<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16981" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>That is EXACTLEY the bottom line point John !</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I was going to respond to Carl's statement but you beat me
to it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Yes Carl, I have always agreed and embraced your statement
of " let a thousand flowers bloom " in regards to free speech.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>However, let's look at the cruel reality here in the
U.S. instead of the theoretical all things being equal
arguement.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Things are not equal to even allow a thousand flowers to
bloom, and this recent 5 - 4 Supreme Court ruling will only make things
much worse than they already are.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The American people are fed a 24-hour 365 day a year
non-stop propoganda barrage of lies and disinformation on multiple channels that
ALL bascily agree with each other in the " range of allowable debate ", as you
so well describe.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>For the average American, especially those without the
internet ( and there still are quite a large percentage ) there is NOTHING to
counter the lies and disinformation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>As Hitler's Propoganda minister Goebels stated " A
lie repeated often enough will eventually become a truth to most people
"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>This is as true today in corporate controlled America as
it was in Nazi Germany.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>We have an iron curtain of disinformation in this
country.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Europeans and citizens of most other countries can access
are media if they choose via cable T.V., but we cannot access their media via
T.V.. The BBC America does not count because it is an " American " version and
not what is shown in the U.K..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Only on the internet ( IF one knows where to
search ) can an American find non-corporate and foreign news
sources.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>And even the internet is under attack by corporate
interests who want more control of what you can access.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Free Speech T.V., Link T.V., is only available on DISH
sattelite network and not available on DIRECT TV or Comcast or most other cable
televison.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>And the corporate interests around the country have
already begun a successful attack so far upon public access T.V..in many
communities.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Beyond the control of our media, the corporate interests
in this country control our government. Our elected officials, our laws, and of
course by extension the police, the courts, and the military which they can
use and do use against us and other people of the world. As most of you know,
they do this via the system of legalized bribery called " campaign contributions
" and they further this via Lobbying, Congressional perks like speaking fee
engagements and golf trips to the Carribean, etc. and then there is the "
revolving door " of lucrative corporate jobs waiting for those elected officials
who are good corporate team players.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>So with the above as our current reality, this latest
Supreme Court ruling IS a blow to what little democracy we have left in this
country.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>It is a step in the wrong directions and will only make
things worse.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Finally Corporations are NOT human beings or any living
life form.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>They do NOT deserve free speech rights, especially
considering the harm they have done to us alraedy as a result of their
influence and control.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Organizations of free associations of individuals that are
501c3's etc. are NOT the same as money making and profit taking entities and
therefore should be allowed free speech. Unless it can be proven that they are a
corporate front groups.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>David Johnson</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>So that is why I DO think this ruling is a disaster, which
will ONLY make the situation in this </FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jbw292002@gmail.com href="mailto:jbw292002@gmail.com">John W.</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=galliher@illinois.edu
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">C. G. Estabrook</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net
href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 24, 2010 6:52
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Peace-discuss] Fear of
FEC-less ads</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:20 PM, C. G. Estabrook <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</A>></SPAN>
wrote:</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">[I
don't like this guy's politics much, but I think he may be right about why
there has been so much weeping and gnashing of teeth about the SC decision
in Citizens United v. FEC. The one clear if perhaps questionable
contribution of the American 20th c. to human civilization since the
Neolithic was PR; the fear of the NYT editorialists et al. is that this SC
decision in its madly consequent way may upset the apple cart. OTOH
with Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd c. CE, I say, "Let a hundred flowers
bloom; let a thousand schools of thought contend." (I realize the image has
been used by others.) --CGE]<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That isn't what happens with PR, Carl. No flowers are blooming when
the corporate PR machine spins out lie upon lie upon lie.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To me this decision equates "political speech" with "justice". In
both cases, in the United States at least, you're entitled to as much speech
and as much "justice" as you can afford to pay for.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><BR> Understanding
Liberal Rage Over Citizens United<BR> by Brian
Garst<BR><BR>On paper the Citizens United case has all the makings of a
solid liberal issue. First Amendment protections, considered
sacrosanct by the left when a reporter is leaking classified information,
are strengthened for those speaking truth to power. Both the ACLU and
AFL-CIO support the decision. So why are prominent liberals speaking
out so vehemently against it?<BR><BR>It would be easy to chalk up liberal
outrage to a general hatred for all things corporate. But is that
enough to overcome what otherwise seems like a tailor-made liberal issue?
After all, the ACLU said “[the prohibition on corporate speech] is facially
unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the
suppression of core political speech.” Moreover, the corporate gains, which
liberals might feel benefit the right, are offset by those of the unions and
other liberal issue groups that benefit from the ruling just the same.
The net political impact is thus neutral, suggesting that their
opposition isn’t political in nature. Neither is it based on the
merits. Rather, it is philosophical.<BR><BR>Consider the following reactions
to the decision from the left. The New York Times editorialized the decision
as a “blow to democracy,” and a “disastrous 5-to-4 ruling” that “has thrust
politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century.” Talk about
overwrought.<BR><BR>President Obama decried the “stampede of special
interest money” that will somehow “[undermine] the influence of average
Americans.” Senator Patrick Leahy warned that the decision would
“change the course of our democracy.” And the ever-contemptible Rep.
Alan Grayson must have been hyperventilating when he declared that “this is
the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case. It leads us all
down the road to serfdom.”<BR><BR>As if these politicians aren’t bad enough,
the liberal blogosphere is even worse, as frantic left-wing bloggers and
their readers have been busy declaring an end to democracy as we know it
ever since the ruling came down.<BR>The apocalyptic – and not to mention
apoplectic – nature of their criticism suggests an answer as to why the
decision irks them so. Liberals think you are all idiots.
American voters are simply too stupid to filter so much information
and then reach the right decision. And as they well know, the right
decision is unquestionably to adopt the liberal position. They, as the
learned among us, know best and so ought to be the only ones allowed to tell
you what you should think and why you should think it. That way you
don’t get confused by all those other pesky views and opinions. One
wonders how we ever survived as a nation before the great heroes John McCain
and Russ Feingold came along to save us from ourselves.<BR><BR>At the heart
of the liberal philosophy of government is a belief that people are too
stupid to fend for themselves, manage their own affairs or vote for the
right candidates. Democracy itself will be destroyed because of a few
extra ads targeting voters before elections? Voters, it seems, just aren’t
sophisticated enough to handle that much information.<BR><BR>Unfortunately
for the left, the Constitution recognizes rights that all citizens have,
regardless of how intelligent the editorial board of the New York Times
thinks a person from Kansas really is. It turns out that “make no law”
really means that “Congress shall make no law,” even if that law would
advance the liberal agenda.<BR><BR><A
href="http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/23/understanding-liberal-rage-over-citizens-united/"
target=_blank>http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/23/understanding-liberal-rage-over-citizens-united/</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>--
<BR>This message has been scanned for viruses and <BR>dangerous content by <A
href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><B>MailScanner</B></A>, and is
<BR>believed to be clean.
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss
mailing
list<BR>Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<BR>https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</BODY></HTML>