royal dutch and two shell subsidiaried worked with the nigerian government to torture and kill anti-oil activists. who doesn t? but royal dutch claims they can t be sued for such things, torture and murder, because they are a corporation, not a person, baby! the second circuit court agreed, citing that no corporation has ever been held liable for human rights violations under international law. that is reserved for actual individual human beings only. and this is what has us mad as hell. big business wants to have it both ways. they re people when it benefits them to secretly purchase our government to preserve their business, but they re not people when they want to use murder as a mechanism to preserve their business. here with us, john bonafast, co-founder and director of free speech for people. and mike saks, the huffington post s supreme court correspondent. and mike, how do we get to this
raises the money wins anyway. after a third about a third says they ll take the small step of putting a sticker on their car or a sign in their yard. 30% said they d attend a rally. only 20% of those on twitter say they care enough to follow their candidate on twitter. maybe that s because nearly half of them choose a candidate that is none of the above. john del avolpe is the pollster. and john, i ll begin with you. it appears that the young people recognize that the electoral system is a gerrymandered system, that is purchased at auction, and until they are given the none of the above option to reject all of the incumbents dependent on that system, they seem rather accurately disenfranchised when you look at the data and
out jersey that i have. see this, john? i haven t been able to see it from this newsroom, but i look forward to seeing it. do you have a screen? or are you staring into a black hole? i don t have a screen, i m looking at a black hole, but i look forward to doing it. isn t it a nightmare sitting there doing tv looking into a black hole like that? you guys did a great job. thank you so much for raising the conversation and raising the bar. mike sacks out of the huffington post, check it out today. his reporting is sensational. and john bonafast, free speech for people, amen, who wants to get money out. thank you, guys. and as mad as hell conversations like this may make all of us the dualism in the system, it is important for us all to remember that we are actually in the process right now of solving them, even if our government is not. and just posted on the huffington post, our new blog about why all of us are actually optimistic heading into the new year. check it out.
everybody involved in enlisting in this entire undertaking, the 28 debate, learning these things, john, is for us to educate ourselves. we are a group we are people who are now voracious for new information so we can be better contributors to the conversations that exist around this. to both of you, quickly, where would you direct me and others to learn more about this so we have a point of view that s more beneficial to the conversation? john? well, we urge people to go to peoplesrightsamendment.org. congressman mcgovern has introduced a bipartisan bill with a dozen other members of congress on it. it s an amendment that would make clear that corporations are not people with constitutional rights. and you can learn more about it as peoplesrightsamendment.org. but this is really about whether we re going to restore democracy to the people. whether it s we the people or the we the operations thashl that shall rule in america. can you bring me the jerseys, not the t-shirts? did you
point where the idea that corporations have political rights have come from, and how is it that we made it years past citizens united on the first on free speech with corporations, and yet we haven t reconciled the downside of being a person, if you will. good to be here, dylan. there s a 1798 statute that opened up the federal nationals issuing torts under international law. and foreign nationals can come into federal courts and say, hey, this so-and-so did this bad thing to me and i want them to pay up. now, that law doesn t specify who the defendant could be. in in a supreme court, in a 2004 case left open the question whether or not an individual or a corporation or both can be held liable under international law. john, let s talk about this. the d.r. show crack production team, and they are crack, i will say, discovered a footnote in a brief filed related to the case