Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
My Spock Thought for the Day:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/running-for-office/2010/pdf/rep-in-congr...
@DDay, oh OK, so I can now sleep easy tonight. :-)
I guess I'll just keep pushing for Public Campaign Reform and Instant Runoff Voting just for the sake of it then.
Nels,
re: "dump loads of money into any politician's campaign'...
Corporations cannot contribute more than $2300 to a campaign. They can, however, spend without limit on the behalf or against anyone or thing so long as they do not coordinate with a campaign or a candidate. The same is now true for Unions.
Anyone here got an 18 year old corporation?
@ Blue Mark -
The Fed and the Treasury are not the same. The Fed issues zero interest loans to the banksters, the bankster then purchase Treasury bills at less than face value that can be redeemed for full value in as little as two days. The Treasury receives its money from the tax payer while the Fed makes money out of the thin air. The tax payer is being robbed by the Fed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the recent Supreme Court decision give all organizations, not just Corporations, the right to dump loads of money into any politicians campaign, or Proposition.
In other words, as much as there is concern about Corporations, where is the outrage about the voice of untaxed religious organizations or foreign government contributions?
I have called my congressmen this week and told them that mitigating this supreme court decision should be the FIRST PRIORITY of Democrats. The second is good jobs.
D Silva - well put!
@nora-
You are confusing the corporation, a collection of investors that have no agenda beyond increasing there wealth, and the employee. The only way the lowly servant gains a voice in the corporation is through unionization.
A corporation is a collection of individuals and when granted free speech one man now has two voices. The minority can instantly become the majority of voice. When the new false majority has near unlimited funds their message becomes so loud that it become the only voice that can be heard. Then democracy dies.
The Fed has been effectively loaning money to banks at zero percent interest. The banks in turn can deposit that money into interest bearing accounts with the Fed - producing free money paid by the Fed out of thin air - or gamble it on the markets.
This is really a corrupted form of "social credit", where distribution of the social dividend is given to wealthy banks instead of to the people.
@ Loretta
re: "toughening you up for the revolution"
I'm guessing now...but don't you live in Portland? As a great, great,great...grandson of Sgt. Noah Day from Conn., more importantly, as a Midwesterner, even more critically, as someone who works progressive politics in Michele Bachmann's Congressional District, ...toughen me up? Puleeeze....
then you mentioned hot chocolate, brandy, and coming to Mpls...
If you need a place,... my wife, my GSD, (Homer) and myself have a big ol' house along the banks of the Mississippi just north of town with three empty bedrooms from which you can choose. (Hotel Minnesota) You should note: Present Conditions: It is snowing and the thermometer is headed south for the foreseeable future. Advice? Wait for at least until early April, (March is the snowiest month), besides, Sarah Palin will be coming here to campaign with Michele Bachmann then. We could use some help with push back. Finally, It will toughen YOU up! :-) mi casa a su casa!
@Mark K - An interseting side note to your post - Favre's last pass as a Jet was also picked off - just not in a playoff game.
Five members of the Supreme Court have used their position to legislate access to the American political system to China, Osama bin Laden and other foreign interests. By using a corporation or subsidiary they can use unlimited funds to influence American politicians and views. This went beyond the scope of the case presented, which claimed no intention of challenging McCain Feingold or the other 100 years of laws that these 5 have removed by opinion.
Since the uproar that has ensued since this vile action took place, it has been further suggested that the COURT will determine - LEGISLATE - what corporations are able to pay to play!!!
Congress is where legislation is created and voted on. Not the court!
These 5 justices have exceeded their power and committed an act of TREASON! They are supporting TERRORISTS while we are at war!
Based on bad BEHAVIOR I want to see these justices removed from office!
------------------------
as to the corporation as a collection of people ----- people have rights, giving rights as a corporation means they get 2 votes - not one!!!!!
With all of this talk about corporations being "people", I wonder if the Supreme Court is aware that they have now invalidated the THIRTEENTH Amendment. If a corporation is a "person", and if a corporation, by definition, is OWNED by its shareholders, that would constitute slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment says that people cannot own other people. If you own a share of stock in Exxon, then you own part of Exxon, and if Exxon is a "person" then you own that "person" in violation of the Constitution.
It's a shame that people like Clarence Thomas apparently have never read the Constitution. It's a magnificent document designed to prevent the crazed abuses that this Court is now enacting.
Constitution aficionados, please... QUESTIONS
Here's the fourth section of the Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/amend14.htm
AND I got questions.
Does this apply ONLY to Civil War debt? Has Sec. 4 ever ben used for any other application?
Is it possible that Sec. 4 could apply to some current debts now placed on The American People???
I ask because it looks to me that this would be really useful in challenging the Transnational Corporations who are working hand-in-hand with individuals in government to sell us down the river.
I mean, we were tricked and scammed into bailing out the Banksters and there are a lot of unacceptable ramifications of that:
o It could have been better to let those who claimed to be "Too Big To Fail" to just FAIL, and declare an amnesty on much of the mess they left behind, among other things.
o The Banksters failed to make good faith loans to Americans as agreed, that's my understanding.
o More and more Americans now are worse off than ever.
o Americans are now indebted to pay off the interest on the bail-out loans for generations. Is that true at all and not an exaggeration? And if so, WHO are we paying back? Central Banks within the Federal Reserve? Are any of those parties at the Central Banks linked to the Banksters who were bailed out?
If these items becomes a daisychain of yes answers, does that mean we've been scammed?
And, IS A SCAM OF THIS PROPORTION AN ACT OF TREASON/INSURRECTION/REBELLION that increases the power of the scammers and decreases the power of the American government and nation and citizenry?
Using ACRU argument that a corporation is a group of people and should be alloted all the rights given each person then every person within that collection should have to pay the penalty given to the corporation for the crimes commuted. Further, each person should transfer their rights to that corporation to make it a person, and one person = one vote so all persons withn the collection would forfiet their vote to create the one vote for the corporate person. Therefore to create a corporate person you must lose the rights given to you as a natural person
Re: Peter Ferrara
The man is either an idiot or a liar. I suspect the later, but who knows?
@Blue Mark -
One problem with your plan re:Registering a Corporation to vote - The Supreme Court also has the option of REFUSING TO HEAR a case. So, they needn't take any action whatever.
RE the Peter Ferrara debate--
He spoke as someone who has never worked for a corporation! No one working for a corporation has a right to speak their own mind while doing the work of the corporation. Speak off the corporate message and any employee gets booted.
What a myth that guest was promoting.
Employees who forfeit their freedom of speech to BE corporate employees, hardly make up a group exercising Free Speech!!!
A corporation is not a group of individuals exercising free speech AS a corporation. A corporation is a group with a line that everyone drawing a paycheck tows. A few individuals set the corporation's line and only those with a power edge are setting the opinions/speech voiced. There is nothing free about the atmosphere of a corporation. To claim otherwise is absurd!
Where's the outrage? The outrage heard from the right about "we must have an up or down vote". And they threatened the nulear option which was to reverse the filibuster rule. The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.
@Gerald, as a fellow Catholic who also went through similar private education. Seems like we're headed back to the Dark Ages brought to us by conservative elements much like the Catholic Church had when they originally brought us a society dominated by the Oligarchy.
Your absolutely right a good Catholic believes in the teachings of Christ, and unfortunately these Catholics believe in the trappings of power.
What's the deal with this Ferrarra guy? His arguement (as I unserstand it) seems to be that the Constitution gives rights to people, and that Corporations, as COLLECTIONS of people, are thus entitled to those same rights.
The Constitution, however, never makes any reference to the rights of a collection of people - the founders apparently felt that each indiviual person having certain rights would be sufficient, and that those rights need not be increased or amplified by the joining of one's own voice with the voices of others.
So, does Mr. Ferrarra's concern with "collections of people" make him a Collectivist - AKA a Communist??? Kinda seems that way to me. :)
Mr. Ferrara,
We understand that the Fascist Five’s decision to allow corporations to rape American politics with money as their deity-given 'human' right does not mean that most corporations will part with their beloved money BUT it does mean that those who do will certain do so to inflict evil. Purging the public good from a corporation's charter fosters only sociopathic behavior.
Thom's guest said that corporations are collections of individuals, therefore have the same freedom of speech rights as individuals.
What this argument assumes is that a) everybody working for a corporation has the same opinion, and/or b) there's some kind of democratic survey to determine where the corporation spends its money on campaigns. This of course, is total nonsense.
I also found it interesting that Thom was able to get his guest to get into an anti-liberal rant, that really exposed his allegiances and prejudices.