Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
OK, how about you enlighten us all, Mr Revisionist?
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.
It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."
It all went to hell as soon as state rights went down the tubes.
Now we are led by an all powerful federal government that has been bought many times over, and a Congress with only a 10% approval rating. Funny thing is, they all keep getting elected.
Parties simply give the illusion someone is on your side. Collectivism destroys our freedom and democracy and both parties are complicit.
Incidentally, how do you splain how Obozo was sent a ton of money from corporations like GE, who some how manage to get out of paying taxes?
Folks should get behind the Article V movement. Article V of the Constitution provides states with the option of amending the Constitution, devoid of federal government involvement.
States need to begin to take back their power. Amendments should include such things as term limits and a balanced amendment of some type. This is because Congress has become intractable, even though they are hated. Also, states must do the bidding of the federal government or face getting sued or having federal dollars withheld from them. These types of coercive measures must stop, and the only way to do it is to reign in the money that empower them.
You're sort of wrong about Congress being hated. People hate Congress, except for THEIR Congress critter. For some reason every freaking election we hear "vote the bums out" then everyone goes out and reelects their bum.
Here is the deal, Congress should not have the power of the purse like they do. It was given to them by Progressives at the turn of the 20th century. Then they created the Fed to print money that they did not obtain with the federal income tax.
Ever since then, the federal government has eroded the power of the states. They have created a fourth branch of government in the Executive Branch where armies of unelected bureaucrats impose regulations upon us that amount to laws. Now the federal government decides everything from how our children are educated to what kind of light bulb we use and what doctor we can or cannot see.
This sort of power was never meant to be, which is why I was not given the power to vote for EVERYONE in Congress. The more powerful goof balls like Nancy Pelosi becomes, the more magnified my lack of representation becomes.
And that is my point here. Collectivism brings tyranny. My vote counts more for my state representative than it does voting for president, simply because there are not as many people voting. In addition, the more local my representatives are, the more in tune they are with my needs and more accessible they are to my input.
What we have now is a system of trying to elect the most benevolent dictator who ignores laws, even the laws he shoves down our throats such as Obamacare.
Incidentally, Obamacare gave corporate America the right to set our tax rates.
In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.
It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.
It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."
It shouldn't confound anyone. They even call themselves 'tea party patriots' with ZERO understanding what the real Boston Tea Party was about.
The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
They covered their faces, massed in the streets, and destroyed the property of a giant global corporation. Declaring an end to global trade run by the East India Company that was destroying local economies, this small, masked minority started a revolution with an act of rebellion later called the Boston Tea Party.
On a cold November day in 1773, activists gathered in a coastal town. The corporation had gone too far, and the two thousand people who'd jammed into the meeting hall were torn as to what to do about it. Unemployment was exploding and the economic crisis was deepening; corporate crime, governmental corruption spawned by corporate cash, and an ethos of greed were blamed. "Why do we wait?" demanded one at the meeting, a fisherman named George Hewes. "The more we delay, the more strength is acquired" by the company and its puppets in the government. "Now is the time to prove our courage," he said. Soon, the moment came when the crowd decided for direct action and rushed into the streets.
That is how I tell the story of the Boston Tea Party, now that I have read a first-person account of it. While striving to understand my nation's struggles against corporations, in a rare book store I came upon a first edition of "Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773," and I jumped at the chance to buy it. Because the identities of the Boston Tea Party participants were hidden (other than Samuel Adams) and all were sworn to secrecy for the next 50 years, this account is the only first-person account of the event by a participant that exists. As I read, I began to understand the true causes of the American Revolution.
I learned that the Boston Tea Party resembled in many ways the growing modern-day protests against transnational corporations and small-town efforts to protect themselves from chain-store retailers or factory farms. The Tea Party's participants thought of themselves as protesters against the actions of the multinational East India Company.
Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation," akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown.
Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America..." allowing it to wipe out New England-based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. "Hence," wrote, "it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity ... The colonies were now arrived at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine their course ... "
A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world: "Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."
After protesters had turned back the Company's ships in Philadelphia and New York, Hewes writes, "In Boston the general voice declared the time was come to face the storm."
The citizens of the colonies were preparing to throw off one of the corporations that for almost 200 years had determined nearly every aspect of their lives through its economic and political power. They were planning to destroy the goods of the world's largest multinational corporation, intimidate its employees, and face down the guns of the government that supported it.
more
No, you're the one twisting things. In the Tea party of today, referencing the Boston tea party which also was about gov overreach, the 'tea' is an acronym for taxed enough already. Why do you have such a tough time understanding that? Do you need a 4th grade primer to get you started on loosing yourself from lefty indoctrination?OK, how about you enlighten us all, Mr Revisionist?
It would be better for you to spend a few minutes researching it yourself.
You stopped being curious about this event in the 4th grade, it seems. The problem with that, of course, is that the textbook you were working from at the time was geared toward 9 year olds.
Go ahead....give it a shot.
No, you're the one twisting things. In the Tea party of today, referencing the Boston tea party which also was about gov overreach, the 'tea' is an acronym for taxed enough already. Why do you have such a tough time understanding that? Do you need a 4th grade primer to get you started on loosing yourself from lefty indoctrination?OK, how about you enlighten us all, Mr Revisionist?
It would be better for you to spend a few minutes researching it yourself.
You stopped being curious about this event in the 4th grade, it seems. The problem with that, of course, is that the textbook you were working from at the time was geared toward 9 year olds.
Go ahead....give it a shot.
News Flash: Corporations create JOBS. Let them do what they want. Its there money, land, and ect. The government shouldn't control every aspect of our lives.
News Flash: Corporations create JOBS. Let them do what they want. Its there money, land, and ect. The government shouldn't control every aspect of our lives.
Newsflash: Corporations are sending jobs overseas.
The government protects We the People from the excesses of corporations.
I didn't make it up, you typically condescending left wing phony. Regardless of your opinion of the term you can't argue the accuracy of its concision.No, you're the one twisting things. In the Tea party of today, referencing the Boston tea party which also was about gov overreach, the 'tea' is an acronym for taxed enough already. Why do you have such a tough time understanding that? Do you need a 4th grade primer to get you started on loosing yourself from lefty indoctrination?OK, how about you enlighten us all, Mr Revisionist?
It would be better for you to spend a few minutes researching it yourself.
You stopped being curious about this event in the 4th grade, it seems. The problem with that, of course, is that the textbook you were working from at the time was geared toward 9 year olds.
Go ahead....give it a shot.
How ironic that you would accuse others of needing a "4th grade primer" right after you trotted out that puerile acronym.
I didn't make it up, you typically condescending left wing phony. Regardless of your opinion of the term you can't argue the accuracy of its concision.No, you're the one twisting things. In the Tea party of today, referencing the Boston tea party which also was about gov overreach, the 'tea' is an acronym for taxed enough already. Why do you have such a tough time understanding that? Do you need a 4th grade primer to get you started on loosing yourself from lefty indoctrination?OK, how about you enlighten us all, Mr Revisionist?
It would be better for you to spend a few minutes researching it yourself.
You stopped being curious about this event in the 4th grade, it seems. The problem with that, of course, is that the textbook you were working from at the time was geared toward 9 year olds.
Go ahead....give it a shot.
How ironic that you would accuse others of needing a "4th grade primer" right after you trotted out that puerile acronym.
You missed the word accuracy. Probably intentionally.I didn't make it up, you typically condescending left wing phony. Regardless of your opinion of the term you can't argue the accuracy of its concision.No, you're the one twisting things. In the Tea party of today, referencing the Boston tea party which also was about gov overreach, the 'tea' is an acronym for taxed enough already. Why do you have such a tough time understanding that? Do you need a 4th grade primer to get you started on loosing yourself from lefty indoctrination?OK, how about you enlighten us all, Mr Revisionist?
It would be better for you to spend a few minutes researching it yourself.
You stopped being curious about this event in the 4th grade, it seems. The problem with that, of course, is that the textbook you were working from at the time was geared toward 9 year olds.
Go ahead....give it a shot.
How ironic that you would accuse others of needing a "4th grade primer" right after you trotted out that puerile acronym.
Why would anyone argue about an acronym not being concise?
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.
It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.
It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."
You can't be this dumb.
There has been no other President in history that is more of a friend to Wall Street than Obama. No one else even comes close.
Wow.
You missed the word accuracy. Probably intentionally.I didn't make it up, you typically condescending left wing phony. Regardless of your opinion of the term you can't argue the accuracy of its concision.No, you're the one twisting things. In the Tea party of today, referencing the Boston tea party which also was about gov overreach, the 'tea' is an acronym for taxed enough already. Why do you have such a tough time understanding that? Do you need a 4th grade primer to get you started on loosing yourself from lefty indoctrination?OK, how about you enlighten us all, Mr Revisionist?
It would be better for you to spend a few minutes researching it yourself.
You stopped being curious about this event in the 4th grade, it seems. The problem with that, of course, is that the textbook you were working from at the time was geared toward 9 year olds.
Go ahead....give it a shot.
How ironic that you would accuse others of needing a "4th grade primer" right after you trotted out that puerile acronym.
Why would anyone argue about an acronym not being concise?
One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.”
Dear Chief Justice,
I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.
Waite replied:
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate.
Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders.
