top of page

Another "Uh, duh...." Moment

By Anna Von Reitz

October 20, 2021

This morning, the New York Post, usually one of those papers lining the bottom of my bird cage, ran an interesting front page story. It explains how Mark Zuckerberg used backdoor "support" donations to twist the outcomes of the 2020 elections in this country, and not just the Presidential Election --- all elections down to the county level, for just $419 million bucks.

A whole country bought and sold for less than half a billion.

There are times when we must admit that some criminals are smarter than others, and then look ---despite our amazement--- at the maze of legal loopholes and creeping corruption that have allowed this to happen in America.

First, there is the "diversity clause" that was added to basic definitions in Federal Title 18 and Federal Title 28, that allowed Corporations to be considered "CITIZENS" and part of the "citizenry". This clause allows public corporations to operate as private citizens, which is lunacy to begin with.

This means that for taxation and other purposes, PEPSI-COLA is treated the same way as your Aunt Fran --- a fundamental change of definitions in which Aunt Fran loses her identity as a living woman and as an American owed her Natural and Unalienable Rights, and PEPSI-COLA gains standing, rights, privileges and immunities and protections owed only to living people.

Score Big for the Corporatists. That was Step One down this now-clearly delineated Slippery Slope.

Next, the "US CONGRESS" which has no public role or authority at all, voted to allow corporations (especially its own franchises) the ability to contribute to political campaigns, just like any other citizen. That's Step Two in the deadly decline of sanity.

First, you go off the trolley and treat corporations like people, and then in the second logical fallacy, you accord corporations the right to contribute to political campaigns as if they were people, too.

It used to be illegal for corporations to mingle in politics and for obvious reasons. Corporations have vastly more funds to spend on such pursuits than Aunt Fran and tons of personnel to commit to the job, which reduces Aunt Fran's voice to less than a whisper.

Who cares what she thinks? Exxon needs a new pair of shoes, baby!

So, given these opportunities by a phoney "Congress" the ever-enterprising corporations seized the bit in their teeth and began exercising all their newly acquired powers and protections to feather their nest and exercise their new-found political voice, to buy votes for the highest bidder --- whichever party or politician promises to deliver the most protection for the corporation, the most payola in the pipeline, the juiciest contracts, the....well, you get the picture.

Instead of 19th Century Robber Barons at the trough, we've had faceless, unaccountable, made-up-out-of-thin-air corporations at the trough --- claiming all the same rights, prerogatives, and protections as individual living people.

Guess who loses?

This basic situation was consolidated during the Clinton Administration --- and no surprises there, and it has reached its ultimate and predictable expression in the 2020 Elections --- as demonstrated this morning by the New York Post:

Put in plain language, Zuckerberg bought the election via a payola/kickback scheme.

Okay, shame on him.

Thanks to the situation described above, there are very limited remedies or redress available in the actual Public Law, which never contemplated corporations being treated as part of the citizenry.

And of course, none of the guilty corporations benefiting from this included any prohibitions against what they were trying to accomplish in their millions of private rules, codes, statutes and regulations, either.

So, there, in short order, you have the reason why people are left trying to grapple with a bag of wind when they address this mammoth vote-buying election fraud.

It's not against the Public Law, because the entire crazy-making situation was never even imagined.

It's not against the private law of the individual corporations, because that would be against their self-interest.

Can we make it against the law retroactively? No.

Can we punish Zuckerberg and his Board of Directors and everyone else responsible? Possibly.

Should we have allowed the changes described above, allowing corporations to be considered "citizens"? No.

Can we overturn the 2020 election results based on the unjust influence exerted by Zuckerberg et alia? Maybe.

The stultifying question remains, how were so many people dead asleep at the wheel, allowing these changes to basic definitions and roles and prohibitions to be made?

And also allowing the blatantly compromising and foreseeable evil results to accrue to the American electoral process -- by making it all "technically" legal? ---------------------------- See this article and over 3300 others on Anna's website here:


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page