Michael Moore and Wolf Blitzer

If you haven't seen Michael Moore making the TV circuit to promote his new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, the clips below showcase his best performance. He makes Wolf Blitzer looks like an amateur, with repetitive, sound-bite inspired questions:





My favorite moment came when Wolf asked Michael how he would respond to allegations that he is being hypocritical in his movie because he himself has benefited and become wealthy from our capitalistic system. To which Michael Moore responded:

"I wonder if there was a Wolf Blitzer 200 years ago who asked Thomas Jefferson, or John Adams, or George Washington: "Hey you guys are wealthy land owners, you've benefited from the Kings system, what are you complaining about? whats this revolt all about?"

Brilliant.

PS: If you missed Wolf's appearance on celebrity Jeopardy, you missed the man who represents one of the supposed leaders in cable news making a fool of himself and getting blown out by comedian Andy Richter. His grand total: -$4600.

Al Franken Is My Hero

This is the progressive attitude we need to see more of in Congress. Thank you Al Franken!

Corporate Personhood & Citizen's United v FEC

These two segments from the 9/15 episode of The Colbert Report may be the best explanations why the Citizen's United v Federal Elections Committee case currently before the Supreme Court is so important. Imagine what our democracy would look like if corporations could give unlimited campaign contributions... Would it even be a democracy?

To learn more about the ridiculousness that is corporate personhood, check out the book Unequal Protection

The one issue that Stephen failed to mention is that most corporations have non-citizen and even foreign governments as shareholders. Who could possibly think that allowing foreign governments access to our democratic process is what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind?

by Thom Hartmann

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Jeffrey Toobin
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

Here is part of the transcript from the opening arguments:

"JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Olson, are you taking the position that there is no difference in the First Amendment rights of an individual? A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights. So is there any distinction that Congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campaign finance?

MR. OLSON: What the Court has said in the First Amendment context, New York Times v. Sullivan, Rose Jean v. Associated Press, and over and over again, is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Would that include -

MR. OLSON: Now, Justice -

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Would that include today's mega-corporations, where many of the investors may be foreign individuals or entities?

MR. OLSON: The Court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a share of a corporation.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Own many shares?

MR. OLSON: Pardon?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Nowadays there are foreign interests, even foreign governments, that own not one share but a goodly number of shares.

MR. OLSON: I submit that the Court's decisions in connection with the First Amendment and corporations have in the past made no such distinction. However -

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Could they in your view, in the view that you are putting forth, that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation for First Amendment purposes, then any mega-corporation, even -- even if most of the investors are from abroad, Congress could not limit their spending?

MR. OLSON: I'm not -- I'm not saying that, Justice Ginsburg. I'm saying that the First Amendment applies. Then the next step is to determine whether Congress and the government has established a compelling governmental interest and a narrowly tailored remedy to that interest. If the Congress -- and there is no record of that in this case of which I am aware. Certainly the government has not advanced it in its briefs: That there is some compelling governmental interest because of foreign investment in corporations. If there was, then the Court would look at, determine how serious is that interest, how destructive has it been to the process and whether the -- maybe the limitation would have something to do with the ownership of shares of a corporation or some -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Do you think Congress could prevent foreign individuals from funding speech in United States elections?

MR. OLSON: The -- the -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Private individuals, foreigners who -- who want to -

MR. OLSON: That's, of course, a different question. I haven't studied it, Justice Scalia.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, it's not different. I asked it because I thought it was related to the question you were answering.

MR. OLSON: The fundamental point here is -and let me start with this, and I think we should -- we should start with this, and the government hardly mentions this.

JUSTICE STEVENS: Before you do, Mr. Olson

MR. OLSON: The language of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make" -

JUSTICE STEVENS: Mr. Olson -- Mr. Olson, would you answer Justice Ginsburg's question yes or no? Can the -- leaving aside foreign investors, can the -can -- does the First Amendment permit any distinction between corporate speakers and individual speakers?

MR. OLSON: I am not -- I'm not aware of a case that just -