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.
Where we last left our wayward Supreme Court opinion writer, Alito
was using the Dictionary Act (a law) to justify a de facto
constitutional amendment (declaring all corporations to have the
rights of real people).
In response we heard from a number of right wing operatives,
protesting, "No, no, no, this is just about interpreting one law (the
so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act or RFRA), not about laying
down a broader constitutional doctrine."
Horseradish . . . or maybe it's bull radish.
On page 18 of the decision, Alito clearly embraces with both arms the
principle of "protecting the free-exercise (of religion) rights of
corporations." Whoa, horsey. Stop it right there.
Corporations have NO such rights. What Alito has done here is argue
his case using his preordained conclusion as the sole evidence.
Anyone who thinks that Alito will not cite HIMSELF in his next
opinion, saying "In Hobby Lobby we found the corporations have this
constitutional right, and to be consistent with that we must now also
. . . ," is a fool. We already told you the current rogue 5 member
majority is contriving a multi-decision chain of precedents here.
What the RFRA in fact does is create an exemption for an "eligible
organization" DEFINED as one that "holds itself out as a religious
organization," which is to say one with that primary objective. Did
everyone just catch that fact that the RFRA goes out of its way to
articulate a much more LIMITED definition of "organization" than all
business entities of any kind?
As we pointed out last time, Alito's bogus Dictionary Act argument
was that anytime "person" is used it must also include all manner of
corporations, even to the point of how to read the Constitution. His
argument is that all business entities are constitutionally
equivalent not only with each other, but with real people as well.
But the Dictionary Art expressly LIMITS itself in its first line with
the language "unless the context indicates otherwise." (See Part 3 of this series)
So what Alito has done here is blatantly disregard the narrow
definition Congress intended for dedicated religious organizations,
which Hobby Lobby clearly is not, and rule that the exemption must
also now extend more broadly to other business organizations not so
narrowly defined, if only their owners claim to have their own
personal religious beliefs. Except that either you're a church or else
you are not.
To put it another way, even if you assume that Alito's definitional
argument had any constitutional validity at all, the definition of
"eligible organization" in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
SUPERSEDES the broader definition in the Dictionary Act. He has
converted an expressly limited exemption into a wholly unintended
constitutional upheaval. Again, Alito cannot even properly read a law
as it defines itself, let alone be trusted to unilaterally amend the
Constitution by judicial fiat.