The Election that Isn't: Corporations and Constitutions

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-17/election-isnt-corporations-and-constitutions

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee..." - Hosea 4:6 (KJV)

In the time that I've been here in this physical dimension, I've noticed that most people don't take the time to check things out for themselves. A simple act of reading a few pages of letters can sometimes rather easily dispel dangerous rumors and myths.

One such myth is the much exalted and revered "vote". Sure, you, as citizens of the United States (by which I mean those with the same status of emancipated slaves circa 1863), have a right (actually a privilege) to "vote", but what is it worth?

Since you are a United States citizen, the value of your vote can be readily determined by simply reading the Constitution. Now, a lot of times you might hear someone admonishing you to "Read the Constitution!" To which I say: horseshit. The Constitution for/of the United States of America is a boring, dry document that basically just lays out the rules for how the government will operate. The interesting/important parts are the preamble and amendments (especially the first ten, collectively known as the Bill of Rights). If you know how to read arcane legal documents, the preamble will have clued you in to the true nature of the Constitution: it's a trust indenture. And more specifically, a trust indenture designed to operate a corporation in bankruptcy. Though that's well beyond the scope of my present screed, I will point you to resources you can consult to understand the true nature of the Constitution. And if you have desire to read an important founding document, the Declaration of Independence is far more relevant, and an excellent read to boot.

Anyway, the pertinent part of the Constitution for the purposes of this enlightenment is the following, Article II, Section 1. If you're a typically lazy American, just read the bolded parts:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of

whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice-President.

There you go, in black & white "ink". And congratulations: you are now a Constitutional Scholar (arguably on at least the same level as Barack Obama ). Having read that (even just the bolded parts) you now know more about how the president is selected than 99.99% of Americans. According to the Constitution, there are currently 535 Electors. These 535 people (allegedly*) select the President of the United States. Look at all the millions of idiots that parade around protesting against Trump or Hillary or the avowed socialist Sanders, not to mention the buffoons that actually threw their support behind abject morons like Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush. All these people have never actually read the controlling document of their nation and think their "vote" actually counts towards something.

And what is this mythical "vote"? I would show you in the Constitution where it defines what your vote is worth, but it's just not in there. That's right, there is no such thing as a "popular vote". The Constitution never once mentions those words. It's a contrived ceremony over which apes may beat their chests, and no more. My people suffer for lack of knowledge. Stupid is as stupid does.

So what is voting? I'm just cynical and jaded and have been around the Sun enough times to know that it's just a way to fool Americans into thinking they are involved in the selection of their leader. In actuality it's just a way to psychologically subdue those who choose to participate in the farce. After all, if you vote, you are implicitly lending your approval to the contest. And by the way, you are utilizing a privilege granted by someone else, in this case the United States. It's simply a government benefit to trick you into feeling better about yourself, like free healthcare. By voting, you are saying, "Whether I get my way or not, I approve of the outcome of this process by my act of participation." It's a contract, and your vote is the evidence of it.

People, the Constitution is a corporate indenture. Anything with a President, a Vice President and a Secretary is a corporation. The United States is a corporation. The Board of Directors selects the executive staff. You, the common citizen, are not on the Board of Directors. At best you're one of the workers, so you get to bitch and complain to management (your representatives) and they bring it to the executives, and maybe the Board catches wind of your gripes, but by and large you really have no say in who runs the corporation. You just get to voice a nice opinion which shall be promptly and judiciously ignored.

Now you know. You are welcome.

Now, how many people, having read this--having read the words in the Constitution itself explaining the process by which the President is selected--and now knowing that it is all a sham, will still go out and cast a vote (and this notwithstanding all the evidence that the voting process itself is rigged by electronic voting systems)?

Seriously?

If even one person is educated by this and not only stops voting but actively de-registers, then my effort will have not been in vain. Send this to all the dumb people you know who annoy you with talk about presidential candidates and think it's worth losing friends over a bunch of narcissistic boobs who in the end will sell them out without a flinch of conscience.

I am Chumbawamba.

comments 8,263

Wed, 05/18/2016 - 10:32 | 7573203 two hoots

- the constitution is only a business model of how we will be controlled and them financed. this is what we support and defend.

- Republicans and Democrats (private entities) are not mentioned in the constitution but they, the parties, are financed by us and run the show.

- Even though the constitution is a simple document it is buried in page upon page, legislation upon legislation, book upon book, corpus juris upon corpus juris, libraby upon library of documents that it's real meaning and definition is beyond any reasonable persons understanding.

- Even the "people" part, the first 10 admendments, do little to involve the people in their government.

- Governors can change any part of the constitution (say, remove/delete Article 1) with just 3/4 majority. They are our last hope but are weak.

- Supreme Court Chief Justice Hughes: "We have a constitution, but the constitution is anything the judge says it is"

- Voting only shows the temperture of the citizens, and hopefully provides some acceptable direction/limits of what will be tolerated. Outside of that.....like you say.

Thanks

Wed, 05/18/2016 - 09:31 | 7572881 Lonesome Crow

This trust indenture between the owners of the US Constitution and its board members is the best one that has been constructed in the the history of civilization and this particular component of it is a time honored topic of conflicting opinions which, as you are here, should be debated all in the spirit of the first ammendment and altered only in the spirit of Article V.

A case against replacing the Electoral vote with the Popular vote:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/10/destroying-the-electora...

The point that the process is localized to the states primarily while remaining balanced with the federalist position:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

This innovation developed by the founders regarding the electoral process was done so with very good reason. An improvement working so well for so long developed by some of the best intellects that the course of human events has ever offered should not be changed for light or transient causes.

Wed, 05/18/2016 - 10:06 | 7573031 chumbawamba

The Federalist system was imposed on the States to serve The Crown. It's easier to control a set of disparate colonies with a central government.

It's also easier to control the outcome of 535 voters versus that of several tens of hundreds of million.

You should follow the embedded links I put in my text earlier on on the article to find out the real purpose behind federalism, and the players promoting it at the time. They were all agents of The Crown.

I am Chumbawamba.

Wed, 05/18/2016 - 10:29 | 7573192 Lonesome Crow

I agree.

Wed, 05/18/2016 - 08:40 | 7572648 Vendetta

easy to understand how easy it is for a corrupt government to corrupt itself and continue its corruption in perpetuity till it all blows up

Wed, 05/18/2016 - 06:32 | 7572336 LithiumWarsWAKEUP

cHUMbawamba writes:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

Ok, class, how do the Electors cast THEIR votes? Is it by 'majority of popular vote'? I think so. So, if Trump supporters get out and VOTE for Trump, and there are more popular votes for Trump than Clinton, then Trump gets the Electoral votes for that State. See how easy this is? You say 'voting doesn't matter'? I disagree.

Of course we as citizens are counting on the Electoral voters to vote in the way the majority voted. They sometimes don't. Usually they do, but if they don't, kill them. J/K...hey,,,that's 'just kiddin'.

So, really sorry about your bitterness and apathy, Chumb. Maybe you'd be better off living somewhere there is a Queen or King, to 'rule', huh? It ain't a perfect system, nor you neither have shown a perfect one.

Wed, 05/18/2016 - 09:54 | 7572982 chumbawamba

You Trump supporters are perhaps the biggest idiots in this whole thing since you don't realize you are actually helping Hillary into the office.

But I can't help it if people miss the bigger picture. You go ahead and act like a good little plantation slave. Keep serving massah. It's worked out so well, why change course now.

I shouldn't have even bothered with this reply, since I already address people like you with deeply entrenched cognitive dissonance.

I am Chumbawamba.

Wed, 05/18/2016 - 06:17 | 7572300 GreatUncle

Not just the USA is it?

"Whether I get my way or not, I approve of the outcome of this process by my act of participation." It's a contract, and your vote is the evidence of it.

Not just in the USA it is every western nation hence the EU fucked off doing it this way they justg pick amongst themselves who they want in charge fuck populations right off. In the UK at least it does matter if you vote until the 23rd June 2016 when we vote for BREXIT or STAY.

Voting for a poitician like in the UK counts for nothing unless you hang lying the bastards anyway that is how the UK does it. Recent elections I did not vote preferring to not give my consent to any action some fucker wants to do to me in what I have no right to object too. Now piss me off I can kill you with pleasure ...

On the 23rd June 2016, at the request demand of your president in alliance with GS, JPM, Morgan Stanley and all the usual faces the UK population will democratically vote for THE LAST TIME. After that therre is no point as those calling the shots are not democratically elected for a start that even renaging on promises and outright lying to the UK population is actually a way inferior dictatorship to the EU one.

Already predicting on this one the UK politicans after coercing a yes vote will then blame the EU because they inherited the unaccountability the EU represents. On that I can only think of one thing ... run the UK politicians through with a sword, what they deserve because we should not even be paying for the fuckers after they engineered the STAY VOTE.

Final point ...you only got the pretence of a democracy because it allowed them to preserve the current form of economy we have. That is decaying nearing the end of its life so to speak and the only thing they can do now is start to become dictators "revert to type" to preserve their wants and needs. THIS IS ALL IT HAS EVER BEEN hence I see no crime in killing these types to preserve myself to be honest I prefer gentically erasing them as a good saxon "leave not one behind you to carry a sword". Brutal but honest.

Wed, 05/18/2016 - 09:52 | 7572963 Lonesome Crow

Well, it was never meant to be a Democracy. It is a Constitutional government meant to fuse both Oligarchy and Democracy where a large middle class arbitrates between the two, since the rich and the poor do not trust one another.

This tug of war for the last 200 years for control between Oligarchs and Democrats is only now being won by Oligarchs after they have ruined the middle class via usurping and corrupting the business of banking.

The electoral process is not a causal problem.

Wed, 05/18/2016 - 04:31 | 7572175 Ghordius

Great article, Chumbawamba, well done

A few thoughts about it

The idea that a nation, or perhaps more properly a federation of nation states like the USA is "something like a corporation" or even "like a corporation" gives to me, someone living on the european Continent the usual shrug of: how did you define corporation?

Because the oldest examples of corporations here are those of the medieval city (see today's City of London), the same that inspired the first fascists, btw, and are still very much present in the ideals of common continental europeans: Citizens, i.e. dwellers of a walled city that band together into... "trade unions", i.e. people that had as common interests the same trade (spell: source of sustenance), often the very reason why the city was there in the first place. each a structured society of "masters" of the trade, "apprentices" of the same trade and their relatives. whereas the democracy of the walled city consisted into "one vote for each corporation", i.e. a confederational structure among them. those walls, btw, are there to protect the city from the barons outside, feudalism ceased at the walls, at the defensive borders of the city and "City air smells of Liberty". note that there were hundreds of them, and very often they were allied and/or direct vassals of the emperor... because the emperor protected them and their Freedom from feudal oppression, while those imperial cities were handy allies for the emperor in his (near eternal) fight against feudal lords challenging the (feeble) "unity of the empire" (or, more mundanely, the authority of the emperor... over them)

The same word, corporation, in the US, has a different set of connotations and meanings. mega-corp comes to mind. the same that engage into "partnership with the state", the same accused here of crony capitalism, the same that send legions of lobbyists to DC

But this difference between Europeans and Americans goes further, see the PEW report called "The American Western European Values Gap"

There you'll find a question that was posed only to people that identify as Christians: "What do you consider yourself first?"

In France, the question is answered by 90% as "I am French, first, and Christian second". "Being French" is identity and value system and culture

In Germany, the question is answered by 70% as "I am German, first, and Christian second". "Being German" is identity and value system and culture

In the UK, the question is answered by 63% as "I am British, first, and Christian second". "Being British" is identity and value system and culture

not so in the US where Christians are divided in two groups of 46%. One half identifiyng itself as Christian first, with nationality second

now, we all know that Political Correctness prevents such pollls to dig... deeper. Like mapping in more details if people in America identify themselves along lines like "White" vs "non-White", or combinations of "Christian White" vs others, and so on

what I wanted to point my finger at is that if you read between the lines in Europe, national identity is stronger then in the US

this might sound counterintuitive if you read some comments on ZH, but there it is. a German, a French, they "are just that". Their language, their culture, their national identity are in a much stronger contrast... because you just need to drive a few hours to realize it, among other things

and so here the "nation state" is stronger, too. the questions about the "ship of state", if it's needed or not, why we have it in the first place, why is it structured this way or not... are posed in a strongly different manner, in a strongly different context

in the US, the very fact of the in part missing "American First and Above All" identity allows a certain detachement from the nation state... or the question, as you pose, of "where is the difference between the nation state and a corporation, is there any at all?"

so europeans are much more comfortable with their states as "ships containing them and needing a national direction", which then allows them to be much more comfortable with the idea of a fleet of such states co-operating together and sailing in the same direction (note the British referendum about heading on a different course, of leaving "the fleet")

not so a great lot of people in the US. where individualism is much stronger, and a national identity, as I tried to illustrate, weaker

this very sub-group, the "I am somewhat (or perhaps) American, but first Christian, or first White, or first Just Me" is... exceptional, in the sense of special and different (no, this is not critique) in the "Western Civilization" context. and strongly represented here on ZH

and this difference causes also a lot of misunderstandings "across the pond". Like this (albeit varied) group being utterly bewildered by Londoners electing a Muslim Mayor. Because they see "Muslim" as his first, stronger identity, and are unfamiliar with the British view that he is British first and strongly, and Muslim second and as a weaker identiy. Or when they witness a French being seen as a French by other French because he speaks French, thinks, acts and exposes his values in the French cultural framework... while having a different (but secondary, in France) identity which they would consider the primary one. and so on, up to the Turk in Germany that is both a Muslim Turk... and a German with German cultural "content" which would be called "Judeo-Christian" values... elsewhere

IMHO the capstone of this group of people posing the question "why should I be American in the first place, or as first identity?" is the "I am just Me"... non-group, I would have to write. I love them all, they pose the most pointed criticism and have the most detached views from the "group-think" others. And now I really have to stop, otherwise I'll go on for pages

again, thanks for the excellent article