Regarding "Citizens United" and defensive arguments to be given judicious consideration in the US Supreme Court soon, "politically commercial speech' vs "politically personal speech' is given fair analysis in comparing the politically personal speech of our founding fathers, patriot soldiers, and oppressed citizens to the politically commercial speech of colonial governors, military officers, and merchants dependent upon King George's Privy Council-issued licenses to continue undermining the financial integrity, communal spirit, and personal happiness of those under their governance in pre-1776 America.
This scenario -- Citizens United vs Public Opposition to it -- has alarming correlations to Colonial Rule in America. But what is curious about this scenario is the ignorance expressed by those who see no assault on Democracy in elevating corporations to the same civic status as enjoyed by citizens. Furthermore, as I understand the provisions of Citizens United, corporations enjoy even greater freedoms than ordinary citizens in not having to report the amounts contributed to political campaigns, nor list the names of individual donors, nor the amounts they donated.
Considering the massive amount of imagination required in allowing a bizarre arrangement as Citizens United to become law, it is surprising that those indulging in such fanciful modes of thinking do not see also the analogous Privy Council role into which they cast themselves by doing so.
Or am I missing something?
A large (and ever growing larger) number of analysts see a cabalistic hand at work here: the 2000 Election, 9/11 and governmental reluctance to investigate it, WMD as a reason to attack Iraq, the market crash, Republican lawmakers' secret vow to Grover Norquist forbidding a single tax penny be raised to help those hurt most by the Wall Street boondoggle, more prisons than we know what to do with (at least for the time being), and now "Citizens United'?
Some people -- an extremely small minority, yes, but with ungodly more amounts of money and political clout than the vast majority -- are so greedy, desperate, and loathing of Democracy's common promise their hold on reality hangs by irrational threads. Is it possible they have a secret plan ensuring their survivability? It seems so. In any case, I wouldn't put it past "em.
Incidentally, whatever happened to Grover Norquist? And just who was he, anyway? How does a phantom attain such power over Republican congressmen and senators as to threaten their political careers if they disobey him? How weird! One would think it impossible that this could happen in the United States today. But it happened! The very idea conjures Medieval images; or of hooded Dixie night-riders swearing blood oaths to Wizard Commanders bent on maintaining racial purity. Chills go up the spine speculating how it came to be that Grover Norquist is no longer in the news (or that the media paid so little attention to him in the first place). The Wizard must have issued another order: to Fox News or to Grover himself. "Shut up! People are asking too many questions."
Can't have THAT, can we?
Certainly not in a Koch-Norquist-Boehner-Romney version of Democracy, that's for sure!
Shut up and fall in! Straighten your gig-line! Stay with the cadence; lift those knees higher! And what's with that wishy-washy salute? Forget the guy's head in front of you -- snap your palm out there! Be proud!