreme-court-justices-for-treason/)
THE FIVE THAT STAND AGAINST ALL AMERICANS, THE “MAFIA” JUDGES


Gordon Duff | Veterans Today
January 22, 2010


Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.

Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear. The “corporation/person” that the 5 judges, the “neocon” purists, have turned the United States over to isn’t even American. Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks. They don’t vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school. Anyone who thinks these things are people is insane. Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 “justices” have done just that. We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law. Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States.

No American soldier can ever go to war fighting for a Chinese hedge fund, a German bank or a Saudi Arabian fertilizer company. Will our new debates in Congress be between members representing the opium warlords against the Columbian cartels? Their cash, which long ago has infiltrated one major corporation or bank after another is now heading for your local representative. How important do you think secure borders for America are for these new policial “influencers?”

For years we complained about AIPAC, the Sierra Club, the NRA, trial lawyers, trade unions, NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) and the churches that got involved in politics. Behind all of these were people, American citizens, and, on some occasions, Americans who fought for their country, raised kids here and were invested in the survival of America although they didn’t always act that way. This was an American problem. Now we aren’t even sure we have an America anymore.

Anyone who believes that a massive flood of corporate money into politics won’t throw control of both houses of Congress into the hands of the wealthy nations that are also our primary strategic enemies, you know the ones, the ones loaded with oil cash, the ones with 10 cent an hour labor and legal systems that shoot first and ask questions later. They just were told they can buy the United States, not just our government, but our military, and the lives of our soldiers. They can now make our laws, raise our taxes, decide on our civil rights, where we can live, if we can own guns, how late we stay up, where and what we drive and, eventually, how we think. The Supreme Court has given foreign owned corporations the eventual power to silence us all.

When a corporation commits a crime, nobody goes to jail. When wars come, they don’t fight, they simply rake in cash. When children are poisoned or workers are killed, they seldom even pay a fine. However, when they want something, billions in tax money for “bail outs” or fat contracts or special laws, they have always gotten it. It has been a battle to control corporations for 140 years. Sometimes the American people have lost, sometimes they have won. Our greatest presidents are the ones who reined in corporate power and kept the influence of money over humanity in check. Think of Theordore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy.

Without them we would be living in work camps, stuck at machines all day, our children at our sides. We would be paid in beans and salt pork, dying at 40 in filth like people around the world who live in countries controlled by corporations.

Based on the justices that we want prosecuted being Reagan/Bush “conservatives” you would think this is a liberal/conservative issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing less “conservative” has ever been done by a branch of our government. There is nothing “conservative” about our Supreme Court going insane and abandoning our Constitution and making medical decisions, not to give life to a fetus, but to a bank account.

This is nothing but an extremely unAmerican and unpatriotic group of thieves believing that Americans had given up so many of their civil liberties in silence during the Global War on Terror scam that opening the “Pandora’s Box” of class conflict could now be done with nobody saying a word. Their “corporate person” is now a Baron or Duke, the great landlords of the medieval period. Americans are now destined for serfdom. Their political and economic theories, what are they? Is it conservatism or feudalism?

We are already burdened with a representative government that has tied itself to the money spigot because of the incredible cost of media exposure in campaigns. People running for office in ancient Rome would purchase thousands of animals for slaughter in the arena. Mass executions were staged as media events for political campaigns. In fact, the arenas in every Roman city were built for that purpose, today replaced by television and the internet. We thought we had changed since that time. We were wrong.

The framers of the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the Electoral College and originally had Senators appointed, not elected, to protect the wealthy from having their money and land seized by the masses who would otherwise have controlled the government. This was the 1780s. The only “democracy” we knew about was ancient Athens, where the majority of the people living there were slaves. 27 Amendments later, including the Bill of Rights, we have worked to define justice and decency. Generations have fought and died to keep life in our imperfect system from 1780. Who would have thought that 5 people could destroy it all?

Political debate in America is sometimes extreme, often bordering on violence. Feelings are high. How many times have you heard people threaten to leave the country because “their America” no longer exists. We know that few really mean it. When faced with a real threat, no people on earth are to be feared like Americans. When help is needed, no people on earth are to be trusted and relied on like Americans. This is the pride we have in our country and ourselves. We never agree on anything. We aren’t supposed to, we are Americans.

Everything we built has been based on a balance, race, religion, ethnicity, social standing, political beliefs, regional interests, all striving and compromising to build something we are all secretly very proud of, something all of us are willing to fight for and many are. Americans all agree on one thing, that our government in Washington is out of control and has been for some time. We all have different ideas on this but agree on the fact itself. We wonder where the politicians come from, men too often “less great” than those of the past, in fact, less great than average. Decisions are continually made that most find puzzling and, in fact, are driven by a rotten underbelly of corruption and self interest.

Now, 5 members of the Supreme Court, people none of us voted for, a group that is answerable to no authority and, seemingly, no law or moral code, a group famous for immoderation, poor judgement and low personal integrity has, either through blindness, avarice or insanity clearly done something so malicious, so unjust and so utterly inconsistent with our Constitution that they, themselves, have become an “enemy of the people.”

What is their power? What they have done is not within the scope of the authority given through the Constitution. Their acts are outside the law, their acts are those of a conspiracy, their acts are meant to diminish our freedoms, our sacred institutions and even endanger our lives. Typically, such acts are called crimes and those who commit them are criminals.

What could drive judges, albeit judges appointed with little thought as part of a cheap political ploy, to abandon any American consitutency? Corporations have no religion. They care nothing for the unborn. They have no allegiance to a flag, a family or any moral ethic. They serve no person, owe no loyalty other that to stockholders, shadowy groups of Russian oligarchs, Chinese banks, corrupt dictators grown fat on the spoils of their people or the international consortiums of bond and currency speculators who have, for decades, abandoned any economic law to build the etherial “house of cards” we call the “world economy.”

The control of the American electoral process has been given to them. No serving politican can survive now standing against them. Years ago “they” bought our newspapers and our television networks. Fact and truth became whatever they wanted us to believe. “They” gained control of what many thought and what almost all of us see and hear. That wasn’t enough. They wanted it all. As their control has grown, so has terrorism, continual war, economic poverty for millions Americans and insensitivity to justice and humanity. Who would expect anything else from a corporation with no blood, no heart and no face?

The Founding Fathers led America on the path to freedom and eventual democracy. The Federalists limited the ability of an impetuous electorate to seize power and “reform” America into chaos and anarchy. This system of government was predicated on the belief that love of country would always burn brightly in America and with progress, freedom and bounty was the ineviable reward of our industry. It is only now too obvious that so much has happened that was unforseen. It is not a denial of our traditions to correct wrongs when we find them. This was how America was created. We are drowning in wrongs, we all finally agree on this.

The time is now. Party politics have failed. Political theories are little more than empty rhetoric meant to mislead and misinform. State has become church and church has become state. State is less just and church less godly. All we have left is “we, the People.” This is how we began and it is now all we have to move forward. It is time for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention to establish, not just a Republic, but a Democracy, by and for the people, the American people, rich and poor, a nation loyal to itself, not tied to corporations, a vast military industrial complex or endless foreign alliances.

If it is to be a genuinely conservative nation, one with individual freedoms, a small government, fewer taxes and more opportunity, a nation as intended, then we will all have to live with it. The bloated corpse we are creating in Washington is emitting a stench we can no longer abide. We will be saying goodbye to our Supreme Court, our seniority system in Congress and our political machines pretending to be “parties” and hello to paper ballots, a free press, term limits and the ability to yank a scoundrel out of office when we catch one.


SOURCE:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/22/call-for-immediate-arrest-of-5-supreme-court-justices-for-treason/

FrankRep
01-24-2010, 02:13 AM
Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections (http://www.infowars.com/manchurian-candidates-supreme-court-allows-china-and-others-unlimited-spending-in-us-elections/)


Greg Palast | Infowars.com
January 23, 2010


In today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as “natural persons”, i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.

The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that’s already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and “bundling” of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.

The Court’s decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.

I’m losing sleep over the millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation’s U.S. unit; or from the maker of “New Order” fashions, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC’s federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.

But under today’s Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.

Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court’s new rules, progressive list serves won’t stand a chance against the resources of new “citizens” such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by “street names.”

George Bush’s former Solicitor General Ted Olson argued the case to the court on behalf of Citizens United, a corporate front that funded an attack on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary. Olson’s wife died on September 11, 2001 on the hijacked airliner that hit the Pentagon. Maybe it was a bit crude of me, but I contacted Olson’s office to ask how much “Al Qaeda, Inc.” should be allowed to donate to support the election of his local congressman.

Olson has not responded.

The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to “mega-corporations” owned by foreign governments. Olson offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.

Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate treasury, dump money into ballot battles.

Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed to corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund billionaires, for example, who typically operate through dozens of corporate vessels, may now give unlimited sums through each of these “unnatural” creatures.

And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.

In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama’s visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama’s health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, “Who are these guys?”
We’ll never know.

Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom that the Court has injected into the system by its expansive decision in Citizens United.

We’ve been there. The 1994 election brought Newt Gingrich to power in a GOP takeover of the Congress funded by a very strange source.

Congressional investigators found that in crucial swing races, Democrats had fallen victim to a flood of last-minute attack ads funded by a group called, “Coalition for Our Children’s Future.” The $25 million that paid for those ads came, not from concerned parents, but from a corporation called “Triad Inc.”

Evidence suggests Triad Inc. was the front for the ultra-right-wing billionaire Koch Brothers and their private petroleum company, Koch Industries. Had the corporate connection been proven, the Kochs and their corporation could have faced indictment under federal election law. As of today, such money-poisoned politicking has become legit.

So it’s not just un-Americans we need to fear but the Polluter-Americans, Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and Hedge-Americans that could manipulate campaigns while hidden behind corporate veils. And if so, our future elections, while nominally a contest between Republicans and Democrats, may in fact come down to a three-way battle between China, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs.


SOURCE:
http://www.infowars.com/manchurian-candidates-supreme-court-allows-china-and-others-unlimited-spending-in-us-elections/

NYgs23
01-24-2010, 02:36 AM
Those articles are total bunk. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2508644&posted=1#post2508644)

Perium
01-24-2010, 02:41 AM
I agree, those articles are bunk

FrankRep
01-24-2010, 02:44 AM
I would like to see Ron Paul's view on the ruling.

inibo
01-24-2010, 03:05 AM
As long as there is a government for sale there will be people willing to buy it regardless of what the supreme court forbids or allows.

langoley
01-24-2010, 04:53 PM
As I said,for years the lobbyist and unions have been buying elections,so now the corporations can level the playing field!!!That is what the DEMOCRAPS are mad about.

Meatwasp
01-24-2010, 05:16 PM
Those articles are total bunk. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2508644&posted=1#post2508644)

I also agree it is bunk.

angelatc
01-24-2010, 05:38 PM
I would like to see Ron Paul's view on the ruling.

Will you settle for the Judge? YouTube - A Non-Deranged, Law-Based Special Comment! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFGpoxnbfeI)

Galileo Galilei
01-24-2010, 05:41 PM
What about the other 4?

3 followed the 1st amendment partially, while the other 4 not at all.

Note that Clarance Thomas, in his statement, said he would strike down all the campaign laws that congress is unathorized to make.

"Congress shall make no law..."

sofia
01-24-2010, 05:46 PM
this is an GREAT ruling!...Unless you agree with McCain-Feingold and Obama??

it takes power away from the media....CFL can attack and endorse candidates now...

the communbists on the court were in the minority...Ginsburg....Sotomayor...

akforme
01-24-2010, 05:50 PM
I would like to see Ron Paul's view on the ruling.

Here's his opinion when it was upheld by scotus a few years ago
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=336

RM918
01-24-2010, 05:52 PM
Like a lot of other things in government law, it may seem obvious to say, 'Corporations can endorse campaigns? HERESY!' but the devil is in the details. Corporations have already been donating and helping out campaigns, but they've jumped through loopholes to do it. I'm still waiting for them to lift the restrictions on individuals, however.

Andrew-Austin
01-24-2010, 05:55 PM
As long as there is a government for sale there will be people willing to buy it regardless of what the supreme court forbids or allows.

Right-o. Liberals are correct in their suspicions that allowing corporations to fund political adverts will corrupt democracy, but this is but one aspect of a great picture. Democracy itself is corrupt and will always be subjected to corrupting forces, this being only one of them.

klamath
01-24-2010, 05:57 PM
Here's his opinion when it was upheld by scotus a few years ago
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=336

Once again it shows how damned far the voices of this forum are removed from RP.

ChaosControl
01-24-2010, 06:04 PM
Once again it shows how damned far the voices of this forum are removed from RP.

We don't have to agree with RP 100% of the time...

low preference guy
01-24-2010, 06:06 PM
Glenn Greenwald writes (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/permalink/4516d48dcb324ddf1abb5ca09235aea1.html):


So I'll ask again -- of you and anyone who claims that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights under the Constitution:

Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

Do they have the right to do that to the offices of labor unions?

How about your local business on the corner which is incorporated?

The only thing stopping them from doing this is the Fourth Amendment. If you believe that corporations have no constitutional rights because they're not persons, what possible objections could you voice if Congress empowered the FBI to do these things?

Can they seize the property (the buildings and cars and bank accounts) of those entities without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Constitutional rights, what possible constitutional objections could you have to such laws and actions?

Could Congress pass a law tomorrow providing that any corporation - including non-profit advocacy groups -- which criticize American wars shall be fined $100,000 for each criticism? What possible constitutional objection could you have to that?

angelatc
01-24-2010, 06:06 PM
Once again it shows how damned far the voices of this forum are removed from RP.

I don't necessarily think that. I think that even though we're smarter than the average voter, we still aren't ready to accept freedom at all costs instinctively.

We are a work in progress.

Danke
01-24-2010, 06:08 PM
Glenn Greenwald writes (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/permalink/4516d48dcb324ddf1abb5ca09235aea1.html):

Corporations are persons.

low preference guy
01-24-2010, 06:10 PM
Could Congress pass a law tomorrow providing that any corporation - including non-profit advocacy groups -- which criticize American wars shall be fined $100,000 for each criticism?

Danke: yes

klamath
01-24-2010, 06:11 PM
We don't have to agree with RP 100% of the time...

We sure don't but then we don't have to agree with each other either and so it has become a general political discusion forum that has no real direction bearing factions the are pulling in all directions.

ChaosControl
01-24-2010, 06:12 PM
Glenn Greenwald writes (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/permalink/4516d48dcb324ddf1abb5ca09235aea1.html):

The bill of rights are not what give us rights, they merely point out some rights we have. The constitution rather specifically states what government may do. There is no constitutional power granted to government to search through the files of a corporation without a warrant. So even without the bill of rights being applied to them in some manner, they still have protection against it.

Of course a state could pass a law giving them such power, but until such a law is directly passed in a state granting such a law, it does not exist.

Andrew-Austin
01-24-2010, 06:13 PM
Here's his opinion when it was upheld by scotus a few years ago
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=336

Once again it shows how damned far the voices of this forum are removed from RP.

"waah thought crimes are in our midst, I wish everyone just copied Paul's views verbatim without any independent thinking going on."

Hes right there, but I think its still important to emphasize corporate campaign money is NOT going to be spent in favor of lassiez faire and pro-lassiez faire politicians - and thus will only serve to corrupt this democratic republic. He can talk about "if only government were limited campaign funny money wouldn't be a problem", but this is useless to us in the present real world. Its dandy that we can stick to constitutional principles in the midst of decay, but we should be aware of the consequences of this in the context of the present.

ChaosControl
01-24-2010, 06:13 PM
We sure don't but then we don't have to agree with each other either and so it has become a general political discusion forum that has no real direction bearing factions the are pulling in all directions.

We can have a few unifying principles we all share and we work on getting those commonly accepted.

Such as ending the federal reserve, fiscal responsibility, etc.

low preference guy
01-24-2010, 06:15 PM
We can have a few unifying principles we all share and we work on getting those commonly accepted.

Such as ending the federal reserve, fiscal responsibility, etc.

I wish the unifying principle was that the only role of government is to protect individuals against force and fraud. Nothing else.

rp08orbust
01-24-2010, 06:17 PM
I guess we better arrest all 9 Supreme Court justices, because even the 4 dissenting judges acknowledged the free speech rights of corporations: http://salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united

ChaosControl
01-24-2010, 06:18 PM
I wish the unifying principle was that the only role of government is to protect individuals against force and fraud. Nothing else.

That is a pretty extreme concept though, you're going to need to be more broad on things if you're going to get many people to sign on.

inibo
01-24-2010, 06:22 PM
Glenn Greenwald writes (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/permalink/4516d48dcb324ddf1abb5ca09235aea1.html):

Wow. That was unexpected from him. I've always liked him when it come to civil liberties and imperial foreign policy, but he has always struck me as a only too ready to have the state intervene against his bad guys. I've got to give him props on this one. He could have easily taken a left-populist position on this, but instead he summoned up a principle and stuck to it. My hat is off.

inibo
01-24-2010, 06:28 PM
I wish the unifying principle was that the only role of government is to protect individuals against force and fraud. Nothing else.

I'm curious. Do you think government should have a monopoly on those functions?

revolutionary8
01-24-2010, 06:48 PM
From the OP:

Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.

Wrong. Please read this interesting article by Glenn Greenwald:

Most commenters (though not all) grounded their opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in two rather absolute principles: (1) corporations are not "persons" and thus have no First Amendment/free speech rights and/or (2) money is not speech, and therefore restrictions on how money is spent cannot violate the First Amendment's free speech clause.

What makes those arguments so bizarre is that none of the 9 Justices -- including the 4 dissenting Justices -- argued either of those propositions or believe them. To the contrary, all 9 Justices -- including the 4 in dissent -- agreed that corporations do have First Amendment rights and that restricting how money can be spent in pursuit of political advocacy does trigger First Amendment protections. Here's what Justice Stevens himself said in his dissent (p. 54-55):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/S1rsiFHjgtI/AAAAAAAACSI/dH087dCvxwg/s400/stevens.png

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html)
(much more at link)

Edit- sorry, rp08, I missed your link. This article made me think of what Grenwald brought up. This case had nothing to do w/ "Coorperate Personhood"

low preference guy
01-24-2010, 06:50 PM
I'm curious. Do you think government should have a monopoly on those functions?

If I answer you this question it's obvious that an anarchy/limited government debate is gonna start. I'm not gonna ruin this thread, and am not really in the mood for that debate.

low preference guy
01-24-2010, 06:52 PM
That is a pretty extreme concept though, you're going to need to be more broad on things if you're going to get many people to sign on.

I don't think it's extreme. That was what Thomas Jefferson believed (although in practice he was inconsistent as he didn't mind using force against innocent slaves). I'm pretty sure it's very close (or exactly) what Ron Paul believes.

angelatc
01-24-2010, 06:57 PM
"waah thought crimes are in our midst, I wish everyone just copied Paul's views verbatim without any independent thinking going on."

Hes right there, but I think its still important to emphasize corporate campaign money is NOT going to be spent in favor of lassiez faire and pro-lassiez faire politicians - and thus will only serve to corrupt this democratic republic..

But as the Greenwald article points out,
a law that violates the Constitution can't be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).

Unless we want to sink into the swamp of absolute hypocrisy, we should support freedom.

romacox
01-24-2010, 07:04 PM
Understand also that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and as such would also be allowed to wage advertising campaigns for or against candidates on local, state and federal levels. If allowed unlimited spending, the Fed obviously has an unlimited supply of money. They can create it at will and spend it - as they have - with no oversight or direction by the people. They are a private corporation!

http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-goldman-sachs-and.html

inibo
01-24-2010, 07:06 PM
If I answer you this question it's obvious that an anarchy/limited government debate is gonna start. I'm not gonna ruin this thread, and am not really in the mood for that debate.

OK.

Meatwasp
01-24-2010, 07:09 PM
We don't have to agree with RP 100% of the time...

Yes we do. This is the Ron Paul forums

NYgs23
01-24-2010, 07:10 PM
Understand also that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and as such would also be allowed to wage advertising campaigns for or against candidates on local, state and federal levels. If allowed unlimited spending, the Fed obviously has an unlimited supply of money. They can create it at will and spend it - as they have - with no oversight or direction by the people. They are a private corporation!

http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-goldman-sachs-and.html

How come that didn't happen before 2002 when McCain-Feingold was enacted???

revolutionary8
01-24-2010, 07:10 PM
Understand also that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and as such would also be allowed to wage advertising campaigns for or against candidates on local, state and federal levels. If allowed unlimited spending, the Fed obviously has an unlimited supply of money. They can create it at will and spend it - as they have - with no oversight or direction by the people. They are a private corporation!

http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-goldman-sachs-and.html

lmao, they already pick the candidates and print $ out of thin air, ya think this SC decision is going to all of a sudden allow them to back a certain candidate? ridiculous. Our overlords don't need the stinking SC to tell them what to do. :D

klamath
01-24-2010, 07:10 PM
Understand also that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and as such would also be allowed to wage advertising campaigns for or against candidates on local, state and federal levels. If allowed unlimited spending, the Fed obviously has an unlimited supply of money. They can create it at will and spend it - as they have - with no oversight or direction by the people. They are a private corporation!

http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-goldman-sachs-and.html

The idea is to take away the government granted monoply and their regulatory ability, not to take away everyone rights because the governement granted special rights to another.

NYgs23
01-24-2010, 07:15 PM
Judge Napolitano agrees with ruling:

YouTube - A Non-Deranged, Law-Based Special Comment! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFGpoxnbfeI&feature=player_embedded)

Pauls' Revere
01-24-2010, 07:18 PM
As long as there is a government for sale there will be people willing to buy it regardless of what the supreme court forbids or allows.

I concur.

FrankRep
01-25-2010, 09:44 AM
The Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of the McCain-Feingold law in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission promises to unleash the electoral fury of America's small businesses and citizens groups, so the New York Times and all of the official left is naturally squealing like a stuck pig. by Thomas R. Eddlem

The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228114

commonsense
01-25-2010, 11:12 AM
This is a great ruling. I think people are getting hung up on the word "corporations" and thinking that this will make for an uneven playing field in elections. But the ruling protects the free speech rights of any groups (even two people or a PAC made up of a lot of individuals). I think it actually levels the playing field and allows a lot of liberty groups to advocate for or against candidates in elections. Just ask yourself.. Did Mccain-Feingold REALLY prevent candidates from pandering to special interest groups or corporations? NO. What's more, think of all the so-called news agencies. They are all corporations and you can't tell me that they don't pick their favorites come election time. In the name of "journalism" they push candidates they like and completely ignore or smear those they don't. Remember how they treated RP? Well, now groups like us can pool our money together and create ads that counter all that nonsense.

FrankRep
01-25-2010, 11:14 AM
This is a great ruling.

I was confused at first, but the New American set me straight (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228114).

Good ruling.

Elwar
01-25-2010, 11:21 AM
Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person”

They just re-affirmed previous rulings that established a corporation as a person. And because of that, they declared correctly that a person should not be silenced.

commonsense
01-25-2010, 11:21 AM
I was confused at first, but the New American set me straight (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228114).

Good ruling.

Very informative article, thanks. The revolution spoken of in the piece is probably why all the talking heads are in a tizzy.

erowe1
01-25-2010, 11:23 AM
Those veterans should be given some kind of sanction. They took oaths to protect the Constitution and obviously don't take those oaths seriously.