Citizens United irritated the hell out of the left. Essentially, the Supreme Court held that incorporated entities had rights like you and I. Understand, they really weren't saying that Corporations are real people, but they did say that they have first amendment rights . Corporations cannot vote like people, but they can donate to campaigns and take sides on issues. They are taxed like people. They must pay property taxes and income taxes like people. What politicians do, or don't do, can greatly affect them, both favorably and adversely.
Before we get into the nuts and bolts of this post, let's define a term.
Simply put (according to dictionary.com), a corporation is a group of people authorized by law to act as a legal personality with its own powers, duties, and liabilities. The etymology of the term dates back to the 1500s and comes from the Latin "corporare" which means "to embody". Essentially, it allows individuals to band together as a single, legal entity for some purpose. Different states have different rules for incorporation, but they all essentially do the same thing.
What does all that mean toward "personhood"?
The left went into a hissy fit! Obama, the incompetent fraud that he is, rebuked the Supreme Court as they sat in front of him at his State of the Union speech for their ruling! He even lied and told us that now, even foreign corporations could now buy influence.
While overturning getting the Supreme Court to overturn a previous decision is not impossible, it is not the easiest thing to do and could take years and years if not decades if at all. The next best way around it is to Amend the Constitution. Again, not impossible, but it is difficult. However, if they name it something that makes it sound palatable and couch it in terms that seem to indicate that they are indeed preserving rights instead of taking them away; they just might have a chance.
Enter the "People’s Rights Amendment". That sounds good, but what does it contain?
Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.
Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulations as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.
Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.
It sounds as if the only thing they are changing is idea that corporations are people. OK. So why is that so bad? Since I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be a legal scholar of any sort, I will rely on the opinions of people with way more knowledge of the subject than myself.
Eugene Volokh is a blogger and a UCLA Law Professor. Professor Volokh suggests that corporate media, to include newspapers, news networks, etc. would be limited.
So just as Congress could therefore ban the speech of nonmedia business corporations, it could ban publications by corporate-run newspapers and magazines — which I think includes nearly all such newspapers and magazines in the country (and for good reason, since organizing a major publications as a partnership or sole proprietorship would make it much harder for it to get investors and to operate). Nor does this proposal leave room for the possibility, in my view dubious, that the Free Press Clause would protect newspapers organized by corporations but not other corporations that want to use mass communications technology. Section 3 makes clear that the preservation of the “freedom of the press” applies only to “the people,” and section 2 expressly provides that corporations aren’t protected as “the people.”
In laymen's terms, Congress could shutdown Fox News or MSNBC if they didn't like their content since they generally own all of it, including their commentaters.
Newspapers, television networks, magazines, and online journalism operations typically are incorporated. So are political parties and campaign committees, to say nothing of nonprofits, business associations, and the like. Under the People’s Rights Amendment, Thomas Friedman would still enjoy putative First Amendment protection, but it would not do him much good inasmuch as the New York Times Company, being a corporation, would no longer be protected by the First Amendment. In short, any political speech more complex than standing on a soapbox at an intersection would be subject to the whims of Nancy Pelosi.
The Left, of course poo-poos all of that, but not everyone got that memo.
Representative Donna Edwards, a Maryland Democrat, nonchalantly concluded that the amendment would of course strip even political campaigns of the First Amendment rights: “All of the speech which, whether it’s corporations of campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress.”
Anything with "people's" in its title should cause you to raise your eyebrows and cause you to read the fine print. It is usually Orwellian doublespeak.
You may remember that the Soviet Union adamantly insisted that their constitution guaranteed the right of free speech - as long as it was The Party doing the speaking. Such will be the case here. Whatever party that is in powere will be able to control what the corporate press is allowed to say.
This is just another tactic by the left to rob you of your rights. Freedom of speech is under attack.
VW
Working on a significant blog post these past few days. Lots of info. May split it up, into several parts. More to come.
When did marriage become offensive? Seriously, the last time I looked, there seemed to be a concerted effort to change the laws so that gay couples could marry. I’m not unsympathetic to that cause, but with that, it would seem that the whole idea of marriage is still relevent to our society and culture. Or so I thought...
Apparently, in Warwick, Rhode Island, it is not.
Elizabeth Bierenday, a junior at Pilgrim High School in Warwick, was asked to create a mural for the school.
She sketched a mural that showed the growth of a boy into adulthood. The last image showed a man with a woman and child and wedding rings over their heads.
Bierenday showed the school's assistant principal the sketches, which were approved.
OK, so far so good, but you know what is coming.
Bierenday said she started to paint the mural last week, when an assistant principal came to her with a problem.
Some people at the school felt the mural didn't accurately represent many students at Pilgrim and school officials decided to paint over the right side.
Why?
[S]he was told that her original design may be offensive or a religious symbol.
"Some people", he said. Who? What People? How could the possibly be offended?
Since rings are common in both civil and religious ceremonies, a set of rings could hardly be viewed as strictly "religious". Marriage is legal and practiced by most people (although I've read that it is declining in this country) in some form or fashion around the world.
So again, why is it offensive?
It isn't, but there is an element in this country that I call the "perpetually offended" or "POs". The POs look for ways of being offended. For some, the sight of a Christian Cross gives them advanced PTSD and the only cure involves a lawyer and a defendant with deep pockets. The POs love to play victim. They love to have like-minded fools around them to cheer them on. They love to threaten lawsuits over the most trivial of slights. They are offended and you must bow to their demands!
And we let them. We bend over time and again and let those on the fringe dictate to the rest of us. Our culture and way of life are going down the toilet so that a few immature jerks can feel good about themselves.
VW
Sam Cooke wrote and recorded a a song called "Wonderful World" back in 1960. You've most likely heard it. Several versions are out there, but the late Mr. Cooke's is the first and the version I remember. The first verse goes like this:
Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the french I took
Mr. Cooke's song is a nice fluffy feel good piece; not meant to be taken too seriously, but an old favorite of mine, none the less. However, this is not about fluffy little feel good songs, it's about the appalling lack of knowledge our children are endowed with when they graduate.
This past couple of weeks, a 3D remake of the movie "Titanic" was released to theaters. It's a nice movie with a nice love story and it takes place on a doomed ship that will hit an iceberg and sink on it's maiden voyage across the North Atlantic. It's also the 100 year anniversary of that event.
Yes, it really happened. A lot of young people thought it was just a movie plot.
Granted, it's historical significance is relatively minor in the scheme of world wars and tecnological accomplishments such as the atom bomb or landing on the moon. And speaking of landing on the moon, there is a growing number of young people who doubt we landed on the moon back in 1969.
Then yesterday, in a discussion forum concerning a news story on a completely unrelated subject, A guy by the name of Eddie (he is about 28 or 29) decided to inform me that most wars are religious in nature. He named three in his little rant. The Crusades, the "Holocaust" and the current war on terror. I respectfully replied that while the Crusades might qualify, the other two are not religious wars.
The Jihadis might consider it a religious war, but we don't. We have Muslims fighting on our side in our armed forces. The Holocaust was not a war. The Nazis did not go to war to annihilate the Jews. The Jews was not the main focus of Germany's war effort. Jewish armies were not lined up along the Western front. I also stated that most wars are political and economic, not religious.
Eddie, noting that my picture showed me to be considerably older than him, decided to tell me in no uncertain terms that I was just old and didn't know anything. I again tried to enlighten him but to no avail. To him, it was some kind of separate war, not connected to the rest of what was going on.
Eddie might seem to be the exception, but I submit that he is not, all things considered. Go ahead, ask you 20 something or teenager about US history. Go ahead and ask them about Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or even Vietnam. Go ahead and ask them about WWII or about Japan's involvement. Ask them what D-Day was. GTo ahead, I dare you.
Our public school system spends more time worrying about our children's self-esteem than they do teaching them anything usable. I would venture to say that most children enter high school incapable of writing a decent English sentence, let alone able to write a coherent paragraph. Spelling is usually an afterthought.
The average young adult can't find Iran on a map yet they are out there with a sign that says "No War with Iran!"
Young adults in the United States fail to understand the world and their place in it, according to a survey-based report on geographic literacy released today.
Take Iraq, for example. Despite nearly constant news coverage since the war there began in 2003, 63 percent of Americans aged 18 to 24 failed to correctly locate the country on a map of the Middle East. Seventy percent could not find Iran or Israel.
Nine in ten couldn't find Afghanistan on a map of Asia.
And 54 percent were unaware that Sudan is a country in Africa.
Remember the December 2004 tsunami and the widespread images of devastation in Indonesia?
Three-quarters of respondents failed to find that country on a map. And three-quarters were unaware that a majority of Indonesia's population is Muslim, making it the largest Muslim country in the world.
The study suggests that youths just aren't interested. I think they are not taught! Go to your child's school and ask about geography classes. If they even have a class, ask if it's mandatory. Chances are that they probably only offer a basic class (if at all) and it's probably not required. History is hardly even taught. Most US history classes in High School rarely go beyond the Cival War.
Our education system is failing us and our children and we probably aren't even aware that it's happening. You might be a good parent, involved in your child's school. You might be president of the PTSA or even volunteer in your child's class or school. Your child might be getting all As and Bs.
They simply aren't teaching our children what they need to know. A young man can enlist in the army with a high school diploma in hand and it's doubtful he can find on the map the place he'll be asked to deploy and fight.
Is it any wonder people think all we have to do is tax those rich guys a little more and they'll get there college paid for and free healthcare?
Until we start demanding the schools actually teach something, they will continue to spoon feed our children useless bits of information that destroys critical thinking and in the end, doesn't even leave them with self-esteem.
VW
It really does boggle my mind. I cannot understand why any thinking person would support Obama. It should be painfully obvious to even the most naïve person that Obama is a left wing extremist ideologue whose only agenda is to turn the United States into some kind of European Socialist paradise. Never mind that Europe is broke and teetering on economic collapse. Never mind that Socialism does not work and has never, ever worked when tried. There seems to be this mindset that this time, we can make it work. The old adage about lessons and history never seem to be remembered when it comes to failed political systems.
Obama is on the stump and he is pitching the standard Socialist bromide of taxing the rich and applying it to the "most vulnerable"
In a reception at a gated community in Palm Beach Gardens, Obama said Democrats would ensure the rich pay their fair share, while focusing on investments in education, science and research and caring for the most vulnerable.
To put it starkly and brutally, it's pure Democrat bullshit. It's the standard class warfare weapon. "We are gonna get those rich guys and make them pay!" The greedy haves will be made to pay in order to placate the greedy "haves-less".
If the Democrats win back the majority, they will indeed make the rich pay more in taxes. You can take that to the bank. (No pun intended) If you think you'll get some, you are delusional. If you think it will be used to help pay some of the national debt, you are just as delusional. It will do nothing more than fuel more spending on worthless programs that will do little or nothing to eradicate poverty, disease or provide you with affordable energy. The venerable "most vulnerable" will still be among us. To think elsewise is to prove that you really don't think.
I'm neither against taxes or taxing the rich a little more. The difference between me and a Democrat is that I understand that the money will not be used to do one damned thing toward our massive debt and our even more massive obligations.
How much money do you think we would get from this new tax? 10 Billion per year? 20? 40? 100 Billion? How about "None of the above"? The White House says 47 Billion over ten years. That's less than 5 billion per year. Keep in mind that those are the White House figures so they will understandably be overstated, quite possibly as much as a half. That means the real amount is probably between 25-35 billion dollars over the course of ten years.
Let's put 47 Billion of ten years into perspective. The government spends about 6.85 million per minute. Dividing that into the yearly figure of 4.7 Billion, we find out that 4.7 Billion dollars will only fund the government for about 11.5 hours. Over ten years, that will fund the government about 4.75 DAYS. Keep in mind that is using the Administration's optimistic forecast. Reality will most likely be somewhat less than that.
It's nothing more than election year populism. It's a chunk of red meat for the base and a placebo to the really ignorant who think they will get something for nothing. Some of will do the math and realize that passing the Buffet Rule is akin to pissing in the ocean.
I doubt it will make one iota of difference. We will not spend less or apply that pittance to the debt. They will just spend it. I suspect it will have at least a mild effect upon investments. One more thing. If they do pass such a law, it will be riddled with enough loop holes to make a sieve look absolutely solid.