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.
Here in the eight installment of our Hobby Lobby Errors series we
confront the fact that this callous decision is at its heart an
instance of job pay discrimination based on religion
Those who love the religious sectarian dogma of the result rudely
suggest that if the women don't like being denied the health care of
their choice, in this case particular forms of birth control, they
can pay out of their own pockets for it.
Alito himself suggests in the opinion that Congress could make
provisions to pick up the tab for the crippled coverage, which of
course would put the rest of us on the hook for what the employer was
obligated to pay for.
The first problem with these positions is that there is no evidence
that denying women such birth control has any effect on the premium
Hobby Lobby would pay for their otherwise comprehensive health care
coverage. In a strictly legal sense Hobby Lobby lacks what is called
"standing" to make a claim in court. It costs them nothing extra and
saves them nothing in its denial. In short, Hobby Lobby suffers no
actual harm that would even entitle them to a day in court.
But most importantly, to ask these women to pay extra out of their
own pockets for what their job is supposed to entitle them to, as a
standard benefit given to all other employees, is nothing less than a
form of naked job pay discrimination, in this case based on religion.
They are being told by the Supreme Star Chamber that they will have
less benefits than other employees because of their moral choices.
And it is at least equally as offensive to ask the government (which
is all the rest of us) to pick up the tab for this discrimination.
At the end of the day, the ONLY basis for Hobby Lobby's claim is
their own moral umbrage by the corporate overlords about at the
choices these female employees would freely and legally make. That
gives them no righteous secular legal standing whatsoever.
And remembering that this is all supposed to be about the "Religious
Freedom Protection Act," the religious freedom of these women to make
these moral birth control choices must be protected at all costs from
having imposed on them the religious choices their corporate bosses
would make, IF it was their personal moral choice, which it is not.
Except Alito says that it is.
Who protects the religious freedom of these women? Most certainly not
Samuel Alito in abuse of his judical discretion.
Of top of everything else, this is not about abortion in the
conventional sense, it is about everyone else presumed was simple,
standard birth control. Which will lead us directly to our next
installment, "But I Thought At Least Birth Control Was Safely Legal."