Law, Politics & Timing
I recently traveled to and visited San Diego, and across the street from the hotel there's a law school! What are the chances, right? California Western School of Law to be exact... and so today, I venture over there to take a look-see, snap some pictures and simply 'check it out.'
I happen to be there at the commencing of a lecture regarding the U.S. Constitution! "What timing" I think to myself. It is 'Constitution Week' and this past Monday was the 225 commemorative year of that document's signing. All the students are to be walking around with their pocket Constitution ready to answer a random question posed by a professor.
I sit through an hour lecture specifically regarding the freedom of speech by professor Glenn C. Smith, Professor of Law, Chair, J.D. / Ph.D. Dual Degree Program in Political Science. The lecture centers around the momentous supreme court ruling on free speech from Citizens United from two years ago. I notice the 'left / right' paradigm being used in his discourse, yet I am glad to hear his opinion that this particular supreme court decision regarding that group's "right to speech backed by corporate money" was a bad move. I also noticed mainstream acceptance that now speech = money, and / or the acceptance that now one needs money or an organized effort to 'speak' which is defeating the voice of the minority or better, people who wish not to affiliate themselves with any organization ( the single voice of reason among the mass distractions ).
At the close, he fields some questions and I ask:
- "Isn't the passing of Citizens United simply legalized corporate propaganda to further strengthen the corporate agenda while now an individual's voice is restricted from speaking in front of a federal or state building?"
- "Hasn't the people's freedom of speech been hindered unless they have money supporting them?"
- "Hasn't the voice of the people, outside of the agenda to maximize profit ( what corporations do ), been actually diminished not only by that ruling but further statutory control of the people's voice?"
He liked the questions and gave nice responses.... while students in the audience are looking at me like "who is this dude and what did he just ask?"
My follow-up question was:
- "Do you find it interesting that most political debate or political talk is framed with the 'left vs right' or 'conservative vs liberal' paradigm and do you notice how that framing and suggestive narrative actually limits critical thinking and is leading to bring forth desired conclusions?"
He liked that question even more and mentioned if I've ever read the book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt.
We later conversed after the lecture was ended and we had an interesting conversation about several other politically related issues. I asked him if he was aware of the 14th amendment's edited definition of "person" from a natural entity ( a living soul ) to a corporate fiction? ( the straw-man / c’est tui que trust entity is the corporate fiction ). He was very aware of the alteration and the new legal definition of that word, but I didn't mention about the trust / straw-man, he was in a rush to attend some other school function, I just included that here for you, the reader, to get an idea of what I was aiming at to see if he knew the latter reality.
Then I asked him if he ever noticed the signature line on his personal checks and how it is actually NOT a solid line, but very small words. He had not known this. I let him know corporate fictions can only do business with other corporate fictions, not with living souls / real men and women ( which he eluded to already knowing and understanding this.
Everything is commerce, we are all under commercial law / rules and the kountry, state, municipalities, cities and so on are all corporate fictions. When one endorses their personal checks, they are acting as the 'Authorized Representative' ( what the fine print states ) for their corporate fiction, the c'est tui que trust / U.S. Corporation created in their name ).
Prior to departing, he asked what year I was in the 'program'.. and I mentioned how I just happen to stroll on in; that I was on vacation and I was staying at the hotel across the street.
He smiled and said "we need more people like you and your type of thinking in here."
That made my day! 8^)
Thank you Glenn for your time and responding to my questions.
I also met a young gentleman whose first name is Nick. We had a brief conversation regarding these matters and discovered we were on the same page regarding many other matters mostly invisible to the mainstream narrative and mind-frame. He came up to me after the lecture had ended; I think he too was interested in my thought process judging from my line of questions. He seemed to be very astute and aware of the current political climate, which was encouraging to hear and make note of. I wasn't able to mention how the title 'esquire' is a title of nobility which is in contrast to being an American national / state citizen. I'm sure we'll be in touch for I handed him my card.
I happen to be there at the commencing of a lecture regarding the U.S. Constitution! "What timing" I think to myself. It is 'Constitution Week' and this past Monday was the 225 commemorative year of that document's signing. All the students are to be walking around with their pocket Constitution ready to answer a random question posed by a professor.
I sit through an hour lecture specifically regarding the freedom of speech by professor Glenn C. Smith, Professor of Law, Chair, J.D. / Ph.D. Dual Degree Program in Political Science. The lecture centers around the momentous supreme court ruling on free speech from Citizens United from two years ago. I notice the 'left / right' paradigm being used in his discourse, yet I am glad to hear his opinion that this particular supreme court decision regarding that group's "right to speech backed by corporate money" was a bad move. I also noticed mainstream acceptance that now speech = money, and / or the acceptance that now one needs money or an organized effort to 'speak' which is defeating the voice of the minority or better, people who wish not to affiliate themselves with any organization ( the single voice of reason among the mass distractions ).
At the close, he fields some questions and I ask:
- "Isn't the passing of Citizens United simply legalized corporate propaganda to further strengthen the corporate agenda while now an individual's voice is restricted from speaking in front of a federal or state building?"
- "Hasn't the people's freedom of speech been hindered unless they have money supporting them?"
- "Hasn't the voice of the people, outside of the agenda to maximize profit ( what corporations do ), been actually diminished not only by that ruling but further statutory control of the people's voice?"
He liked the questions and gave nice responses.... while students in the audience are looking at me like "who is this dude and what did he just ask?"
My follow-up question was:
- "Do you find it interesting that most political debate or political talk is framed with the 'left vs right' or 'conservative vs liberal' paradigm and do you notice how that framing and suggestive narrative actually limits critical thinking and is leading to bring forth desired conclusions?"
He liked that question even more and mentioned if I've ever read the book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt.
We later conversed after the lecture was ended and we had an interesting conversation about several other politically related issues. I asked him if he was aware of the 14th amendment's edited definition of "person" from a natural entity ( a living soul ) to a corporate fiction? ( the straw-man / c’est tui que trust entity is the corporate fiction ). He was very aware of the alteration and the new legal definition of that word, but I didn't mention about the trust / straw-man, he was in a rush to attend some other school function, I just included that here for you, the reader, to get an idea of what I was aiming at to see if he knew the latter reality.
Then I asked him if he ever noticed the signature line on his personal checks and how it is actually NOT a solid line, but very small words. He had not known this. I let him know corporate fictions can only do business with other corporate fictions, not with living souls / real men and women ( which he eluded to already knowing and understanding this.
Everything is commerce, we are all under commercial law / rules and the kountry, state, municipalities, cities and so on are all corporate fictions. When one endorses their personal checks, they are acting as the 'Authorized Representative' ( what the fine print states ) for their corporate fiction, the c'est tui que trust / U.S. Corporation created in their name ).
Prior to departing, he asked what year I was in the 'program'.. and I mentioned how I just happen to stroll on in; that I was on vacation and I was staying at the hotel across the street.
He smiled and said "we need more people like you and your type of thinking in here."
That made my day! 8^)
Thank you Glenn for your time and responding to my questions.
I also met a young gentleman whose first name is Nick. We had a brief conversation regarding these matters and discovered we were on the same page regarding many other matters mostly invisible to the mainstream narrative and mind-frame. He came up to me after the lecture had ended; I think he too was interested in my thought process judging from my line of questions. He seemed to be very astute and aware of the current political climate, which was encouraging to hear and make note of. I wasn't able to mention how the title 'esquire' is a title of nobility which is in contrast to being an American national / state citizen. I'm sure we'll be in touch for I handed him my card.
Comments