If you haven’t heard, ABC has cancelled the Rosanne show over a comment Rosanne made about Valerie Jarrett:

BREAKING: ABC cancels ‘Roseanne’ over actress’s ‘racist’ Tweet about former Obama official

This provides us with a teachable moment: a teachable moment that I couldn’t have ever dreamed we would be handed to us.  However, now that it has been, we are not going to let this moment pass us by.

There is so much here that I almost do not know where to begin.  So, let’s start with the most obvious.

When the media is criticized for the type of programming it produces, it likes to claim that it is just giving its audience what they want.  The whole idea is to give people the impression that they are just a business looking to make a profit.  Well, the Rosanne show has been one of the most viewed television shows in recent times.  This is all the more noteworthy given the fact that the major broadcasting networks have been loosing viewers and — thus — revenue for a while.  So, when ABC moved so quickly to terminate one of the brightest and most profitable programs it has, this demonstrated that they lie when they claim they are motivated by money.  If they were really interested in profits first, they would have waited to see if there was any backlash from Rosanne’s comment before doing anything.  But they didn’t do that.  Instead of waiting to see what the audience did, ABC cancelled the show.

At the same time, look at how the networks have handled the NFL ‘protest.’  Here the audience has pushed back — hard!  And it has cost the networks money in lost revenue connected to the decline in viewers.  This decline can be connected to the ‘protest.’  So, instead of putting pressure on the NFL, the networks have actually defended the NFL and its ‘protest.’  When held side-by-side, we cans see that there is a pattern here.  But let’s see how strong this pattern is.

Valerie Jarrett should never have been allowed to be in the government.  People will object and claim there is no proof — to include the major networks — but this woman is connected to organizations that have openly declared their desire to destroy the United States.  This alone would have kept most people from receiving the necessary security clearance to serve at such a high level.  But Jarrett has, herself, made comments that call into question her loyalty to this nation — at least, they do so with reasonable people who are not vested in a political Party or agenda.  This also applies to Obama, who openly provided military aid and political comfort to a known and sworn enemy of the United States.  That is high treason.  Much of what the Obama Administration did was or bordered on high treason.  But did the major networks do anything to expose any of this?  No, they did just the opposite.  They did everything they could to defend Obama and his operatives.  This is also part of the pattern.

The media has pushed a ‘gay rights’ agenda on the nation.  They have attacked the freedoms of speech, religion, the press and the right to keep and bare arms.  They have tried to destroy a duly elected President by pushing a baseless story about Russian collusion while protecting Hillary and the FBI, where there is hard evidence of wrong-doing.  In short, the major networks — through their news networks — have pushed an ANTI_American agenda while, at the same time, obfuscating and even lying to protect their allies in this cause.  Now, in their press release explaining why they cancelled the Rosanne show, they have actually admitted this.  Read:

In a statement, Channing Dungey, president of ABC Entertainment, wrote, “Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant, and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show.”

Rosanne’s comments were “inconsistent with our values.”  Now, she may have said it crudely, but Rosanne was attacking someone who has said she wants to destroy this nation as it was founded, and who is openly connected to organizations who have openly stated that this is their same goal.  The media, ABC included, has supported the NFL ‘protest,’ which is actually a ‘protest’ against the nation.  This is not an ‘opinion,’ it is what Kapernack said he was doing when he started this thing: protesting America!  The media — ABC included — attack our Constitution and the Bill of Rights while protecting people who have said they want to “fundamentally change” the nation.  Folks, a “fundamental change” is a revolution, and that is exactly what Obama meant when he said it — he just wanted to make it happen without shooting (if he could).  Now we see that the FBI and DOJ are actually in open defiance of the rule of law in their attempts to protect Obama and Hillary while carrying out Obama’s agenda and undermine the U.S. Government — and the media, to include ABC — is protecting all of these people.  So, what are ABC’s values?  Apparently, whatever they may say they are, we can now know this much:

THEIR VALUES ARE ANTI-AMERICAN!  WHICH ALSO MEANS THEY ARE SUBVERSIVE!

Still need more?  Ask yourself why, if ABC has ‘values,’ did Rosanne ever get put back on the air when, in 2012, she said this:

“Rich people who don’t give up their money should be beheaded.”

Apparently that sentiment is OK with ABC, but attacking a Muslim subversive isn’t.  Because, honestly, if cancelling the Rosanne show is about values, then why hasn’t “The View” been cancelled?  The women on that show actually are and have made racist statements, as well as practiced “hate speech.”  Yet, that show is still on the air.  Conclusion: ABC’s “values” are ANTI-American!

But we know even more than this.  Rosanne apologized!  If someone the media likes is caught breaking the law, or saying something ‘offensive,’ and they ‘apologize,’ the media has always accepted that.  Hillary broke many laws and, after she ‘apologized,’ the media let it all drop and moved on.  Bill Clinton committed perjury (among other crimes) while President and, after he ‘apologized,’ the media let it drop.  Anyone who follows politics knows that this is not made up: the media always lets people on the American Left off the hook once they ‘apologize.’  So why not Rosanne?  Well, maybe it is exactly as ABC said and I have argued: Rosanne is not ANTI_America enough for their ‘values.’

But then there is this little problem: Jarrett is a Muslim, and she is part of the Jihad aimed at destroying America.  Obama worked closely with the Muslim Brotherhood while President.  They were one of — if not the most frequent visitor to the White House.  The Right media tried to make this known, but the ‘main stream’ media — to include ABC — paid no attention or dismissed it as ‘conspiracy theory.’  The media didn’t even show any interest when Obama put these subversives into high level positions within the U.S. intelligence, Homeland Defense and State Departments.  Nor has the media bothered to look into the connections between Islamic subversion and the Democrat Party.  Everything is there, in the public record.  It has been since 2008, but no one seems to care — until someone on ‘their side’ attacks their Muslim buddies.  Then they throw one of the most Progressive mouthpieces their movement has into the trash bin and without even waiting to see if anyone even cared about what Rosanne had said.  Oh, and let’s not forget that Kapernick has (or had at the time) a Muslim girlfriend.  If you think she is not a factor in this equation, you might want to take a closer look at her: both her looks, as well as her beliefs.  Then remember that women have been influencing men to do things since the beginning of time (here, eat this apple).  And, if this still is not enough for you to see the truth about the Media and the American Left, then read this and see just how strong my case actually is:

If you read it, you’ll see that everything I just said is actually true — and has been documented.  You will also see that George Soros is equally connected to this attempt to destroy America.  That Soros is most likely the one who put Obama ahead of Hillary in 2008.  That the Left is financially tied to Islam.  And that the proof is all in the public record — some of it even published by the ‘main stream’ media, itself.  And then you might realize that the information in this book is now 10 years old, and that the attack on this nation has moved much, much further along and at a much, much faster pace than even Horowitz feared.  And the quick action and PR statement by ABC lays bare the whole thing — if you know what you are looking for…

NOTE: Another thing to consider is that ABC hired Rosanne to re-start her show knowing full well that she was prone to making these sort of comments.  Additionally, ABC recently re-hired Keith Olbermann in spite of his history of making vile and vulgar tweets.  Apparently, ABC (as with the whole of the ‘main stream’ media) has no problem with any of its employees making vile, vulgar or offensive comments about anyone except the leaders of their political agenda.  This alone makes their cancellation of the show highly suspect.  In fact, it strongly infers that my argument in this post is right on target: that ABC and the ‘main stream’ media are ANTI-American (which then begs the question: why does this nation allow such subversive organizations to continue to exist???)

Recently, I had an exchange with a group of people on Face Book who hold themselves out to be ‘independent centrists.’  In this exchange, this group asserted that patriotism is a vice, and that those who oppose the NFL ‘protest’ are guilty of putting patriotism over the support of free speech.  Well, setting aside for a moment that the NFL ‘protest’ has nothing to do with the right of free speech, I’d like to explain what this group and so many like them fail to understand: the difference between patriotism and jingoism.

As always, we start with the definitions in question:

Definition of patriotism

As we can see, this is one of those subjects where it may seem there is a distinction without a difference.  This is why it is so important to understand the meaning of the words we use, because there most certainly is a difference between these two concepts.

First, patriotism is not a blind loyalty or obedience as is so often implied.  It is simply a love for one’s country.  It is not “My country: right or wrong,: it is, “My country, for better or worse.”  It means the love of one’s nation in spite of any perceived faults or mistakes.  It is a respect for all those who worked, sacrificed and perhaps died to make and improve that nation, and it is a duty that anyone who wishes to claim citizenship of that nation owes to it in return.  This means patriotism is as much a duty as a sentiment.

On the other hand, jingoism is a vice, but it must not be confused with true patriotism.  Jingoism is “My country: right or wrong.”  Jingoism is blind loyalty and obedience.  This is what so many actually mean when they attack patriotism.  They mean to attack jingoism.  Unfortunately, the majority of people who attack patriotism either do not know the difference, or they are actually attacking the nation, itself (as well as those who support it).

Thus: patriotism is a duty, and, therefore, something to be supported.  Whereas jingoism is not only a vice, but a threat to one’s nation and, therefore, something to be opposed.

THE NFL PROTEST AS AN EXAMPLE:

This is where the matter of patriotism vs jingoism becomes cloudy: in trying to determine whether or not a person is sincere in their desire to oppose jingoism but is ignorant as to the meaning of the words they use and, therefore, inadvertently attacks patriotism; or are they actually seeking to attack the nation and it supporters by falsely painting true patriotism as an implied ‘proof’ that that nation and its supporters are morally corrupt.  In the case of Kapernick’s protest, it is the latter.  This is a fact, not opinion.  I can say this because Kapernick said so.  When he first started his protest, he specifically said he was protesting the nation.  He was not trying to right a wrong, in which case, he would not protest the flag or any symbol of a country he supposedly loved but wanted to improve.  No, he said he was protesting the nation while wearing a T-Shirt that symbolized a political ideology directly opposed to the founding ideals of this country.  This means Kapernick — and all those who have joined him — are traitors to this country.  This then means that the NFL protest is not a ‘protest’ against a wrong that people seek to right, but against the country, itself.  That means it is not about free speech, but subversion — an illegal act that can and maybe should be prosecuted.

The only thing that remains to be determined in this particular case — the case of the people on the Face Book page — is whether they are equally opposed to the nation and are trying to hide their true intentions, or are they simply ignorant as to the plain meaning of words?

In fact, this is the question in most of the cases where people are attacked for defending the symbols of this nation.  During the 1960’s, the counter-culture (i.e. hippies who sought to destroy the nation — and again, their words, not mine) attacked people who defended and supported the country.  They pegged the war in Vietnam to true patriotism and made false allegations of jingoism.  The reason their false attacks rang with so much truth back then is because their accusations of jingoism were difficult to distinguish from what our foreign policy actually was: Colonialist and interventionist.  The net result was that the leadership of this counter-culture succeeded in undermining this nations support for its country by intentionally confusing the issue through the skillful manipulation of words.

By in large, the accusations were unwarranted: the American people were not jingoistic.  They were true patriots, as they demonstrated in the way they righted wrongs in the Civil Rights movement.  Nor was our government jingoistic.  It was interventionist, and possibly colonial in nature, but it was not nationalistic.  Not back then, anyway.  So, as I said, those attacks back then were false accusations pushed by people who sought to destroy this nation and amplified by people who were too ignorant to understand the differences.  The same thing is happening today, and — in many cases — it is still being pushed by the same people who started this campaign in the 1960’s.  But then, you need to know a lot more true history before you can see these connections, and the people behind it are doing everything they can to re-write and erase that history.

For now, the important thing to understand is that there is nothing wrong with being patriotic.  It does not mean you have to agree with or accept the moral wrongs of your nation — past or present.  But it means you love your nation in spite of those flaws, as you love family members in spite of their flaws.  At the same time, however, you must learn to spot jingoism.  Jingoism is a problem, and it should be opposed — for the good of one’s nation.  It is primarily for this reason that I have kept myself distanced from Trump and his supporters: because I see a danger of jingoism in his thinking and agenda.  But then, it was also present in Obama and his Administration, one just had to understand that Obama was a Marxist before one could see it.  In both cases, jingoism poses a clear and present danger to this nation, as it does to any nation that becomes nationalist in its sentiments and then carries that extreme sense of “My country: right or wrong” into its foreign policy.

Our society no longer understands that the rights to ‘free speech’ and ‘freedom of the press.’  One one hand, parts of our society seems to believe that these rights are unlimited, and are supposed to be without consequence.  On the other hand, parts of our society seem to believe that the right to free speech and freedom of the press are dependent upon what is being said or written.  If it is deemed as ‘hateful,’ they seem to believe that the right to speak or print one’s mind can be taken away.  In truth, both beliefs are lawless and, therefore, on the side of tyranny.  This is because both views violate the Principles of Natural law.  We do have a Natural Right to free speech and to the written word, but there are limits to this right, and even then, there is no freedom from consequence for exercising this right.  If you will give me a few minutes, I will explain.

First, the freedom of speech and the press are connected to the Natural Right to our will.  A right to something implies the liberty to exercise that thing.  In this case, if you have a right to your own mind or will, then you have a right to express that will or mind.  Therefore, the right to your own mind or will implies the right to speak or write without fear of losing your individual rights and liberties.  However, this right of expression does not automatically apply to our actions, nor does it mean we are free from the consequence of our words.

Let’s deal with the most obvious perversion of free speech first: the notion that actions are speech.  This is a difficult thing for most people to understand because it is possible for an act to be an expression of one’s free will.  Putting on a black arm band to show people you are in morning is an action that expresses the individual’s mind.  This is a form of free speech that does fall under the boundaries of Natural Law.  It is protected because the person is using their property (i.e. their clothes, arm band and person) to express their mind without causing harm to another person or their property.  But not all actions are free speech.  If I protest outside a business to the point that I cause a disruption to that business, or make customers feel uncomfortable patronizing that business, this is not protected action.  It is not protected because I am causing harm to another person and/or their property.  This also applies to protests on public property.  Yes, all citizens are to have equal access to public property, but that only applies to actions that do not interfere with the ability of others to use that public property.  A public protest that disrupts the use of public property by just one other person is a violation of the Social Contract and, therefore, Natural law.  That means it is an act that does not fall under the heading of ‘free speech.’

The point here is that actions are very seldom ‘speech.’  If they were, I would be free to physically force you to do what I want you to do or to stop doing something I do not want you to do and you couldn’t do anything about it.  It would not be illegal.  All I would have to do is say it was ‘symbolic speech’ and I could claim the protection of the First Amendment.  Let’s take this to the point of absurdity to see why this is true.  If a person is on a street corner handing out printed material and I do not like what his pamphlet says, then why can’t I exercise my ‘right to symbolic speech’ by pounding that person into the ground?  I mean, I have a right to symbolic speech, don’t I?  So how is my beating this person to the point where they cannot hand out their pamphlet not ‘free speech?’  Because I would be causing them personal harm?  Sorry, that does not work.  Many acts have been deemed as protected ‘speech’ by our Courts when they actually cause harm to people and their property.  So, we cannot say that pounding this person into the ground is wrong, but allowing other actions that cause harm to people and their property is protected.  We must be consistent or we are violating the Social Contract by showing favoritism.  This is a clear violation of Natural Law.

Now that we have dealt with the fact that actions are seldom protected by the principles of free speech, let’s address the next misunderstanding about the right to free expression: the notion that there shouldn’t be any consequences for expressing our mind.  The best known example here is that we do not have a right to shout “Fire!” in a theater.  Another well known example is that of what we call “fighting words:” if I say something to someone that a reasonable person would expect to result in a violent reaction from that person, I do not have a right to say it.  For example: if I make a grossly insulting comment to a man about his wife in front of his wife, a reasonable person would expect that my words would be likely to cause that man to react in a violent manner.  This means I do not have a right to insult the man’s wife, especially in front of her.  Another way to look at this is that I do not have a right to use words or the press to deliberately provoke other people.  That is a form of speech that is clearly intended to cause harm, and harm is one of the keys to knowing whether or not we are violating Natural Law.  If it harms, it is most likely a violation, and we are not free from consequences of violating Natural Law.  In the case of “fighting words,” the immediate consequences might well be that we get punched in the nose.  Or, in the case of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, we might be imprisoned for causing a situation that threatened the safety of others.  In both cases, we deserve the consequences because we sought to harm others.

This principle carries over to speech or press where we advocate actions that harm others.  In our society today, one of the most blaring examples is that of ‘Political Correctness.’  Surely, we can all think of an example where one person says something that the PC police did not like and then went on a campaign to destroy that person.  This happens on a regular basis in our society today, and it is not protected speech!  If the purpose is to destroy a person simply for something that person believes, then that speech is not protected under Natural Law.  Why?  Because it seeks to harm someone who has not harmed or caused harm, themselves.  People who do this should be held accountable for their actions.  In the case of a PC attack on someone, that person should be allowed to sue the people and organizations attacking them.  It falls under the slander and libel laws.  But we have allowed certain people and organizations to acquire unlawful immunity for saying and printing things that destroy others.  This immunity is a clear violations of Natural Law and is should not be allowed — not under Natural Law.

Now, this will most likely cause a great deal of discomfort for many people.  This is because we have been taught that free speech and freedom of the press means we have to allow people to say whatever they want about ‘public figures.’  That is a lie!  First, a ‘public figure’ has the same protections under the law as any private citizen.  They do not surrender their rights by becoming a public figure — especially since many people become ‘public figures’ through no action of their own.  Neither does ‘the press’ have an immunity that no private citizen has.  If I can be sued for saying or printing something, then the media can be sued for it, as well.  The most obvious examples here are saying or printing things that are not true — even if they are ‘opinions.’   By that, I mean that we cannot say something about a person we know is not true and then claim we cannot be sued because it is ‘our opinion.’  The same applies to attacking a person’s intentions or actions.  We are not free to claim a person is or wants to do something that we have reason to expect will cause harm to that person.  For example: we are not free to say that a person wants to kill and eat children unless we can show proof that they have done so, said so or make a case that this person is doing so in secret — a case that would hold up in a court of law!  Otherwise, if we claim that a person is or wants to kill and eat babies, we can be — and probably should be — sued.  The principle here is simple: if we cannot prove it is true, or make a sound, valid and rational argument to support it, then we do not have a right to say or print it.  And, if we do, we do not have a right to claim immunity from the consequences.

Finally, we do not have a right to silence the speech or restrict the press simply because we dislike the opinions of others or oppose their agenda.  Unless a person is advocating harm, either to other individuals, their property, or society, they have the right to speak their mind — either verbally or in print.  It does not matter whether you find their speech offensive: unless you can prove tangible harm, they have a right to speak their mind — and ‘pain and suffering’ is not tangible harm! Tangible harm means you can demonstrate a physical injury or a loss of property or income.  If you claim you couldn’t work because you were emotionally traumatized, that does not apply.  You do not have the right to make such a claim because the person you are trying to silence could then make the same claim against you: they could say you silencing them or claiming they offended you offended and harmed them.  In this case, how could you object?  If you can do it to them, they can do it to you — and for the same reasons.  Therefore, you have to show a boo-boo or a real loss of property or income that is directly connected to something a person said or printed.  An example would be a person who is labeled a bigot or racist and then attacked by the media and — ultimately — driven out of their business.  That person can show real damages.  Even if that person said they believed in the superiority of one race over another, unless they advocated an action that caused harm to others, any attack on them because of their beliefs would be a violation of Natural Law.  The point here is simple: an individual has the right to express their mind — even if it is deemed offensive.  What’s more, unless they are intentionally using it to do something that causes actual harm, their right to speak and print their mind is protected.  Conversely, their is no ‘right’ to not be offended.  This is how free speech and a free press works.

A great deal of the trouble we have in our society today has been caused by the perversion of free speech and freedom of the press.  We have allowed certain people and organizations to say whatever they want about whoever they want without consequence.  In some cases, we have even used the law to protect these people and organizations from legal ramifications of their words.  While, at the same time, we have allowed people to be harmed simply because of the things they have said or written.  Both are clear violations of the Social Contract and its duty to protect all citizens equally.  This means we have clearly violated the principles of Natural Law.  That is why ‘speech’ in our society has become such a problem: because we have allowed it to become corrupted and weaponized, which is – as I said at the start — the realm of tyranny!

I saw this on a Face Book feed:

Conservatives Fail the N.F.L.’s Free Speech Test

And it made me wonder whether or not the New York Times is simply helping to defend the NFL because it agrees with the protest, or if the New York Times is simply this ignorant.  I ask this because the NFL protest is not about free speech at all, and those who keep asserting that it is are either trying to deceive or too ignorant to be wading in to this debate.  These are harsh words, but, if you can give me a moment, I’ll explain why this is true.

First and foremost, let’s start by assuming the NFL protest is an issue of free speech.  Guess what?  That does not mean you have a right to be free from consequences!  Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want without consequences.  So, if ‘the Right’ wants to boycott, demand firings and do its best to damage the NFL over this protest, that is not a sign that the ‘Right’ ‘fails the free speech test:’ it is just the consequences of an industry insulting a core part of its audience.  Ask the Dixie Chicks how this works.  They insulted the United States while on an overseas tour and it cost them their career.  But were they put in jail for it?  No!  Is anyone calling for the NFL players to be put in jail?  No!  So, even if this were a free speech issue, the fans reaction cannot be used as ‘proof’ that ‘the Right’ has ‘failed the free speech test.’  In fact, that claim is just the whining of a petulant child who wants to get away with doing whatever he or she wants without suffering the consequences for their actions.

However, as I said, this is not about free speech.  Point number 1: the NFL is supposed to be a business.  That means the players are employees.  Now, it may not be this way in their elite little world, but in the real world, if an employee repeatedly and wantonly attacks a customer, they get fired!  They are still free to speak their mind to that customer without fear of going to jail, but they are not free to do so without ramification.  This is because we agree to limit our rights when we agree to work for another person or business.  You have no ‘right’ to free speech in the employer-employee relationship unless the employer grants it, and even then, you are bound to whatever limits the employer sets.

Point number 2: Does the NFL have a ‘right’ to support this protest?  No!  Why do I say that?  Because a company has no rights!  A company is not a person, therefore, it has no rights.  Furthermore, in this case, if the NFL support the players — as a corporation — that means it has turned on those stock holders and/or owners of those teams that may disagree with the players.  This means the NFL would not only be attacking its owners, but also its creators and controlling Parties, and it definitely does not have a right to do that. It would be like saying the Federal government has a right to go to war with the States.  As the States created and retain control over the Federal government, the Federal government has no right or authority to go to attack the States.  In the same way, the NFL has no authority or right to dictate to the owners on matters of conscience.  And notice, none of this has anything to do with free speech.  This is all about the quest for power and control over others: in this case, the NFL, Teams and Players claiming control over each other as well as their customers.

Point number 3: The NFL exists only because the People allow it.  The NFL is a legalized monopoly as well as a corporation.  Both of these structures are artificial.  They require the support of the People to enact and maintain.  Therefore, if the NFL supports this protest, and the People object, the People are within their rights — and they have rights because they are actual people — to resend those protections.  In this case, that means the NFL owners are free to support the players’ protest, but the People are equally justified if they pull the monopoly protection and corporate charter from the NFL and its various teams.  Were the People to do so, they would be within their rights, and it would be a legal action that would — invariably — end the NFL by opening it to massive taxation and legal challenges: but the owners and players would still be free to speak their minds without going to jail.

Point number 4:  We can set all that aside because this is not a ‘protest’ in that the NFL and its players are trying to bring about a change in our government.  This is actually an act of subversion.  We must remember that Kaepernick originally said he was protesting the nation, and he reportedly did so while wearing a Chez T-Shirt.  He has since spoke out against the nation while wearing Malcolm X and Fidel Castro T-Shirts.  Now, would we consider it a ‘protest’ if the players were ‘protesting’ the NFL while wearing T-Shirts supporting Donald Trump and the resurrection of the USFL?  Would we support the players and say it was free speech if they were wearing their jerseys inside out on the field and performing other signs of disrespect toward the NFL on camera, at the games?  Or would we consider that an open attack on the NFL?  Be honest with yourself.  How would you see it if the players were doing something like that?  Wearing T-Shirts with TRUMP USFL on them while calling for the destruction of the NFL on the field and demanding that no one do anything to them because they were just “exercising their right to free speech.”  Yeah, I think they would be fired on the spot, but that’s just me: one of the last survivors of the real-world, common sense brigade.

That is why this is not about ‘free speech.’  This is about subversion.  It is an attack on this nation and its people by the NFL — both owners and players.  And there is nothing in the Constitution — or Natural Law, for that matter — that grants an individual the ‘right’ to seek the destruction of Society and the Social Contract without having to face the consequences.

Oh, and one more thing.  To those of you who still think an action is speech: how about I knock your head off — literally — and then tell the world I demand to be left alone because I was just exercising my right to free speech?  Will that work for you?  I mean, I hate to have to get so strong here, but you seem to think actions are speech, so I can’t think of any other way to get through to you.  So, how about we let people who get angry with you end you and then just walk away because they were just exercising their right to free speech through ‘symbolic speech?’

And NO!  I do not apologize for the harsh tone of this post.  People who support and defend the asinine stupidity expressed in the linked article and by those calling the NFL revolt ‘free speech’ are complicit in the lawless attacks on this society.  They are at war with our Society and that makes them a public enemy.  They are not deserving of our protections, and will not be unless and until they seek to make the changes they desire through the lawful methods provided them by the Constitution.  Until then, Society not only has a right to defend itself from such people, it has a duty to do so!

As it is currently structured, the corporation is a threat to liberty.  I understand that there are many people who will disagree with this statement.  Never the less, it is absolutely true.  As it is currently structured, the corporation is a threat the liberty and the rule of law.  This is because the current structure of the corporation is a violation of Natural Law.  If you disagree with, or even if you question this assertion, please allow me to make my case before you make your final conclusion on this matter.

First, let me explain why I say the corporation is a violation of Natural Law.  Under Natural Law, only individuals have rights.  Along with those rights come duties and responsibilities: to both other individuals and Society.  And, under Natural Law, individuals are held personally accountable for their actions.  Now, as it is currently structured, the corporation is legally recognized as a person.  It is given rights and held accountable for its actions as though it were an individual.  The purpose of this is to insulate those who own and operate the corporation from responsibility for their actions.  This is a clear violation of Natural Law. It is a violation of Natural Law because it separates actual people from their responsibility for their actions by holding an artificial entity responsible in their place.  So long as this is allowed to continue, the corporation will be a threat to individual rights and liberty and, if allowed to continue, the corporation will eventually destroy liberty and the rule of law.

The next thing we need to understand is that the corporation has nothing to do with the free market and free trade.  In fact, Capitalism has nothing to do with the free market or free trade.  The free market is part of Natural Law, but Capitalism and the corporation are not.  This is because they are both artificial creations.  So let me explain what I mean buy ‘artificial creation.’

An artificial creation is something that people, through mutual agreement, agree to create and treat as though it were real.  In the case of the corporation, people have agreed to treat them as though they were people, themselves.  It has been agreed that the corporation will be given equal or nearly equal status as real individuals, to include the right to own property and claim protections of its rights as though it were equal with a real person before the law.  In the case of Capitalism, we have agreed that it is the same thing as the free market.  In both cases, we are dealing with things that do not exist outside of the human mind.  The corporation is merely a law that gives people the excuse to treat a business as a person, but that business is not a person.  In the case of Capitalism, we have agreed to treat it as the free market, but it is not.  In fact, Capitalism does not exist without the corporation, at least, not as we understand it today (because there would be no way to accumulate capital as we do it today).  Yet, the free market existed before we invented the term, ‘Capitalism,’ and if the corporation were eliminated from the world, the free market would still exist.  This is because the free market is nothing but the operation of the Social Contract, whereas the corporation and Capitalism are violations of that contract because they are violations of Natural Law.

Now that I have explained that the corporation is an artificial creation that violates Natural Law, let me demonstrate why it is a threat to individual rights and liberty.  First, remember that the primary purpose for the corporation is to allow the accumulation of massive wealth and power while insulating the people who control that wealth and power from responsibility for their actions.  This allows the corporation to break laws without placing the people who directed those crimes in jeopardy.  Instead of actual people going to jail, the corporation pays a fine, and usually to the government.  In most cases, victims aren’t even compensated, the government is.  Corporations also use their wealth to influence laws that protect them from competition.  For example: if a corporation wants to buy and do some work on a piece of water front property, they may use their wealth to influence a law or ordinance that says a person must either pay for a special permit costing $1 million or, if they build without obtaining this permit, they must pay a fine of $2 million.  The average person or small business cannot afford this amount simply to pull a permit, and certainly not to pay a fine, but this is not a problem for the corporation.  It simply buys the property, pays the fine and passes the whole cost off to its customers — the very people who created the corporation through an act of legislation. [Note: this example is real.  It has actually happened in the State of Florida, and it is only one example of how large corporations use the wealth the people make possible to benefit themselves at the cost of those who made its existence possible.]

It is for this and many similar reasons that our Founders did not like corporations.  In fact, the Founders tended to make corporations illegal.  They preferred to us the system of a charter, instead.  The difference is that the charter specified a specific area where a company would function and stipulated a limited amount of time for that company.  After that period, the charter either had to be renewed or it would be dissolved, as would the company.  Furthermore, the people who owned the charter company were held personally responsible for everything the charter company did.  In other words, the charter did not insulate the people who operated it.  All the charter did was allow multiple people to create something similar to a corporation for a specific purpose and a set period of time in return for the opportunity to benefit financially from the operation of that chartered company.  Furthermore, these charter companies were generally created for public projects, such as the construction of a canal.  Otherwise, individuals were responsible for creating and running their own businesses, and remained personally responsible for the operations of that business.

So, where does all this leave us?  Well, if we actually understood the principles of Natural Law, it would give us the answer to many problems currently destroying our Republic.  First, we would understand that the corporation cannot be allowed to continue as it is currently structured.  It needs to be changed back to something closer to what the Founders used.  We can agree to allow the creation of cooperative businesses, and the ownership of stock int hat company, but we must insure that individuals are held personally accountable for the actions of that corporation/charter company. At a minimum, stock holders should personally be responsible for making whole anyone who suffers damages from the business, not the business, itself.  In other words, damages should come directly out of the pockets of the people who own the company.  They should not come out of the company’s account.  Furthermore, if the company violates a law that would normally require jail time, the board and all company executives and employees directly involved with the execution of that action should serve the jail time equally.  In other words, if a corporation dumps toxic waste improperly and the laws say there is a ten year sentence for this action, then the entire board, the supervisors and the employees who dumped that waster should all spend ten years in jail.  This would all be in agreement with Natural Law because it does not insulate individuals from their responsibility for their actions.

Furthermore, corporations should not be afforded rights.  Since they cannot vote, they have no ‘right’ to free speech.  This means they should not be allowed to donate to any political activity or campaign.  Neither should they be allowed to spend funds advocating for social change.  All of this is because the corporation is not a person and, therefore, has no right to free speech.   But it is also because, as a creation of the People, to allow a corporation to make such donations is to place those citizens who disagree with the corporation’s position at war with themselves.  In principle, this is no different that allowing the government to play political favorites.  It is considered a violation of Natural Law when government favors one person, company or group over another because it places citizens at war with their own government.  Likewise, allowing a creation of their own will to oppose their will by letting corporations participate in political activity is a violation of Natural Law.

Finally, a corporation or charter does not need to be and shouldn’t be granted to just anyone who applies.  These structures should be granted only to those ventures that benefit the whole of society, such as a utility.  After all, if society is responsible for creating it, then it should be something that benefits society in return.  Additionally, a company should be forced to apply for regular renewal of their charter or license.  It should not be an automatic act.  If a corporation or charter company were thought to be acting in a way that is harmful to the society that created it, then that corporation or charter company should be dissolved.  Likewise if that corporation of charter company commits something that would be considered a first degree felony if an individual committed that act.  If a company breaks a law to such a degree, it should be dissolved and replaced by an entirely new corporation or charter company with completely new ownership.  The point is that the corporation is a creation of public policy and, therefore, is rightfully subject to public control.  And if a corporation is not going to serve the society which allows it to exist, then it has no right to exist at all.  The creation and existence of a corporation or charter company is entirely at the will of the society that allows it to exist and operate, and it should be allowed to exist and operate only so long as it serves that society and does so according to the principles of Natural Law.

The rest of the economy should be left to private businesses, partnerships and cooperatives.  These structures are all within the realm of Natural Law as they all connect the business directly to the people who own and operate it.  They do not require an act of law outside those laws that allow real estate to be treated as private property.  And, in many cases, a business may not even involve the use of real estate, in which case it is truly private and entirely outside of the rightful control of society and the Social Contract.  This is the real free market: the interaction of private citizens without any need for government permission or government-created artificial entities.  WHat’s more, our modern world can operate under this structure.  The only thing that would really change is that people would not be able to become billionaires without actually having to do something more than trade in stocks or manipulating public law, or both.