We are excited to announce that we have now completed post production on
Citizens United, The Movie. And we are now doing film festival
submissions and considering other screening opportunties.
In Citizens United, The Movie, we take on the issues of corporate
personhood
and accountability, money as speech, the remote control drone murder of civliians, and
more.
The new video clip preview is a call to action, dramatizing the moment that the
activists in our story are reacting to the Citizens United supreme court
decision, in particular the 2010 State of the Union speech where the
President addressed it with members of the Supreme Court in attendance.
We open with a hypothetical, but true to their writings and speeches,
conversation between founding fathers James Madison and Alexander Hamilton,
about the propriety of empowering corporations as artificial persons.
We then cut to a modern day TV PR ad for a major defense contractor,
highlighting with this juxtaposition the extent to which corporations
have taken over the concept of "We, The People".
And then we jump right into the middle of our main story about Occupy
America, an activist group mobilizing a movement to amend the constitution
to negate corporate personhood, while they struggle with a government
attempt to entrap a couple of their members in a phony terrorist
plot.
**********
NEW TRAILER FOR THE LAST WAR CRIME MOVIE
We also just posted a fast paced, right to the point new trailer of our first full length feature dramatic film, The Last War Crime movie, which is ready for theatrical distribution now.
In just 60 seconds, you can get the flavor of this ground-breaking production. To find out if our heroine was successful in her mission, you will have to
actually watch the movie, and screeners are now available at the same link below.
Picking up where we left off . . . last time we quoted you the beginning
of some language from page 18 of the Hobby lobby opinion:
"As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the
Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included
corporations within RFRA's definition of person."
And we had already pointed out that this passage unabashedly admits that
the whole idea of corporations as people is a literal fiction. But
there is yet another legal error in this very same sentence.
By the reasoning of Alito, the author of the opinion, as he tries to
explain in painfully nit-picky detail later, there is a conflict in
the law (the RFRA) because some corporations are extended a religious
courtesy exemption (real churches) but not others (like Hobby Lobby).
To resolve this conflict Alito says that ALL corporations must be
given the constitutional right of religious freedom.
Leaving aside the fact that this "freedom" is comprised of imposing
the religious beliefs of a small handful of people (the owners of the
corporation) on everyone else with different beliefs, Alito's bottom
line fallacy is that if there is conflict between the law and the
Constitution, it is the Constitution that must yield.
Alito could not have it more 180 degrees backwards. The law must
comply with the Constitution, not the other way around. Otherwise,
Congress could change the Constitution anytime it wanted to just by
passing a law. This is so obviously incorrect, it is a disgrace that
a Supreme Court justice would even utter such logical nonsense.
This is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
The Constitution can only be changed by a proper constitutional
amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states, not by accident because
there is some incongruity in the law, and certainly not by judicial
fiat. And that is in fact what is going on here.
A rogue majority of five is bent and determined to surrender all our
our real people rights to the corporations. And only your voices
continuing to speak out for a REAL constitutional amendment can put
them back in their place, which
initiative would also include an impeachment trial, if there is any
justice in the world.