Citizens United v. FEC: Corporate Personhood Must be Eliminated if Humanity is to Survive.
By Ron Chapman
In the latest piece of IIluminati theatre, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) with a 5-4 majority ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC on 21 January 2010, (1) essentially removed all bans on corporate funding in US elections. In the ensuing pseudo furore no one has bothered to mention that SCOTUS really created this situation long ago with an obscure technicality in the Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case in 1886.That decision declared that corporations were "persons" who had the same "civil rights" guaranteed to freed slaves under the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, no one seems to notice that in any event there is a conflict of interest in the Supreme Court, a corporation whose personnel are appointed by another corporation - Corp US, ruling in favour of giving corporations yet more power to overwhelm sovereign human beings in the governance of US society.
In typical mainstream media style Keith Olberman addresses the symptoms of the disease rather than its cause, in his news commentary at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72ZwG5vQ_04&feature=player_embedded And: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UMHXTXvWSA&feature=related
Arguably, addressing the symptoms of the corporatocratic malaise afflicting the US and the rest of the world merely facilitates its progress and exacerbates the problem by concealing the real issue. Why? Because talking about symptoms avoids discussing the cause of the disease, which is the grant of human personhood powers and more, to phantom fictional legal pseudo entities.
I comment further on Keith Olberman's 'special comment' on the Citizens United v. FEC decision in End Note (2)
Today US governments and their instrumentalities including their judicial systems, are corporations. The US government is essentially indistinguishable from other corporations like Halliburton and Choice Point but the politicians and others involved in or with it, together with the mainstream media, academia and everyone else pretend that it is not. As Katherine Austen Fitts has emphasised for years, when local communities of individuals do not control their governments and their databases, mind boggling corruption and exploitation of innocent citizens is inevitable simply because there is no fiduciary transparency.
This lack of fiduciary transparency is one of the principal arguments for local rather than national and supra-national political arrangements; because the more centralized systems become, the greater the potential for concealment and abuse. Conversely, the more de-centralized governance systems are, the more illumined and amenable to local monitoring, direction and control they are. To be transparent, honest and effective governance arrangements need to be essentially local. Those elected to RE-PRESENT the views of their community need to be fully accountable to their electors and subject to immediate removal from office when they fail to RE-PRESENT the community's views.
Once you understand that there is no citizens' control of governance in the US but only unaccountable corporations and their centralised financial systems you can more readily understand that the US is in the grip of a corporate criminal syndicate posing as the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of "government". Confining political analyses and complaints to the symptoms of this corporatocratic disease, notably in this case, to complaints about foreign and local corporate funding of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial members of this criminal syndicate, is worse than pointless, it is delusional. And that is true whether the corporate funding is via covert bribery and corruption or overt "legal" channels approved by SCOTUS, which is at the apex of the Judicial branch of the criminal syndicate.
Given that SCOTUS decided the US presidential election in 2000 by halting the counting of votes in Florida in order to sanction the theft of the 2000 presidential election, thus installing in power the Republican candidate George W. Bush, who had lost the popular vote, it has already ruled that US citizens do not have the right to have their votes counted even in relation to the election of the president of Corp US. So this latest decision is really not surprising. Nor does it make much practical difference in that corporate money has largelyÂ determined who gets to run for election with any chance of success in the US, since the removal of Amendment 13 from the US Constitution shortly after the Civil War. The establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 completed the process. In effect the Citizens United v. FEC decision legally (though arguably not lawfully) legitimises political financing processes that to a large extent have been hidden from public perception for a century. In truth corporate financing of US politics has been routine for at least a hundred years during which corporate money has increasingly manipulated elections, bribed politicians, and dictated government policy. This decision just means corporate money can now openly influence US political processes with impunity instead of covertly doing so.
Many state and local laws are affected by this SCOTUS ruling because they, too, ban corporate financing of election ads. These laws are now unconstitutional and hence cease to have effect.
With candidates and party committees forced to abide by contribution limits and source restrictions, corporations unhindered by such rules will now have a publicly unfettered impact on elections. Corporations also have the opportunity to contribute to political advocacy groups, as a result of a recent federal appeals court ruling [EMILY's List v. FEC (Case 05-5160)] that struck down FEC rules intended to rein in fundraising by 527 groups and other non-profits.
The SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. FEC highlights the absurdity of society giving a corporate entity like SCOTUS the right to determine these issues. Similarly, allowing anyone to create out of thin air corporate fictional personalities having the same rights and privileges as real sovereign human persons AND very substantial additional rights unavailable to any human individual is incomprehensible. Moreover, pretending (as this decision does) that corporations have the same First Amendment right to free speech that sovereign human citizens have, is insane.
Without being exhaustive, the additional rights and privileges accorded to fictional legal corporate personalities over and above those available to human persons currently include:
- Immortality - the right to legally exist forever;
- Omni-presence - the right to be legally everywhere at once via agents;
- Protection from imprisonment - because corporations are not corporeal they cannot be incarcerated; nor are they spirits and hence they are psychopathic but not held 'personally' responsible for amoral actions done in their name;
- Owners of corporations are generally exempt from personal liability for crimes committed by the agents of the corporations they own and are ordinarily not responsible for financial losses and/or debts created by the corporate personalities they own;
- Corporate "persons" are not liable for military service, jury service and other civic and citizen requirements placed on sovereign human persons;
- Corporations are accorded special taxation rates that are lower than the tax rates applicable to human persons earning comparable incomes; and
- Corporations receive taxation dispensations unavailable to sovereign human persons.
Viewed objectively the bestowal of legal human personhood on fictional corporations created out of thin air is ludicrous. Corporations are not sovereign beings. They are not living beings at all! They have no physical or energetic existence what so ever! They are, in essence, figments of the imagination of those who seek to enslave and exploit humanity. Worse yet, they are vehicles that are used to coerce exploit and enslave humanity and destroy the planet. THEY MUST GO! And soon!
What can be more absurd and contrary to the survival of humanity and the public interests of human society than a system in which non-living fictional entities like "governments", "courtsÂ of law", 'trading corporations", "trusts" and such, can be used to oppress and destroy real human beings and the planetary environment in which we live!
Humanity has given its birthright away for a mess of pottage. The intrinsic authority and power of sovereign living human beings has been ceded to lifeless legal concepts like governments, courts, religions and such (which are invariably incorporated), and commercial corporations, trusts, non-government organizations and similar. These lifeless corporate pseudo entities are rapidly strangling the life out of humanity. The final product of this process as envisaged by the current global controllers is the extinction of thinking, feeling, self-directed, free will human personalities and their replacement with biological robots. That is what New World Order (NWO) advocates intend. In effect, the NWO represents the end of humanity on Earth. Why? Because the global matrix controllers (the NWO advocates) are psychopaths with no human feelings; and humanityâ€™s survivors if the NWO takeover is successful, will be dehumanised biological robots, used as slaves by NWO psychopaths.
If humanity wishes to avoid devolution into a biological robotic slave condition a critical mass of humans must come to understand that the false verities by which the rulers of our world have socially engineered us to live, think and have our being, are false. Perceiving the falseness of the personal paradigms inculcated by the political, social, religious, educational, scientific, financial, economic, entertainment and related psychological matrix conditioning processes imposed on humanity from cradle to grave is no easy task. But it must be done.
In my view the first steps in this paradigm changing process need to be the debunking of the deeply embedded ideas that:
- Humans cannot govern themselves and need external organisations like "governments",Â "law courts" and "police forces" to do it for them.
- Human well-being and welfare depends on factors beyond the control of families and their local communities.
- Fictitious legal corporations can and should have power and authority over sovereign human beings.
- Money is essential to human life, social interaction and survival.
- Money can be created out of thin air.
- Interest (usury) can and must be charged when money created out of thin air is "borrowed".
- The education of children is not a family and community responsibility but rather a formal governmental responsibility that can only be done by centralised organizations and educators created and trained outside of local communities and not subject to the wishes of those communities.
Those who genuinely want to save humanity and change the way our world operates need to first change their personal belief systems about such matters as these. Retaining â€œreformedâ€� corporate government, court systems and similar, will not change anything for very long.
In effect humanity needs to 'wake up' to the fact that the emperors who purport to lead our nations have no non-fictional clothes to wear.
(1) The SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down a decades-old ban on ads funded by corporations (including incorporated trade associations and non-profits) that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. The court also overturned the McCain-Feingold law's ban on corporate-funded "electioneering communications" - broadcast ads that merely refer to a candidate and air in the periods immediately before federal elections.
This ruling apparently still leaves in place requirements that ads identify their sponsors and that advertisers who fund electioneering communications or expressly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates file disclosure reports with the FEC. Also, it apparently does not permit corporations to make campaign contributions to candidates or party committees. Such contributions are still prohibited under federal law and the laws of many states. Accordingly companies taking advantage of this new ruling must avoid coordinating with a campaign or party committee about an ad's content, timing, or placement, or else the ad may be treated as a prohibited in-kind contribution. Firewalls and other measures can protect the company from potential liability. See: http://www.rbr.com/media-news/20395.html
The decision is controversial, in part because SCOTUS reversed its own 2003 decision (McConnell v. Federal Election Commission), and rendered a decision far more expansive than the litigants sought.
(2) Here are two short videos of Keith Olberman's 'Special Comment' On the Supreme Court Citizens United v. FEC Ruling - Part 1
In Part 1 we are regaled with several minutes of polimic about the infamous Dred Scott case. That case has nothing to do with the corporate personhood issue - except of course that it decided that negro slaves were not persons suitable to be citizens of the US! Accordingly, the discussion of the Dred Scott case is an irrelevant, distraction and an emotional misdirection of this debate.
Then we are told at length that this decision will have dire consequences for the political advertisement process, with a strong implication that previously corporation have not had an overwhelming influence on this process and the election of US federal politicians. That implication is false and so again the public's attention is being misdirected. The true situation is that corporate money and backroom manipulation already controls who gets elected President and who gets to run successfully for Congress in most cases. So this video clip is great theatre but totally misleading.
Also, by implying that the consequences of this decision may not have full effect until say, 2018 Keith Olberman is telling his audience that not only did the problem not exist previously, but also it won't be a problem for some years yet, so the subliminal message is everyone can go back to sleep for a few years yet. Total lullaby stuff.
Similarly, his suggestion that only some politicians are NOW prostitutes for the corporations ALL of the time is a gross understatement. Given the decisions being made, most of Congress appear to be corrupted by money or blackmail or similar, already.
In his SPECIAL COMMENT - PART 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UMHXTXvWSA&feature=related Keith Olberman asks 'who stops Rupert Murdoch from buying the Associated Press ?!!!!'
Ya gotta laugh! The Rothschilds bought it and the other global news services in the 19th Century. That's why the Illuminati banksters and corporatists already control the US presidency and Congress and have had that control for the last century. If Rupert Murdoch represents the other Illuminat faction - the Rockefeller Faction, and is able to buy the Associated Press the emphasis might change slightly to accommodate that Faction's goals but the difference would be imperceptible to us plebs. The Rockefeller Faction represents the Bush Clinton Crime Gang so we would merely be out of the frying pan and into the fire.
And, wait for it! Horror of horrors, Olberman's conclusive, 'scare the pant off ya' statement is: 'Prepare for the end of all the independent news organizations!!' No! No! Not that! The whip but not that!
Olberman concludes by saying:
'The next 9 men and women on the Supreme Court will get there not because of their judgment nor even their politics, they will get there because they were appointed by purchased presidents and confirmed by purchased Senators. ... this is what this decision sanctions - the murder of what democracy is left in this democracy.... It is government of the people by the corporations for the corporations. It is the Dark ages. It is our Dred Scott.'
Clearly this man is a comedian. Does he really believe that thinking USans believe that the current SCOTUS members are there because of their "judgment" or even their so-called politics? Anyone paying attention will understand by now that as regards US "politics" there is ONLY ONE homogenous, corporate approved, group of politicians which divides up into two ostensibly opposing teams for the delectation of the onlooking voters and others. And those teams take turns in getting jobs in the White House Administration, the Congress and THE SUPREME COURT.
As for Olberman's question: 'What are you going to do about it?' I suggest everyone start changing their personal paradigm that allows this sort of rhetoric to sway their political and societal judgments. You can't change the world until you change yourself.
(3) Although most 20th Century presidential administrations gave lip service to government regulation of corporations, the SCOTUS decision in the Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) which bestowed legal personhood on corporations steadily undermined the political and economic sovereignty of USans until the 1980s. Then Reagan's "war on government" began the dismantling of government regulation of industry in the US, and that "war" was further exacerbated by a momentous Executive Order signed by Reagan. Executive Order 12615 required US federal departments and agencies to "establish full and ambitious privatization goals." It also created the Office of Privatization within the Office of Management And Budget to oversee the program and established an independent Commission on Privatization to study and recommend opportunities for privatization within the federal government.
According to Chapter 17 of Webster Tarpley's The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush, Sr. and the research of Catherine Austin Fitts, Reagan's Executive Order meant that private corporate contractors would no longer have to be accountable for the work they did nor how they used the money allocated to them. As a result, an opportunity for black budgets was created in which government money would be spent without the oversight of Congress and the Amerikkan people. This was a deliberate recipe for fraud and corruption to become standard operating procedure in the US federal government.
In 2005, Business Week Online reported George W. Bush's signature of the May 5 memo entitled "Assignment Of Function Relating To Granting Of Authority For Issuance Of Certain Directives: Memorandum For The Director Of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush assigned intelligence czar, John Negroponte, the task of waiving Securities and Exchange Commission rules, established in 1934, pertaining to accounting disclosures by publicly-traded companies. As a result of no longer needing to reveal financial information in the name of national security, the cloning of Enron, having been in process for several years, was sealed. Instead of being required to disclose valid accounting ledgers, U.S. corporations were given carte blanche to maintain fiduciary legerdemain. That action and its results all but completely transformed the US into a corporatocracy. The Citizens United v. FEC decision does little more than acknowledge this.