Election Money - Questionable Sources

In the New Your Times (10/2/2010) article "The Secret Sponsors" it is revealed that the SOURCE of money to challenge people running for, or defending current political post (does not matter if I like the person or not), is coming from totally un-knowable sources. 

The companies placing advertisements (online, billboard, radio, television) are hiding who is hiring them. THIS IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE BAD SUPREME COURT DECISION EQUATING COMPANIES TO PEOPLE.

It was practically "foretold" that secret accounts and organizations would be formed in order to do everything from legitimate sponsoring of candidates, to "attack ads" and such where they say "we don't like what this guy has done, stands for", etc, though they really don't have anything positive. It amounts to slandering people, and not being held responsible.

Thanks, SCOTUS, for undermining our republic once again.

Rape of the American Electorate by The Supreme Court - again

“the court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, about the Jan. 21, 2010 ruling that corporations may spend all they want to get people elected in the USA. The Court has effectively ruled that corporations are more important than individuals in voicing, by money contributions, running advertisements, and all other election-related procedures, their "opinions and desires". There are still LIMITS ON PEOPLE giving money - but no longer on corporations!

This is just added to the already unconstitutional ruling that any municipality may force you out of the house you have owned (even without a mortgage) for 1 year or 100 years, because a rich person is willing to pay more in taxes than you currently pay (they are taking by "eminent domain", thought that is supposed to be strictly reserved for instances of public safety, public progress, and where no other reasonable alternative exists (such as building a court complex elsewhere). [Wiki says "The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development." BUT I have to point out that personal housing is NOT economic development, as "pubic housing" would be construed.] [[They took thousands of people's homes in NYC and Chicago, and elsewhere, so apartments could be built. As a kid that sounded fine, but now I question it because some company (person) got very rich building and renting apartments.]]

Back to the issue at hand -- This is a severe taking of our rights and we should be screaming the streets, but Americans have become too complacent. We watch places like Poland in the 80's, and Iran today, and say "way to go! Fight for your freedom! Down with totalitarian regimes!" But here we sit - most Americans are not even aware that their freedoms are being taken, many others are apathetic (the old 'there's nothing we can do about it' attitude), and the rest just are too stupid to understand what is being done to them by the Supreme Court. (I see this in many comments on USA Today, where people support "indefinite holding of terrorists", but that also means that THEY can be accused, grabbed, and held, sometimes for months before anyone knows [people reported as "missing" because no one knows] where they are or even what they are charged with. HOW DUMB they are to think that tossing the Constitution for someone else will never come back and affect them! The 'Bush era renditions' are another example of this - here a President acted like a King; or tyrant.)

There is a saying - "the constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is"; meaning that the Supreme Court is the final, and "correct", interpreter of what the Constitution means. But just as any law can be overturned when a court says it violates the constitution, so too can any ruling of the Supreme Court by a later court (as they have done here, taking TWO rulings from before 1950 that have limited corporate money in elections). I hope people wake up and start demanding the return of their individual rights.

WE ARE ON THE ROAD TO -- THE BEST CORPORATION (uh - Country) MONEY CAN BUY !!!

SUPREME COURT - be very Afraid of this Group

THE SUPREME COURT of the United States, today (11/4/09) heard arguments about two prosecutors from Pottawattamie County, Iowa, whom fabricated evidence and coerced false testimony to convict two men ["Justices weigh lawsuits against prosecutors" as reported in USA Today] of a 1977 murder. These men might have been put to death; as it is they spent more than 20 years in a state prison facility, and the "prosecutors" knew they not only fabricated evidence but also withheld evidence that could have proven them innocent.

Now this case is not being brought because the men where wrongly jailed by a system attempting to do the right thing, but because they were jailed by prosecutors breaking multiple laws. But the "Supreme Court" is making noises about other prosecutors who "would 'flinch'" from doing their jobs because if they don't convict someone, even of based on all solid, good, and valid evidence, they would fear later law suits.

Now this is a COMPLETE bunch of crap - any ruling could easily state that if a prosecution fails to convict based on good evidence that there is no basis for law suits, but only if "evidence" clearly falsified by "the state" or "the government" [in federal cases] would prosecutors or police be open to retaliatory law suits.

Don't get me wrong - police can lie (maybe should lie) to a suspect in order to get to the truth about their involvement in a crime. But the line MUST be drawn when in court, where OATHS are taken to NOT LIE (Gee, has no one even considered THIS?? That the entire trial was false??)

As I responded to the USA Today story:

There IS protection in the 4th Amendment, and maybe Amendment XV Section 1 (their race was certainly a factor). Any person presenting this case in the Supreme Court should use these issues. And if the S.C. does not let them sue, it will just be another example of ITS' dereliction of duty and law, as was its allowance of taking land and re-selling to anyone willing to pay more in taxes for it.

IF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOES NOT SCREAM THAT THIS IS WRONG THEN THEY HAVE DECIDED THAT NO ONE IS SAFE FROM BEING FRAMED -- ANYONE CAN BE PULLED OFF THE STREET TO CLOSE ANY CASE AT ANY TIME.