Brave New World

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The origin of the title of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is found in Shakespeare's "The Tempest", specifically Miranda's speech, Act V, Scene I:

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't.

—William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act V, Scene I, ll. 203–206

Shakespeare's Miranda (The Tempest) had grown up on an isolated island. She had known only her father, servants, spirits and an "enslaved savage". There was one notable exception: Ariel, "...a spirit of the air", who had refused to serve the witch, Sycorax. As a result, Ariel was imprisoned in a tree until rescued by Prospero.

Early on, Ariel reveals a plot to murder Prospero. Ariel's obedience is an important symbol of Prospero's humanity, ameliorating Prospero and humanizing actions taken by Prospero against his enemies.

Upon seeing other people at last, Miranda is understandably overcome. She utters the famous line: "O brave new world, That has such people in't." It is irony if not sarcasm. What she has witnessed is not civil behavior but that of drunken louts. Huxley employs the same device when the "savage" John witnesses a a "brave new world". Huxley's work --Brave New World --dates to 1931 when he was living in Italy. Already established as a writer and social satirist, Huxley was by this time a regular contributor to Vanity Fair and Vogue. "Brave New World" was Huxley's fifth novel and his first "dystopian work". Huxley was always eager to credit utopian works by various authors to include H.G. Wells, notably his A Modern Utopia (1905) and Men Like Gods of 1923. It was Wells' "hopeful vision of the future" that inspired Huxley to write a parody.

This "parody" became Brave New World. Huxley's vision of the future, however, was quite unlike his original inspirations. Huxley served up what some critics have called a "frightening vision of the future". Huxley himself called it a "negative utopia", a "dystopia". He was clearly inspired by by Wells' own The Sleeper Awakes -ahead of its time with respect to corporate imposed tyranny and "behavioral conditioning".

In 1999, the Modern Library ranked Brave New World fifth on its list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century.[1] In 2003, Robert McCrum writing for The Observer listed Brave New World number 53 in "the top 100 greatest novels of all time",[2] and the novel was listed at number 87 on the BBC's survey The Big Read.[3]

Brave New World

---

---

How Keynes Got it Right and the 'Right' Got it Wrong!

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Many have proposed a 'flat' tax. It sounds good but isn't! Flat taxes are not really 'flat'. Ten percent of the income of a poor or middle person is a much, much greater burden than is the same percentage against the income of a millionaire. The difference is that merely keeping a roof over the family's head and food on the table is a MUCH bigger percentage of income/wealth for a poor or middle class family.

The very, very wealthy, in fact, find it difficult to spend all their wealth. What is left over after the cost of maintaining a villa in Spain or a swanky lodge in the Alps is invested in enterprises that earn even more wealth. Moreover, even Libertarians --if pressed --may admit that 10%, 20%, 30% percent, indeed, any percentage of a poor person's income is a much greater burden than almost any rate on the income of a millionaire! Among the many reasons this is so is that mere necessities --food, water and to varying degrees, shelter --are not only fixed, they will always amount to a much higher PERCENTAGE of a poor or middle class budget than that of the budget of a multi-millionaire or richer.

Libertarians, however, will maintain that income tax is immoral because tax policy may have the effect of re-distributing wealth and income. My reply is that when just one percent of a nation's population owns more than the rest of the population combined, it is time to raise taxes on the very rich.

The whole system is pure criminal as from the installation of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 by Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Not only the American people suffers, the whole world has been sandwiched by the private banks behind the central banking system.

--G. Edward Griffin, Legalized Plunder of the American People

The best argument against a flat tax, ironically, has come from a so-called 'libertarian' who wrote:

That 10 percent is a greater burden on the poor than is 10 percent on the very rich is the very reason that income tax is immoral --as it is currently imposed upon us.

Alas! The Libertarian does not go far enough. A flat tax of any sort will penalize the poor while enriching the rich.

During the 'Great Depression', the American comedian Bob Hope was asked to comment on it. He quipped (and I paraphrase)

"..I looked up the word depression. A 'depression' is a hole. I looked up 'hole'. A hole is 'nothing'. So --if you think I am going to waste my time talking about nothing, you have another think coming!"

There is nothing mysterious about depressions. They are defined by 'negative GDP growth' from which follows negative job creation rates --not to be confused with mere slowdowns or periods of slow growth. Thus depressions are disastrous for the poor. The very, very rich can actually benefit from them by buying bargains that are beyond the reach of the poorer or middle classes. The 'ruling elites' are capable of rigging markets with cleverly timed 'sell-offs'. They have the luxury of buying back in at bargain prices.

A 'depression' is a period of 'contraction'. In the U.S. every recession/depression at least since World War II has occurred during a Republican administration. That is but one reason I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican.

If FDR had been either a Republican or what is commonly called a 'libertarian' (in the Ron Paul sense of the word) the U.S. would have eventually collapsed. Even so, it may have required the U.S. entry into WWII following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to get the U.S. into the war. As a stimulus, 'war' created millions of new jobs and put women to work where --earlier --their presence had been unknown. The image of 'Rosie the Riveter' is still symbolic of the period. The good effect is that women would never again consent willingly to 'second class' citizen status.

As for Keynes, he would not have been surprised by the American experience. He was, after all, famous for his proposal that in times of increased joblessness, the government may do well to bury 'pound notes' in a landfill and let 'private enterprise' dig them up.

If it's all about jobs, why wait for a war to create jobs? A 'liberal' administration has a responsibility to society overall --not just to the 'ruling elites' who finance his campaigns. Rather, a liberal and/or progressive regime will support a more egalitarian society, in fact, a more efficient society as a result.

---

---

Why GOP Administrations are Economic Failures that Prove Marx Correct

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

When Bush Sr fought against, perhaps vanquished 'supply-side economics', it was hoped that the horrible Reagan years could be, would be consigned to the 'dust bin of history'! But no! It was left to 'Shrub', George W. Bush, to unleash unholy forces in order to breathe life into "trickle down theory" otherwise called 'supply side economics!

As it was taken off life support, it was surely Dick 'cyborg' Cheney who may well have yelled: It's ALIVE!

Cheney, of course, professed the Reagan doctrine: "Deficits don't matter". This is a bona fide case of terminal denial and accounts for supply-sider control of the Republican party. But what about Obama? He inherited a run-away train in search of its wreck. As Obama prepared to occupy the White House, the debt grew. Meanwhile, the caped villain (Cheney) and his budding monster(Bush) were still at work licking their chops and dreaming of fight night!

It's ALIVE! It's ALIVE!

Debt had accelerated during Bush's last two budget years. Although Obama had not been directly responsible for that acceleration, the train wreck had been left to him.

As the GOP are wont to do, Bush set records, in fact, the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in a mere 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008.

Then there was the not-so-small matter of recession. To be expected, recessions cut tax revenues significantly and this fact may account for the GOP's sorry record of running up the highest debts and deficits! This has been the case since prior to the Great Depression. It is the pattern that is repeated in every GOP administration since H. Hoover's "Great Depression".

In this case, however, GOP mismanagement accounts for almost half of the deficit. We can be sure that the GOP were prepared to blame Obama for the deficit though his only crime was that timing. Machiavelli might have advised him to sit it out, let the GOP take the rap! Let the GOP face the music and dance quickly out to the door to oblivion. Blaming Obama for the full deficit was said to have been akin to "blaming him for not raising the tax rate to keep tax revenues up".

In times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift or joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a genuinely revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay, more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history.

If, by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests; they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat. The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue. In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped.

The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

-- Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party

In the U.S. it is the GOP which consistently advocates, perhaps fronts, the interests of its primary sponsor: the ruling elite of just 1 percent of the total population. In effect, every real person but those among the top 1 percent are without representation in what is said to be the world's largest "Democracy". Is it really a 'democracy'? It is ironic that while Marx is most demonized by this unholy alliance, it is the existence of the unholy alliance itself which proves Marx to have been correct about almost everything.

---

---

How Citizens United Subverted the Rights of Real People

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I've often written about the detailed and vivid account of A. Htler's meeting with top German industrialists --Krupp, Thyseen, I.G. Farben et al. It was in that meeting that the German fascism was made real in terms of an agreement between the Reich and its 'fascist' sponsors, the huge corporations who would benefit from aggression, death and destruction. The meeting may not have defined the word 'fascism' but it most certainly birthed a Nazi regime in which corporations were given and promised not only privileges but, most importanly, big juicy contracts.

From a lesser known source is another detailed description of the nature of Hitler's fascist partnership with big business:

"From now on, the government in Berlin will allocate large sums to industrialists so that each can establish a secure post-war foundatin in foreign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the party in order that a strong German empire can be created after defeat. It is almost immediately required," he continued, "that the large factories in Germany establish small technical offices or research bureaus which will be absolutely independ and have no connection with the factory. The bureaus will receive plans and drawings of new weapons, as well as document which they will need to cotninue their researh. These special offices are to be established in large cities where security is better, although some might be formed in small villagtes nears sources of hyrdropeletric power, where these party member can pretend to be studying the development of water resources for benefit of Allied investigators."

--Martin Bormann, Nazi in Exile, Paul Manning, [http://spitfirelist.com/books/manning.pdf]

Some have said that the 'brand' of fascism now emerging in Western democracies, the U.S. in particular is a completely new phenomenon. I disagree! The odious 'Citizen-United' decision, in which SCOTUS decreed that corporations were 'persons', is an open and odious declaration that a corporation may utilize its wealth, riches and privileges to enslave a population of 'real people' whose humanity is as self-evident as Thomas Jefferson had declared of 'real' persons in our own 'Declaration of Independence":

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Earlier, John Adams had written of the same concepts in somewhat different words:

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Now, of course, we know that these rights extend to women as well. Surely --even our crooked court must understand that. Even so, the Roberts court cannot be trusted to defend the rights of persons of any color, creed or sex. Our court cannot be trusted to recognize an even older and more venerable position: that governments derive their power power, right and right of power from the peole who are ---alone --sovereign!

We must not be surprised to find among GOPPERS an obsessive fascination with all things 'German' --inclinations, interests, political philsophies. Paul Ryan, Mitt's desperate choice for running mate, now says that Ayn Rand is not his only idol; he says that in his offices, NIETZCHE is required reading, though he is accurately described with just two words: "moral Platonist". It was Neitzche who described the world as nasty and brutish and life as short.

---

---

Mitt Romney's Not So Subtle Attack on the Rights of All Americans to Vote

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Today --the rights of all people of any color to vote are still under threat by ILK like Mitt Romney who has taken up the GOP 'code word' for BIGOTRY ---VOTER FRAUD. There are very few if ANY instances of voter fraud but the CROOKED EFFORTS of the GOP to keep anyone not of the 'white' race, indeed, anyone not a GOPPER from voting. I call GOP efforts to stop ballot recounts in Florida 'voter fraud'.

I call the disingenusous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, halting the recounts, by the name 'voter fraud'. Though it was phony votes that were the fraud --NOT real voters of any sort or ethnic origin whose votes were targeted by the GOP and the 'high' court. I would not be surprised to learn that the meme 'voter fraud' was cooked up by an Orwellian political consulting firm and its paid 'focus group' who 'tested' it.

Some real history about how it was a Demoratic President who worked to ensure the rights of ALL voters to vote. It was --not surprisingly --a staunch Republican senator from South Carolina, a confirmed segregationist who filibustered and blocked passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 that had been written by then Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson. There were some alterations to the bill. That was to be expected. Nevertheless, the bill passed and would be signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower. It made the history that Mitt Romney hopes to re-write or erase.

The bill established the Civil Rights Commission and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Both agencies would ensure that the voting rights and civil rights of African Americans and all Americans wiould be enforced.

Having already made history, in April of 1960, LBJ was 'playing catch up' to an aggressive Kennedy machine. Later, journalist Howard B. Woods, editor of a black newspaper called the St. Louis Argus would recall those times in Passage of Power, a biographical series on the life and times of Johnson:

The Senator, tie-less and in shirtsleeves, was eating cookies and drinking a tall, and stiff, Scotch, but when Woods ask him about the civil rights bill "which seems to please no one," saying, "Senator, the bill, as it was finally passed, was admittedly watered down," Johnson forgot about the cookies and the Scotch, and leaned forward across the table, looking Woods "straight in the eye" in a way the editor found quite memorable.

"When we say every man has a right to vote, that is not watered down," Lyndon Johnson said." The important thing in this country is whether or not a man can participate in the management of his government. When this is possible, he can decide that I'm no good." George Reedy slipped into the seat next to Woods, but Johnson didn't need Reedy now. "Civil rights are a matter of human dignity," he said.

"It's outrageous that all people do not have the dignity to which they are entitled. But we can't legislate human dignity -- we can legislative to give a man a vote and a voice in in his own government. Then with his vote and his voice he is equipped with a very potent weapon to guarantee his own dignity." [Emphasis added.]

-Howard B. Woods, Passage of Power

---

---

How Citizens United Subverted the Rights of Real People and Created a Fascist State

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

I've often written about the detailed and vivid account of A. Hitler's meeting with top German industrialists --Krupp, Thysen, I.G. Farben et al. It was in that meeting that German fascism was made real in terms of an agreement between the Reich and its 'fascist' sponsors, the huge corporations who would benefit from aggression, death and destruction.

The meeting may not have defined the word 'fascism' but it most certainly birthed a Nazi regime in which corporations were given and promised not only privileges but, most importantly, big juicy contracts.

From a lesser known source is another detailed description of the nature of Hitler's fascist partnership with big business:

"From now on, the government in Berlin will allocate large sums to industrialists so that each can establish a secure post-war foundation in foreign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the party in order that a strong German empire can be created after defeat. It is almost immediately required," he continued, "that the large factories in Germany establish small technical offices or research bureaus which will be absolutely independent and have no connection with the factory. The bureaus will receive plans and drawings of new weapons, as well as document which they will need to continue their research. These special offices are to be established in large cities where security is better, although some might be formed in small villages nears sources of hydroelectric power, where these party member can pretend to be studying the development of water resources for benefit of Allied investigators."

--Martin Bormann, Nazi in Exile, Paul Manning [PDF]

Some have said that the 'brand' of fascism now emerging in Western democracies, the U.S. in particular, is a completely new phenomenon. I disagree! The odious 'Citizen-United' decision, in which SCOTUS decreed that corporations were 'persons', is an open and odious declaration that a corporation may utilize its wealth, riches and privileges to enslave a population of 'real people' whose humanity is as self-evident as were the principles Thomas Jefferson had declared of 'real' persons in our own 'Declaration of Independence":

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Earlier, John Adams had written of the same concepts in somewhat different words:

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Now, of course, we know that these rights extend to women as well. Surely --even our crooked court must understand that. Even so, the Roberts court cannot be trusted to defend the rights of men or women, or, indeed, the rights of REAL persons of any color, creed or sex. Our court cannot be trusted to uphold the law when it was respected. Nor does it recognize an even older and more venerable position: that governments derive their power, and rights of power from the peole who are ---alone --sovereign!

---

---

The Fascist Origins of 'Corporate Personhood'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Many sources support my assertion and emerging thesis: the concept of 'corporate personhood' has Germanic, fascist roots. Herr Schlegel, for example, wrote an essay entitled “Signature of the Age” (Signatur des Zeitalters, 1820). Amid his attacks on British-American "parliamentary government" may be found his Mitt Romney/SCOTUS-like descriptions of a "machine-like", ideal state.

Schlegel describes his ideal with the term "organic" --though it is not! Schlegel also used the term 'Christian' to describe his 'fascist' state. His 'Christian corporations', he said, were 'living wholes' and he described them in terms not unlike that of the corporatist (fascist) philosophy that had been espoused/advocated by Hegel.

Some hard background: in England, ‘the Crown’ has been regarded as a 'legal entity' for centuries. But that is not to say that the 'Crown' IS 'a person'! It simply does not follow that because the 'Crown' may exert power and/or authority it is a 'person'.

Likewise, it simply does not follow that because 'corporations' may enter into contracts that the said 'corporation' is a person. In the case of the 'Crown', for example, it was said that it was both a source of law and the means by which it was enforced! This, it is said, put it above 'laws' --laws which people, real people, are expected to obey. Ergo: the 'state' is, likewise, not a person.

It is said that 'all modern societies' recognize the 'legal existence, as persons, of companies or corporations'! Again --many things may be asserted! It was often asserted that the world was flat; saying so did not make it true.

Corporations do not procreate sexually; corporations do not grow, fart, belch or have babies. Corporations do NONE of the things that define 'real people' either biologically or psychologically. A 'corporation' is nothing less than a paper contract outlining how and possibly when they may interact with 'real people' and with other corporations. NONE of these 'privileges' imply or bestow upon a 'corporation' either a sexual or asexual means by which they may procreate; NONE of these 'privileges' have either the evolutionary power or the 'God-like' power of bestowing upon a mere paper contract the status of 'personhood'.

SCOTUS was wrong and wrong-headed and so are those members of the GOP who bought the scam!

Some have said that a corporation is an 'artificial' person! But a 'real person' is ...uh...a 'real' person! A corporation is not by definition! Black's Law definition is disingenuous. Neither dictionaries nor ill-informed legal decisions can make people out of what are --in fact --mere contracts. Existence precedes 'essence' and it is 'essence' which defines! People are what they are upon birth. Corporations share none of characteristics which define what it means to be a person!

Contracts which, in effect, create a 'corporate entity, differ from other contracts only because they are normally on-file with a Secretary of State somewhere. But that hardly makes of them a 'real person'. They simply outline the legal scope of responsibilities of those party to the contract. See the quote by St. Thomas More who said of them that they were, in fact, '...conspiracies of rich men to procure their commodities in the name and title of the commonwealth'!

When the Sec of State in Delaware (for example) affixes his SEAL upon the articles of incorporation he has performed in a manner PRECISELY described by St Thomas More in his classic "Utopia". Ergo --corporations are better described as being 'legalized conspiracies' than as 'real people'.

“I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.”

- Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia

Words fail to describe the depths of lies, propaganda and sophistry indulged by the likes of A. Scalia who --laughingly --believes himself to be 'too smart for the court'!

Most advocates of 'corporate personhood' indulge false analogies because 'false' analogies may be their last redoubt. Clearly --real persons are not so easily defined or summed up having attributes of consciousness and volition that may never be duplicated in unimaginably large super-computers let alone a mere scrap of papers with a seal on it. Simply, 'personhood' cannot be duplicated artificially and most certainly is not duplicated in mere 'legal abstractions' of any kind.

I deny many right-leaning assertions that "modern societies recognise the legal existence as persons of companies or corporations"! If what is said in defense of corporate personhood were true, TRADE UNIONS would, may and should claim 'personhood'. Should they do so, GOP hypocrites would scream bloody murder, foul, no fair!

By simply refusing to tolerate such an outcome, the GOP will have demonstrated its hypocrisy, its disingenuous assertion that corporations are people. Alas --the GOP has historically sought to have it several ways but right.

In the meantime, I urge those who make cars for a living --ORGANIZE AND INCORPORATE!

I urge those who make steel for a living --ORGANIZE AND INCORPORATE!

I urge those who work in any way with respect to the production of oil and/or petroleum related/derived products --ORGANIZE AND INCORPORATE!

In that way, you are guaranteed that you will be treated like REAL PERSONS while, previously, actually BEING a real person would have guaranteed your enslavement to MOLOCH.

ORGANIZE!!!

---

---

Mitt is Either WRONG or LYING; Corporations are NOT People and SCOTUS Cannot 'Create' Them People!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Mitt Romney seemed very precise: "Of course, corporations are people, my friend!" His argument is as follows: corporations are made up of people; ergo: they ARE persons themselves.

That's not only fallacious (of course), a BAD RE-WRITE of Thomas Hobbes who described a Leviathan --a state comprised of the people in it. Not even Hobbes would have dared to say that the state IS a person! Being comprised of people is not the same thing as being a person. The philosophical literature with respect to class theory, symbolic logic, logical positivism, et al, et al is venerable. It consists of great and classical works from Plato to Russell, from Aristotle to Wittgenstein, Hobbes to Ayer. None of them confused a "class" with its members. None of them confused the passengers with the bus that carries them!

As a person, I am made up of millions of cells, each of which replicate my DNA to some degree. But to say that EACH cell IS "ME" is absurd, if not insane! What if I should prick my finger and I lose some blood? Have several hundred thousand people died? Of course not!

Romney defends his implications because money "...gets into people's pockets" by way of companies. So what? That does not make them people! But more importantly, his argument is the crude inverse of the "labor theory of value" which is espoused by most (if not all) legitimate economists. The issue is ultimately: who creates value?

What about those people not employed by the corporations about which Romney spoke? Are they NOT people? In Romney's view, taken to its logical conclusions, one must work or indenture him/herself to a corporation in order to be a person! Absurd!

If Romney's logic were valid, LABOR UNIONS would be people because "people" belong to it! Wager: Romney will make a convenient exception. He will deny that LABOR UNIONS are people though the case on behalf of labor unions is a much better than than Mitt's case for "corporations". [See: If Corporations are people, then, perhaps Labor Should Become a 'Person'] I know of no law that would prohibit any organization from "incorporating". I suggest that labor unions "incorporate". If that is done, then corporations would have no choice but to recognize the union.

Let's consider Mitt's analogy in this way: if it were true that every cell in my body is a 'person', anyone cutting off my finger is not only guilty of assault and battery but the COLD BLOODED murder of millions of little, micropscopic 'ME's".

Being a 'person' occurs by virtue of being born of two members of the species: homo sapien! That is not the case with a corporation, any corporation, a corporation of any type! Simply, real persons are, by definition, born of other 'persons'!

By contrast, a corporation is, by definition, a charter, filed with a Secretary of State (most often Delaware); the charter outlines the corporate structure, lists the major officers and describes the 'type' of 'incorporation in legal terms. It is a NOT a person but simply a contract listing the major stockholders, summarizing the management and delegating various responsibilities.

When a corporation is given birth to by a woman as a result of her doing what human beings (persons) have done for thousands of years, then I might concur that corporations are persons. That will happn when pigs fly. And pigs WILL fly when I vote for a moron like Mitt Romney.

In the meantime, I suggest Mitt...

• go back to school
• take a biology course
• take two semesters of philosophy
• take two semesters of symbolic logic and one INTRO to the "Philosophy of Logical Analysis".

Meanwhile --corporations are NOT and never will be "people'!

---

---

The Fascist Coup Called 'Corporate Person-hood'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I was asked to explain why a group of individuals should not have the same freedom of action as a singular individual. And I was told so magnanimously to "...feel free to reference any philosophy journal you wish in your response." My response was to ask WHY and HOW a group --which must act 'collectively' -- acquired what even scientists have called a 'conscience'? I asked for an explanation: how may any "group" and especially a corporation exercise a conscience'?

In fact, no collective, no corporation, no club can --as a collective --exercise 'conscience'. A group --were it a person --would be defined by its inability to act upon conscience, to 'feel' obliged to act in ways that are consistent with an ethical position, a morality, or a secular ethic derived from philosophy or logic. As a result of this hypothetical, I have come to suspect that the very purpose of both corporations and the 'movement' to make persons of them is twofold: 1) to raise huge amounts of cash and 2) to allow them to act FREE of moral restraints --restraints that 'real' persons often trace to 'conscience'!

Groups are not individuals by definition! Groups may act upon a consensus! An individual because he/she is an individual is held accountable for his/her crimes, sins or transgressions against society. That is not the case with groups of any sort nor is it the case with 'corporations'. It was the purpose of Citizens-United to put corporations above all that while granting them 'privileges' --privileges that 'real' persons will never enjoy.

One must not mistake a collective of any sort with the individuals who comprise it. A covey is not a quail; a choir is not 'a' soloist; a single violinist is not an orchestra. Nor can one mistake the sound of a choir with that of an individual soloist. Likewise, a 'pride' can never be mistaken for a single lion nor vice versa. An ant colony is not 'an' ant!

Corporate personhood is a hoax if not a bald-faced lie! And, it has been my experience, that no good has ever come as a result of a lie or the embrace of one. Thus --we come to the reasons that the hoax of 'corporate personhood' was handed down by an increasingly crooked and incompetent court. Corporations have, in fact, used their access to wealth to influence political campaigns in ways that individuals could never do! I speak from experience, having consulted several political campaigns in one of the nation's largest cities.

As an individual, I pay my bills! I don't have anything left over with which to influence politicians of any persuasion ---even Libertarians. But what if I were a large corporation with deep-pockets and even deeper connections to the Republican party? As a corporation I could write off my contributions and get a whopping tax break. The scheme is very nearly perfect but for the fact that corporations --not being persons --could be challenged. The corporate support of a political candidate could not be construed to be 'free speech'. But --never fear --the high court, now dominated by GOP appointees fixed all that!

Corporate contributions are now smiled upon. Corporations may now BUY politicians and perhaps the election itself! That is motivation behind Citizens-United. Being "people" can bankroll politicians in any way they wish. They are no longer constrained. We should not be surprised when corporations attempt and purchase elections outright. The word for this is fascism.

I am reminded of A. Hitler's infamous meeting with Krupp, Thyssen, I.G. Farben (the makers of Xyklon B). Hitler literally auctioned off the Third Reich and offered his services as Fuhrer in residence! Corporate personhood is fascism/nazism given a K-street make-over! But the end result is the same: corporations now have a great light to buy the Rei...uh... the republic! And the 'republic' is given a green light to grant whopping contracts to its corporate sponsors. The government has become a soap-box derby.

The term 'artificial person' is an oxymoron but the GOP would like to have it both ways. With Citizens-United, the GOP could have it both ways: the granting of the rights of individual persons to corporations who retained their ability to raise absurd amounts of cash. 'Real persons' are, by definition, real! Now, however, the corporate right-wing' (fascists) expect us to believe that a 'corporation-cum-person' can be both REAL and --at the same time --artificial --For the purposes of raising cash. Real persons cannot do that. But corporations can and Citizens-United was the right wing solution.

Corporations were at one time only formed in the public interest (build a bridge) and dissolved when the reason for their incorporation was finished. This was a legal protection required to get the job done. But, in any case, it does not make a 'legal abstraction' a 'person'! Fact is --people are biological. A corporation is a legal abstraction, the behavior of which is described in a set bylaws filed with a Sec of State --usually Delaware.

A corporation is better described as a 'contract' outlining the parameters of taxation, commerce, bylaw et al! But CONTRACTS are NOT people either. But there is absolutely nothing that can create people our of mere 'legal abstraction'.

Real persons are conceived biologically in a womb! There is a word for that process but this short note is not about sex. Corporations, by contrast, are pieces of paper filed with a Sec of State somewhere (probably Delaware). Ergo: a 'corporation' is not and never will be a person.

A 'corporation' has more in common with and is more accurately described/compared to a piece of paper than to real, living biological persons to whom John Locke and, later, the American founders, ascribed 'rights'. NO rights accrue to a mere legal abstractions but the 'privileges' that are defined and described specifically in a corporate charter that is prepared in advance by REAL people. Corporations can be constrained, restrained and/or limited by law and several hundred years of precedent.

NO intelligent person believes a 'corporation' is a 'person'. Sir/St Thomas More --arguably the most brilliant confidant of King Henry VIII --most certainly did not believe 'corporations' were 'persons'. More believed, rather, that they were 'conspiracies' and 'conspiracies of crooked rich men' to boot:

"I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be. These devices, when the rich men have decreed to be kept and observed for the commonwealth’s sake, that is to say for the wealth also of the poor people, then they be made laws.But these most wicked and vicious men, when they have by their insatiable covetousness divided among themselves all those things, which would have sufficed all men, yet how far be they from the wealth and felicity of the Utopian commonwealth? Out of the which, in that all the desire of money with the use of thereof is utterly secluded and banished, how great a heap of cares is cut away! How great an occasion of wickedness and mischief is plucked up by the roots! 

--Sir Thomas More (1478–1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia"

A hurd is not a cow! A covey is not a quail! An ant is not a colony! A stamp collection is not a stamp nor is a flock a sheep.

So there, Mitt Romney! Read and learn. You are --despite having sold your soul to the GOP --a person! But as real persons are often intelligent and because real persons have a vote (one person, one vote) you will --with any luck --never assume to the high office to which you aspire.

Also see: Profits Uber Alles! American Corporations and HItler

---

Support the Proposed Amendment that Would ABOLISH 'Corporate Personhood'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I fully support a movement to enact a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that rejects and will undo the recent SCOTUS decision 'creating people' of 'legal abstractions', i.e, corporations. The idea that corporations are people is insidious, seditious; it endangers American Democracy. While 'real people' are held to the letter of the law and often imprisoned for wrong doing, corporations, as 'persons; will be, in practice, 'above the laws'.

In fact, these newly created 'people' i.e, corporations will be (if not already) placed'above the laws' that apply to mere folk! As has been said:

"I will believe that corporations are persons when Texas EXECUTES one of them!

A proposed amendment would reverse the decision of the high court with respect to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-to-4 vote, SCOTUS 'created' real people of mere corporations declaring that corporations have, among every Constitutional right, a right of 'free speech' under the First Amendment. It was declared that the government may not 'impose restrictions' on the political speech that corporations may indulge. But, not being persons in fact, corporations have no such right! That is a right our founders believed were inherent rights of people, REAL people!

As a result of this pernicious decision, corporations and other special interest groups are now given license to spend "unlimited amounts of money on elections." They may 'buy' an election openly whereas, in the past, it was necessary to hide the evil deed from public scrunity! A 'real' person cannot do this! Therefore, 'corporate personhood' is, on its face, a violation of the Fourth Amendment!

The decision is a green light to corporations: buy and/or support any candidate with as much money as you want to spend! The decision could not have been a bigger afront to Democracy, i.e, government of the people. Free speech is a right of people as affirmed by our founders. That corporations may now claim that right is simply fascism. It makes of our nation a 'fascist' state ---pure and simple!

The ORIGIN of 'corporate personhood' is found in an informal note from a CLERK: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." To apply this to 'corporations' requires that one must first assume that the entity is a 'person'! That is called a 'circulus en probando' fallacy. In the vernacular, it's 'backward thinking'; it assumes facts not in evidence. It is a conclusion cited to support a premise.

And --no, Mitt --corporations are NOT people and you, sir, are NOT my friend!

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] Prior to this mere clerk's mere note, NO ONE had believed that the 14th amendment applied to anyone but real people. Nor does it now! Scalia's court blew it again! If Scalia had a last remaining vestige of conscience, he would confess that he:

• BLEW IT;
• ADMIT that he is a bought and paid for tool;
• RESIGN!

---

---

Corporations are NOT people! They are 'Conspiricies of Rich Men'

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Real persons are conceived biologically in a womb! There is a word for that process but this short note is not about sex. Corporations, by contrast, are pieces of paper filed with a Sec of State somewhere (probably Delaware). Ergo: a 'corporation' is not and never will be a person.

A 'corporation' has more in common with and is more accurately described/compared to a piece of paper than to real, living biological persons to whom John Locke and, later, the American founders, ascribed 'rights'. NO rights accrue to mere legal abstractions but the 'privileges' that are defined and described specifically in a corporate charter that is prepared in advance by REAL people. Corporations can be constrained, restrained and/or limited by law and several hundred years of precedent.

NO intelligent person believes a 'corporation' is a 'person'. Sir/St Thomas More --arguably the most brilliant confidant of King Henry VIII --most certainly did not believe 'corporations' were 'persons'. More believed, rather, that they were 'conspiracies' and 'conspiracies of crooked rich men' to boot:

"I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be. These devices, when the rich men have decreed to be kept and observed for the commonwealth’s sake, that is to say for the wealth also of the poor people, then they be made laws. But these most wicked and vicious men, when they have by their insatiable covetousness divided among themselves all those things, which would have sufficed all men, yet how far be they from the wealth and felicity of the Utopian commonwealth? Out of the which, in that all the desire of money with the use of thereof is utterly secluded and banished, how great a heap of cares is cut away! How great an occasion of wickedness and mischief is plucked up by the roots!

--Sir/St Thomas More (1478–1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia"

I suspect that the idea of 'corporate personhood' may have its origins in a misunderstanding, a mis-read of Hobbes'. But the Hobbes Leviathan refers to the 'state' --not to businesses that may be chartered in any way whatsoever by a state. In any case, not even the 'state' Leviathan is considered by Hobbes to have been a single person but, rather, the abstract sovereignty invested in the state by the people as a collective --NOT as a single entity as is the case with personhood. Nor have I found anything in Hobbes that asserts that the 'state' has the power to make 'people' of abstractions whose only raison d'etre is the making of money.

A herd is not a cow! A covey is not a quail. A stamp collection is not a stamp nor is a flock a single sheep. An ant is not a colony, but more to the point, a colony is NOT an ant.

---

---

Mitt is Either Wrong or Lying; Corporations are NOT People

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Mitt Romney seemed very precise: "Of course, corporations are people, my friend!" His argument is as follows: corporations were made up of people; ergo: they ARE persons themselves.

That's fallacious of course! It's also a very bad re-write of Thomas Hobbes who described a Leviathan --a 'state' comprised of the people in it. But not even Hobbes would have dared to say that the 'state' IS a person! Being 'comprised' of people is not the same thing as being a 'being' a person.

As a person, I am made up of millions of cells, each of which replicate my DNA to some degree. But to say that EACH cell IS "ME" is absurd. What if I should prick my finger and I lose some blood? Have several hundred thousand 'people' died? Of course not!

Romney seemed to be arguing that because money that "...gets into people's pockets" does so by way of companies, companies are therefore 'people'! Again --his argument is not only fallacious but non-sensical! That workers are paid by corporations does not make people of corporations.

What about those 'people' not employed by the corporations about which Romeny spoke? Are we to believe that they are NOT people? In Romney's view, one must work or be indentured to a 'corporation' in order to be a person! That's absurd on its face. Clearly:

• Romney has never truly understood the issue and may be incapable of understanding it
• He is ignorant of the implications
• He needs to take remedial courses in elementary logic and biology
• Corporations are NOT and will never be 'people'

Let's consider Mitt's analogy in this way: if it were true that every cell in my body is a 'person', anyone cutting off my finger is, at least, guilty of assault and battery and possibly the cold-blooded murder of millions of little, micropscopic 'ME's". 

Being a 'person' occurs by virtue of being born of two members of the species: homo sapien! That is not the case with a corporation, any corporation, a corporation of any type! A corporation is, by definition, a charter, filed with a Secretary of State (most often Delaware); the charter outlines the corporate structure, lists the major officers and describes the 'type' of 'incorporation in legal terms. It is a NOT a person but simply a contract listing the major stockholders, summarizing the management and delegating various responsibilities. Certain accounting conventions follow but, certainly, no procedure has the God-like power to create 'persons' with a ledger book! No such combination of debits and credits has ever breathed life into inanimate objects and, by doing so, make 'people' of them!

When a corporation is given birth to by a woman as a result of her doing what human beings (persons) have done for thousands of years, then I might concur that corporations are persons. That will happn when pigs fly. And pigs WILL fly when I vote for a moron like Mitt Romney.

In the meantime, I suggest Mitt...

• go back to school
• take a biology course
• take two semesters of philosophy
• take two semesters of symbolic logic and one INTRO to the "Philosophy of Logical Analysis".

And ---corporations are NOT and never will be "people'!

---

---

Illegal Immigrants Pay More Taxes Than Many Top U.S. Corporations

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

If 'corporations' are people, then why are they NOT paying their fair share of taxes? Some pay very little! Some pay no taxes at all! The tax burden has, in fact, fallen upon REAL people and that --in itself --proves the LIE to the SCOTUS decision known, simply, as "Citizens United" in which five robed liars decreed that 'corporations' were 'people'. Citizens United was not a 'decision; it was a bald-faced lie! If it had been the truth 'Corporations' --being 'real' people --would be paying their fair share of taxes just like hard working and often hard pressed American REAL 'real people' are doing and have been doing since this nation's founding. And, when caught breaking the law, they would be imprisoned as are 'real' real people! If the letter of law applies to people and not to corporations, then corporation are NOT and will never be 'people'! SCOTUS has become crooked!

According to the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (itepnet.org), undocumented workers paid billions in state organization that works on federal, state and local tax policy issues." GE, remember, paid NOTHING. Though conservatives will likely put ITEP alonside FactCheck and PolitiFact as liberal propaganda machines, ITEP is, as the NY Daily News reports, "a prestigious, nonprofit, nonpartisan research

--Illegal Immigrants Pay More Taxes Than Many Top U.S. Corporations

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has put out “A Guide to Corporate Freeloaders.”

1. Exxon Mobil’s 2009 profits totaled $19 billion, yet according to its SEC filings, the company received a $156 million rebate from the IRS plus it didn’t pay any federal taxes.
2. Bank of America made $4.4 billion in profits last year. This was after it received a $1 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, and a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS.
3. General Electric has made $26 billion in profits in the United States over the past five years. It’s also received a $4.1 billion tax refund from the IRS. GE has cut a fifth of its American jobs in the past nine years, and is boosting jobs overseas – where tax rates are lower. And where it can continue evading U.S. taxes.
4. Chevron’s IRS refund last year totaled $19 million but it’s 2009 profits came to a whopping $10 billion.
5. Boeing received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers. It also received a $124 million refund from the IRS.
6. Valero Energy made $68 billion in sales and received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS. Over the past three years, it has received a $134 million tax break thanks to the oil and gas manufacturing tax reduction
7. Goldman Sachs paid 1.1% of its 2009 income in taxes. Yet it made a profit of $2.3 billion. And guess how much it received from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department? $800 billion.
8. Citigroup profits last year totaled more than $4 billion. But it paid zero dollars in federal income tax, and received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9. ConocoPhillips profits from 2007 through 2009 totaled $16 billion. But it was still awarded $461 million in tax arrears because of the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10. Carnival Cruise Lines is apparently getting pretty good business. Its profits over the past five years totaled more than $1.1 billion. It’s federal income tax rate, however, came to just 1.1%.

Experience had led me to believe that most of the so-called 'illegal immigrants' who live and work in the U.S. are honest, hard-working folk. They work, raise children, shop, spend money! In fact, they represent a far greater infusion of 'monies' into the economy than do corporate leeches.

These so-called 'illegal aliens' are, in fact, paying their fair share and more! Corporate crooks often pay NOTHING whatsoever even as they export jobs, possibly your job! They leave it to real 'real' people to take up the slack!

Unlike corporate leeches upon the economy, so-called 'illegal aliens' do not export jobs. Jobs stay right here in the U.S. That is in stark contrast to GOP policies in general which have always resulted in the decline of U.S. jobs, in effect, a net export to those nation's with whom we have a negative trade balance --significantly: China. [See: CIA World Fact Book, Current Account Balance]

It has been asked: when did America, a country whose narrative and history was built on the sweat of immigrants, turn against immigration and immigrants? That's easy! That result came about with the rise of the GOP --a party of lies, scapegoats and excuses!

It has been said that there has always been a strong anti-immigration element in America! But I believe that that was not always the case. In fact, the Native Americans were here thousands of years before Europeans showed up and, in many if not most or all cases, Native Americans welcomed the new arrivals. They paid dearly for it. There are myriads of stories of genocide and atrocities. I refer the interested reader to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, specifically, his description of the fate of the Arawaks.

In the meantime, all Americans of every ancestry and origin must begin to think clearly about transperant, bald-faced lies that are invariably told and sold by the U.S. GOP --not a political party but an evil kooky cult.

It Takes Courage to Leave the GOP Cult

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The GOP is not a political party. It is a crime syndicate, to be sure, but also evinces characterisitcs of a kooky cult. I say that based upon my experience as a young man who got an education from 'inside the GOP'. I consulted them but stopped for reasons of conscience. I can relate to comments by John P. Judis, who chose to leave the cult.

"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery." U.S. Fascism Will Have TX Origins
--John P. Judis, quote found at Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis

The GOP --sponsored as it is by exceedingly huge corporations which now presume to be persons --is an existential threat to American Democracy. The recent decision re: corporate personhood will prove to have been the piece de resistance! Either the GOP is in the pocket of the huge corporations or it is the other way around. The distinctions are as blurred as is the term 'corporate moraltiy' --an oxymoron.

The fact is corporations are mere 'legal abstractions'; they are NOT people. The definition of 'people' may be found in biology and/or psychology textbooks; I deny that politicians, old men, liars in robes can redefine with a mere decree some several million years of evolution over which they had no control or input. Robed judges are not 'God'! They cannot --with a mere decree --change the laws of evolution and/or physics. That some on the 'court' think so is evidence of insane and myopic arrogance!

I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future; and contemptuous of the feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop them. And, in truth, I left as an act of rational self-interest. Having gutted private-sector pensions and health benefits as a result of their embrace of outsourcing, union busting and "shareholder value," the GOP now thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP's decades-long campaign of scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one.

--John P. Judis, quote found at Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis

That the GOP has gone too far may be good news! GOP extremes, crimes, lie and absuridties have, at last, awakened some Democrats to the danger. At the same time, some Republicans have grown uncomfortable playing Faust to to the GOP's Mephistopheles, i.e, Satan. To them --I say: too late! You may have already sold your soul! And --as they say in Hollywood: what else you got?

---

---

Deceptive, Dubious and Dishonest Origins of Corporate Personhood

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The origins of 'corporate personhood' are dubious, suspicious, crooked! 'Corporate personhood' derived from an informal note from a CLERK:

"The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There are many things wrong with this statement. For a start, the 14th states clearly that its intention is to forbid a state "...to deny to any person ...equal protection of the law." To apply this to coporations assumes that corporations are people to begin with. Logicians call this a circulus en probando fallacy i.e, a circular argument! Lawyers would say that it 'assumes facts not in evidence'! Specifically , it 'assumes' that corporations are people under the 14th and does so in order to prove that 'corporations are people'. Thus an assumption becomes the premise that 'proves' the assumption; in this case an 'assumption' that 'corporations are people'! In fact, corporations are NOT entitled to the protections of the 14th because they are not, in fact, people!

A political agenda was at work! It is in the interests of the 'corporate party' [GOP] that corporations, their benefactors, be considered people. It is in the interests of this corporate party that corporations be granted privileges which, as mere legal abstractions, they would not, do not in any way deserve or warrant! In this way, I can prove almost anything,however fallacious, however stupid, however backward.

The GOP has learned to hide their 'assumptions' among the panoply of crap that is believed by the GOP rank and file in order to feel good about themselves. In fact, this fallacy would not survive a first semester logic course at university; this fallacy would not survive a sophomore high school debate coach.

Again --the right wing is severely, endemically confused about cause and effect, about premises and conclusions. A conclusion cannot be a rationale for a premise! A conclusion may not precede a premise. "One" precedes "two" and 'causes' --without fail --always precede their effects.

'Corporate personhood' was a desired result! One senses desperation at work. Failing authoritative sources --say --the U.S. Constitution or previous decisions of the high court, the five desperadoes, otherwise disguised as 'justices' seized upon whatever sounded good. Scalia is expert at this. His rationale for Bush v Gore, for example, was just as fallacious --a circulus en probando fallacy.

"...to count first and rule upon legality afterwards is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires."

--Antonin Scalia, CNN Transcripts, December 11, 2000, Supreme Court Bush v. Gore

The effect was simply this: the re-count was halted while Bush was still ahead! If this fallacy, which in fact works backward from a foregone conclusion, is the basis for SCOTUS's 'corporate personhood' decree then we must conclude that valid opinions of and by real jurists and past courts, several hundred years of jurisprudential traditions dating back to MAGNA CARTA mean nothing to Scalia! In better times, Scalia would have been called out, challenged, tarred, perhaps feathered, made to squawk while flapping his flabby arms.

Five republicans on SCOTUS have nothing but contempt for the concept of 'equal protection under the law' guaranteed to all citizens via the 14th Amendment'. They are contemptuous of the Bill of Rights in general.

"Of the cases in this court in which the 14th Amendment was applied during its first fifty years after its adoption, less than one half of one percent invoked it in protection of the Negro race, and more than fifty percent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations"

--Justice Hugo Black 1938*

The Fourteenth Amendment was one of three amendments to the Constitution adopted after the Civil War to guarantee black rights. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, the Fourteenth granted citizenship to people once enslaved, and the Fifteenth guaranteed black men the right to vote. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed by Congress in June 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868. The Radical Republicans had been battling with Andrew Johnson for control of Reconstruction. Johnson was in favor of leaving the future of black people in the hands of white Southerners.

The Radical Republicans disagreed, and they won. The amendment was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. It did this by granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States and prohibiting states from denying or abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S., depriving any person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ("No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") With the exception of Tennessee, the Southern states refused to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. The Republicans then passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which set the conditions the Southern states had to accept before they could be readmitted to the union, including ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Since Reconstruction, the Fourteenth Amendment -- especially the equal protection clause -- has been applied to a number of cases. It emerged in the famous Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka when the United States Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment as one of its rationales for declaring school segregation unconstitutional.

--Why the progress made by blacks during Reconstruction was seen as a threat by whites, Richard Wormser

In 1971, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Reed v. Reed. Sally Reed had sued when Idaho law presumed that her estranged husband should be automatically selected as executor of the estate of their son, who had died without naming an executor. The Idaho law stated that "males must be preferred to females" in choosing estate administrators.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did prohibit such unequal treatment on the basis of sex -- the first US Supreme Court decision to apply the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause to gender or sexual distinctions. Later cases have refined the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to sex discrimination, but it was more than 100 years after passage of the Fourteenth Amendment before it was applied to women's rights.

-Jone Johnson Lewis, Women's Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment - Finally Applied, Reed v. Reed and Roe v. Wade, Findlaw

---

---

Support the Proposed Amendment that Would ABOLISH 'Corporate Personhood'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I fully support a movement to enact a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that rejects and will undo the recent SCOTUS decision 'creating people' of mere 'legal abstractions'. The idea that corporations ---mere legal abstractions --are people is insidious and endangers American Democracy. While 'real people' are held to the letter of the law and often imprisoned for wrong doing, the very purpose of 'corporate personhood' has had the effect, in practice, of placing 'corporations' above-the-law.

A proposed amendment would reverse the decision of the high court with respect to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-to-4 vote, SCOTUS 'created' real people of mere corporations declaring that corporations have, among every Constitutional right, a right of 'free speech' under the First Amendment. It was declared that the government may not 'impose restrictions' on the political speech that corporations may indulge. As a result, corporations and other special interest groups are now given license to spend "unlimited amounts of money on elections." It was a green light to corporations: buy and/or support any candidate with as much money as you want to spend! The decision could not have been a bigger afront to Democracy, i.e, government of the people. Free speech is a right of people as affirmed by our founders. That corporations may now claim that right is simply fascism. Pure and simple!

The ORIGIN of 'corporate personhood' is found in an informal note from a CLERK: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Prior to this mere clerk's mere note, NO ONE had believed that the 14th amendment applied to anyone but real people. Nor does it now! Scalia's court blew it again! If Scalia had a last remaining vestige of conscience, he would confess that he 1) blew it; 2) admit that he is a bought and paid for tool; 3) RESIGN!

---

---

Romney is Wrong! Corporations are NOT People

By Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Mitt Romney has claimed that corporations are people, real people! He even got upset with his audience for daring to challenge his absurd assertions. Now --when corporations are held responsible for their crimes in the same way that individuals, that real people, are held responsible for their crimes, then and only then can I even begin to take seriously the utter BS re: 'corporate personhood' that has been put forward by the GOP, by the extremists on the right wing SCOTUS or by the legion of powerful, wealthy lobbies on K-Street!

The fact is corporations are mere 'legal abstractions'; they are NOT people. The definition of 'people' may be found in biology textbooks; I deny that old men or liars in robes can redefine with a mere decree some several million years of evolution over which they have had no control or input. Robed judges are not 'God' nor can they --with a decree --change the laws of evolution and/or physics.

I deny that SCOTUS may decree that gravity will not work, that Earth will not orbit the sun or the moon, the earth! Say what it will, SCOTUS may not redefine a person; nor may it decree that words on paper may live, breate and procreate biologically as do real people. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction on this point. Rather, some several million years of biological precedent should humble the likes of Scalia.

Nor can I imagine how 'fundamentalists' reconcile their fundamentalist religious beliefs with the ludicrous idea that by squeezing a 'corporate seal' one may CREATE a person, and a REAL person at that! That SCOTUS may be taken seriously could be understandable in a state like Texas, victimized by the GOP assault on education. Texas ranks dead last in high school graduations, thanks to the GOP incompetence of Bush/Perry. However, it is not only Texas under Bush/Perry that has fallen off the radar with respect to education. Education, logic, intellect are always targeted by a party that has made of itself an enemy of erudition, science, logic and, most importantly, good will.

Real people are interchangeable in a corporation --an abstraction. Moreover, anyone can form a corporation for very little money and they can do it by mail order. The corporation is nothing more than 'data' recorded with a Secretary of State (somewhere, probably Delaware), a corporate seal, and a Certificate of Incorporation:

From Cornell University Law School:

"A corporation is a legal entity [emphasis, EC] created through the laws of its state of incorporation. Individual states have the power to promulgate laws relating to the creation, organization and dissolution of corporations. Many states follow the Model Business Corporation Act. (See Minnesota's adoption.) State corporation laws require articles of incorporation to document the corporation's creation and to provide provisions regarding the management of internal affairs. Most state corporation statutes also operate under the assumption that each corporation will adopt bylaws to define the rights and obligations of officers, persons and groups within its structure."

--Cornell University Law School

ERGO: people are INTER-CHANGEABLE in a corporation. A real person doing business as a 'sole proprietorship' does not have that luxury. To create this Orwellian interchangeability, SCOTUS seeks to bestow upon corporations 'privileges', privileges that real people are denied in the same decision.

The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" only in so far as it can sue and be sued. That is not to be confused with either legal or biological personhood. And the reason that it MAY NOT be so confused is that 'suing and being sued' DOES NOT DEFINE a person. If corporations were people, then DuPONT et al should have been put to death for the deaths it caused at Bhopal.

When has ANY corporation --at any time in history --been held to account for the many crimes to include mass murder and other atrocities in the same way that REAL PEOPLE are held to account?

NEVER!

Moreover, the legal independence of a corporation prevents shareholder liability for corporate debts; ERGO, corporations are NOT people. Real people have NO such exemptions, no such luxuries. Corporations are NOT people; SCOTUS, MITT and the GOP are dead wrong. I will be happy to set them straight.

---

---

Deluded Mitt Romney says: 'Corporations are people' too!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Here's what Mitt recently puked up:

"Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend."

--Mitt Romney, aka 'The Compleat Cockroach'

Like every other GOPPER, Mitt claims privileges for corporations because, '...they are people''! The 'privileges' he claims for corporation are denied to 'real people' simply because they are real people and corporations are not! Neither Mitt nor the GOP can have it both ways.

In fact, corporations are not taxed as much or even in the same way as are real people. That is by design --GOP design! I say TAX the corporations! But, of course, the corporations themselves will oppose effort to tax them fairly or in the same ways as real persons are taxed. Nevertheless, corporations must be compelled to pay their fair share to support the legitimate functions of government with respect to the 'real' real people who are, by law, the source of all governmental 'sovereignty'.

Funny thing is, Romney's questioner wasn't asking him about corporate personhood. He was asking why Romney wants to cut Social Security but while preserving corporate tax breaks. It seemed as if Romney had already memorized this little speech and was looking for a chance to trot it out. He probably had.

--Truthout, Shiny Happy Corporate People

Corporations and the ruling elite which runs them can, in many cases, can avoid paying taxes entirely. In practice, however, the 'ruling elite' (now just 1 percent of the total population) pay less and less as a portion of their total income than do middle and lower class individuals. For us, the government's cut is a much, much larger percentage of our income than are the nominal taxes levied the ruling elite.

Why are not corporations locked up when committing crimes that would land real people in a Texas gulag hell-hole? As Truth Out put it: Romney and the GOP at large would ask: "Are you crazy? We're talking about corporations here, not people."

Corporations are often left off the hook entirely when sued for negligence or 'criminal manslaughter'. How many real people are housed in Texas prisons for those crimes? How many corporations are housed in TX gulags for precisely the same crimes? I will tell you: NONE!!!! In practice, perhaps in law, corporations are placed above the law, treated differently, given privileges and exemptions that real people have never had and will never have.

Why is the GOP so eager to bestow upon corporations --a collective abstraction --the status of 'personhood'? The answer is simple: the GOP are 'collectivists'; the GOP is anti-individual! The GOP seeks to establish a 'collectivist' dictatorship in which wealth --created by labor --is shared but only among the ruling elite which did not create it and have not earned a penny of it. Every one else in the GOP vision of AmeriKa is reduced to slavery if we have not been already.

REPUBLICANS: ARE THEY ABOVE THE LAW OR JUST OUTLAWS?

Republicans may say what they want of corporations as people, but, in fact, corporations have none of characterisics of real people, none of the responsibilities. They do not vote as people; they don't have to. They OWN the government! They benefit from its largesse as real people have never benefited and never will!

The only pockets lined by GOP largesse (pork) are the pockets of an increasingly tiny ruling elite now just 1 percent of the total population. The official stats prove my assertions; those numbers can be found by anyone with an internet connection at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Commerce Dept-B.E.A. Look 'em up! Be prepared to see proof that the GOP and Mitt are lying, distorting the effects of every GOP tax cut in U.S. history.

In each case, the cut --having enriched only the upper 1 percent --has been followed by a recession/depression. ERGO: GOP tax cuts do not have have never stimulated the economy, have never created a single fucking job! NOT ONE!

In fact, job creation has declined after every GOP tax cut; and every recession/depression since 1900 has been the result of either GOP incompetence or crookedness or both.

The Reagan depression of some two years is a specimen typical of the recurring problem. Under Reagan, jobs declined, investment declined, millions were thrown out of work, lost their homes and were forced to live in tent cities, under bridges! Ironically, this was the case in 'boomtown' Houston which had been called the 'Golden Buckle of the Sunbelt'. Every such depression/recession has been the result of similar incompetence by previous GOP regimes at least since 1900.

Here's the story that puts all this in perspective: Romney wants to cut Social Security while preserving corporate tax breaks. In other words, MITT ROMNEY --a typical GOP seed pod --wants to enrich those who are already rich upon the backs of those who were never rich, those who can least afford it. Romney wants to rob retirees and literally GIVE that wealth to mere 'legal abstractions' --corporations!

Romney's ideas will most certainly result in a contraction of wealth as 'money' (in varrious forms) will follow the well-rehearsed GOP SCRIPT! In other words, this 'wealth' will wind up in various offshore bank accounts where it creates no jobs and --significantly --does not 'trickle down'! As was the case wtih the Reagan tax cut, a depression, a massive loss of jobs, a contraction of the economy will result. It always has!

THE GOP MODUS OPERANDI

Check the official stats at Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Commerce Deptartment-B.E.A., the U.S. Census Bureau. Following EVERY GOP tax cut at least since Reagan has been a recession/depression [negative growth] defined by the millions of Americans that were suddenly jobless, homeless and living in tent cities, under bridges, as was the case in fact in 'boomtown' Houston.

The REAGAN YEARS SUCKED! [see Cheney's nose at right]

And they sucked because GOP economics have never, ever worked as advertised! GOP economic 'theory' is a fraud, a scam, a conjob. It does precisely what the GOP wants it to do: it enriches the GOP base! It's a laundered payoff for their continued support. As a result of GOP policies, just 1 percent of the total population owns more than the rest of us combined.

Instead of listening to Mitt, we should be restoring the nation's prosperity by taxing the rich and the even richer corporations FAIRLY! In other words, they should be taxed as was the case until Ronald Reagan wrecked the economy and impoverished everyone but the very, very, very rich who have had the 'bad manners' of investing their ill-gotten booty in offshore bank accounts.

The EXODUS of wealth following every GOP tax cuts is commonly called 'recession' or 'depression'. Look them up at the U.S. Commerce Dept B.E.A. the Census Bureau or the Bureau of Labor Stats. The GOP record of tax cuts followed by recession is there in black and white for anyone curious enough to learn the truth!

---

---

Why SCOTUS is Overdue an Overhaul

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

America, we have a problem --the Supreme Court! The Supreme Court, under Scalia's evil influence, has decided that 'legal abstractions' --corporations --are people. In fact, people are defined by consciousness, volition, and responsibility. Corporations have none of those attributes.

Corporations are: 1) not conscious as consciousness is understood by scientists and philosophers; 2) utterly without volition but that of numerous 'individual decisions' by real persons; 3) those persons making decisions are, in fact, responsible under the law had not SCOTUS intervened. Therefore, one is inclined to conclude that five ideologues on the court had precisely that outcome in mind. Certainly, this infamous decision must take its place among Dredd-Scott and Bush v Gore.

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

--U.S. constitution, 14th Amendment

The courts are empowered to enforce that principle if the United State government should violate it! Even more significant is the fact that subsequent SCOTUS decisions have obligated the various state governments as well. In other words, Texas nor Kansas nor Lousiana nor any state may violate your rights under the 14th Amendment.

The ONLY exception, it seems, has been the corporate 'community'. Corporations have been placed above the law and for no other reason than the fact that A. Scalia and the other 'Republicans' on the court are biased if not bought and paid for! Clearly, the Supreme Court under A. Scalia, is crooked, handing down gibberish instead of law, circumlocutions instead of reasoned arguments based upon the Constitution or precedent!

Scalia is credibly reported to have said: "I am too smart for the court!" Fine! I suggest he seek employment elsewhere! Fine! Scalia --you're fired! Take your over-rated IQ and your bloated mid-section to the personnel department of any IT department in the nation. Ask them to give you an IQ test! Let's see how 'smart' you really are! Let me know how you make out!

I have news for Scalia: if corporations are 'people', then they should be tried for murder when they murder people. Check the history of Dow Chemical, DuPont and Union Carbide at Bhopal. If corporations are 'people' every one on the board and among decision making executives are culpable and should be prosecuted for the crimes that were committed.

The U.S. Supreme Court, under Scalia, cannot be respected! These have been the very worst years for the Supreme Court. Such a court does not command or deserve our respect. A nation without a court deserving of our respect is a lawless nation.

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google