THE DOT - if this turns orange or red be alert

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Another interesting fact - indeed it can really become a dramatic changer of civilization

That such an important ruling can made with a simple majority is disturbing but rather important is that it has been done after all. The fact that corporations can influence elections so deeply is rather bringing democracy to its knees to say the least. We see what Go─▒ldman is doing right now in DC and Rockefeller's admitted their cabal to undermine democracy. Revolution is at the gate by astrological means and an uprise is just a matter of time. Even if you fake statistics about the job market does not change the fact that also the ones not mentioned are in economic distress and history has proven that the critical mass can be gathered quickly - just study the aftermath of the last depression. The only way to distract people from an revolution is to trigger a war and focus their outrage on an outside target.
At the end we have a proof now that democracy is just a facade or charade and all entities have been taken over by the NWO gang (Rothschild, Rockefeller and friends) - they have taken control of the Supreme Court as well. They have all 3 entities of a democracy under their control hence almost no candidate in the REP or DEM parties is eligible for elections from a real democrats view. Independent prudent candidates have to join the mid term elections and - no support for the establishment since you can per se assume that they are corrupt with some very few exceptions like Paul, Bunning etc. but they need to leave their parties and run independently as well.

excerpt 1

Court decision opens floodgates for corporate cash

A composite image of cash, the Supreme Court and David Bossie,  leader of Citizens United and producer of ‘Hillary: The Movie.’
Thursday's Supreme Court decision eases ban on corporations and unions from spending money in campaigns. Photo: AP photo composite by POLITICO

The Supreme Court on Thursday opened wide new avenues for big-moneyed interests to pour money into politics in a decision that could have a major influence on the 2010 midterm elections and President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

The long-awaited 5-4 decision overruled all or parts of two prior rulings by the court that allowed governments to restrict corporations and unions from spending their general funds on ads expressly urging a candidate’s election or defeat. But the decision upheld disclosure requirements for groups like the one that brought the case.

The decision, handed down in a special session of the court, is generally expected to boost Republicans more than Democrats, because corporations and corporate-backed outside groups tend to align with conservatives and also often have access to more money than unions or liberal outside groups.

“No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporation,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

In a stinging dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.”

President Obama led a chorus of Democrats and public interest groups attacking the decision, saying in a statement that the court “has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” and vowing that he will work with congressional leaders “to develop a forceful response.”

“It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans,” the president said. “This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington—while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates."

The case stems from a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission brought by an obscure conservative group called Citizens United. It alleged that its free speech rights were violated when the FEC moved to block it from using corporate cash to promote and air "Hillary: The Movie," a feature-length movie harshly critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton – the current secretary of state – during her 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The FEC asserted that the movie expressly opposed Clinton’s election and therefore was subject to campaign laws that bar the use of corporate cash to air election ads, and require donor disclosure. Citizens United disagreed and sued.

Lower courts sided with the FEC, and the Supreme Court first heard the case in March. But in June, instead of coming back with a ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the parties to return for a rare re-argument of the case — with a much broader focus.

Instead of merely arguing whether federal election laws should have applied to “Hillary: The Movie,” Roberts asked the parties to argue whether the court should reverse rulings in two prior cases upholding the government’s ability to limit corporate and union election spending.

The court divided along ideological lines on the decision with Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote and writing the majority opinion. He was joined by Roberts and fellow conservative justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia.

Another conservative justice, Clarence Thomas, filed a separate opinion that mostly concurred with the majority, but made the case for going even further by striking down disclosure requirements.

The dissent was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was joined by liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The decision reverses a 1990 ruling by the court that allowed the government to bar corporations and unions from spending general treasury funds on ads expressly urging a candidate’s election or defeat. And it overruled part of a 2003 decision that upheld restrictions on independent corporate expenditures enacted the preceding year in the seminal campaign finance overhaul act known as McCain-Feingold.

Fred Wertheimer, a longtime advocate of McCain-Feingold, called today’s ruling “the most radical and destructive campaign finance decision in Supreme Court history” and said the court’s majority had “abandoned longstanding judicial principles, judicial precedents and judicial restraint.”

Read more:

Excerpt 2

The Fat Lady Sings

Share This Site By Gary Vey for viewzone

If you read many of the other websites this past few weeks you have been told that the earthquake in Haiti was caused by the HAARP death ray weapon, that Yellowstone Park is about to destroy North America and that earth size UFOs are flying in and out of the Sun.

I've been tempted to get involved in the HAARP discussion, since I know the subject quite well. Yellowstone is a super-volcano, so that story has at least some legs to stand on. The earth-size UFOs have been proven to be stars, visible in the background of the corona. Someone posted the identical images from exactly one year ago.

While we wait for the StarViewer Team to disclose their validated math for the alleged brown dwarf, just beyond Pluto, perhaps the most significant story that will change our lives passed with little or no fanfare on January 21, 2010. It happened somewhat silently yet it will forever change human civilization in our lifetime.

On that date the Supreme Court of these United States decided that corporations, be they American or foreign, are afforded the same rights as a single individual when it comes to contributing money to a political cause or candidate running for a political office. Let me say it again. Under the January 21, 2010 ruling, a corporation can use UNLIMITED funds to support a policy or candidate running for office. Stop and think about that for a while.

How it used to be

America was established as a democracy. The founders of our county were trying to escape the British rule under which the King or Queen of England made all the decisions and the people had to obey or suffer the consequences. The citizens in England put up with this kind of rule for centuries until the Royals tried to dictate in which church the subjects had to worship. For many who came to America, this was just too much and they wanted change. They wanted democracy.

The word comes from the greek demokratia, which means "rule of the people." I won't insult you be defining what it is. In school you learned about the ancients who voted by raising their hands and being counted, or by writing on clay shards that were secretly collected in a large vase. This kind of democracy can still be seen in small town meetings where citizens vote on such things as zoning, new roads and raising taxes for the local school. It's what sets America apart from other countries.

When the decisions involve larger groups of people, like cities or states, it becomes impractical to count every individual's vote. We rely on what is called "representational democracy" where we elect individuals to voice our interests at special meetings where more complex issues are discussed and examined. These representatives supposedly understand our needs and concerns and have the luxury of time and staffing to predict the impact of various proposals, laws and allocations of our tax money.

The representatives who make the laws of our nation are the Congressmen and Senators. They decide how much taxes we pay, whether or nor our child can pray in school, if a woman can get an abortion or vote, whether we will invade another country or whether or not an ordinary citizen is entitled to health care or social security. Again, you know how this works.

But there is a special group of individuals who have enormous power over every American citizen -- and they are NOT elected by us. The Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the sitting president and confirmed by a special committee. Their job is not to represent the concerns and needs of the citizen but to uphold their interpretation of the Constitution.

Enough for the history lesson

Please stick with me, it gets more interesting.

President Obama was elected by the people. The average contribution to his campaign was about twenty bucks and came from hundreds of thousands of supporters who liked what he said and what he promised to do. Set aside his shortcomings for now. Obama's election was seen as a victory for democracy and the average and often forgotten citizen.

For about 100 years now, the strength of the individual's single vote has been protected by laws that regulated the amount of money that a large group, like a labor group or corporation, could contribute.

Why? Because the interests of particular groups often do not mesh with the interest of the majority of citizens. Labor groups have an agenda that benefits its members and may not be what is best for the country. Corporations have a charter that must benefit their shareholders and often this is not in tune with what is best for everyone. Of course, individual citizens who are members of a labor group or a corporation have their single vote, so they still have influence, but the influence of groups can surpass their collective influence through their ability to generate huge amounts of cash.

So for about 100 years the government has limited the amount of money that a corporation or group can donate to a candidate running for political office to represent the people. This made perfect sense, since the candidates are supposed to be representing "the people" and not the interest of a group. Right?

How it works now

On January 21, 2010 the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same right to influence political elections as you and I. It's wide open for them now. OK, let me get specific.

Imagine that a drug company has new medicine for high blood pressure. They have tested it and think it works pretty good, but there have been some side effects and some people have died. Let's say that under the present laws regulating drug companies there is the possibility that people who take this medicine and get ill or die can bring law suits against the company for millions of dollars. The drug company knows that this will be a reality but they have already invested billions of dollars in developing this medicine and owe it to their shareholders to recoup a profit.

Imagine that certain senators have proposed a bill that would limit or dissolve the ability of an average citizen to sue a large drug company for negligence. Imagine that they are up for re-election. Imagine that other senators, or candidates seeking a senate seat, who will eventually vote on this bill are in need of campaign funds. The new ruling does not prohibit the drug company from spending millions -- even billions -- to influence these decisions which are clearly in the interest of the corporation and contrary to what is morally right for the American citizen.

The cable will be inundated with propaganda about these supportive candidates, competing with their billions of dollars against grass roots candidates with funds limited to the contributions of their fellow citizens. Money talks and billions of dollars shouts very loud.

Halliburton and the Carlyle Group will now be able to buy candidates to promote more wars and weapons production. Food producers will support candidates who lower standards and jeopardize our health. Hell, we might even see a resurgence of cigarettes -- this would benefit both the tobacco corporations AND the health industry.

Oh no! What can we do?

Are you ready? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It has been said that "the supreme court is not final because it is supreme -- it is supreme because it is final." It is the end of the road as far as legislation goes. Even an Executive Order by the president cannot reverse this. It is like the doctor telling the patient he is terminal and inoperable. Democracy has ended for America.

But it's not just America that has been dealt a lethal dose of capitalism -- others will go down with us. Corporations are often multi-national. They will begin altering the trade laws like some viral DNA/RNA that exists only to perpetuate more of itself. Soon there will be no more America, or England, or China. There will be Halliburton-Carlyle Enterprises, The Global Pharmaceutical Corporation, Universal Oil & Coal... Corporations will run everything for their own profit and the citizens of the world will be significant only as consumers -- the necessary "eaters" to provide labor and to consume the products we are told that we need.

What's next?

In a recent article describing the Webot Predictions -- the computer program which has successfully diagnosed and foretold future events by analyzing the world wide web -- the report predicted a massive revolt of the world's citizens against any and every form of government. It described a global uprising that is slated to happen in 2010 where the citizens have had enough. This could be just the event that triggers this revolt.

Have you had enough yet?

No comments:

About Me

I am a professional independent trader