Legalize Democracy | full documentary

Published on Jan 27, 2014

Legalize Democracy is a documentary
film by Dennis Trainor, Jr. about the movement to amend -- why it is
needed, and how you can get involved.

For more information about Move To Amend, visit: https://movetoamend.org

Produced by Move to Amend, Directed by Dennis Trainor, Jr., financed by grassroots donations.

Get the DVD: http://bit.ly/1f2Bju1
Help spread the word by hosting a house party to support Move to Amend and
show the film. Details about hosting a party are here: https://movetoamend.org/houseparty.


Dennis Trainor, Jr. (director) is a writer, director and new media activist.
He directed the critically acclaimed documentary the Occupy Wall Street
movement, American Autumn: an Occudoc ("calm and smart, offsetting its
stridency with discussion, music, even humor, while issuing a call to
arms."- New York Times ; "as well made as any Hollywood blockbuster."-
MichaelMoore.com ). Currently, her serves as the producer and host of
The Resistance Report, which can be seen daily at PopularResistance.org .
His work has been featured on many outlets including Truth Out,
Huffington Post, Op-Ed News, Fire Dog Lake, The Real News Network, and
many others.

Move To Amend http://movetoamend.org

Formed in September 2009, Move to Amend is a coalition of hundreds of
organizations and hundreds of thousands of individuals committed to
social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a
vibrant democracy that is genuinely accountable to the people, not
corporate interests.

We are calling for an amendment to the US
Constitution to unequivocally state that inalienable rights belong to
human beings only, and that money is not a form of protected free speech
under the First Amendment and can be regulated in political campaigns.

Legalize Democracy -

Written and Directed by Dennis Trainor, Jr.


Produced by AJ Russo and Dennis Trainor, Jr.

Cinematographers -
Messiah Rhodes

Paul Westlake

Color, Titles, and Graphics -
AJ Russo

Original score -
Goldi

Post Audio Engineer -
Tom Hutten

Additional Camera -
Arthur Louis

Executive Producers -
Pamela Brown

Daniel Lee

Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap

Egberto Willies


Subscribe - http://bit.ly/VUl21B

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dennistrainorjr

facebook: http://www.facebook.com/acronymwithdt...

Web http://www.acronymtv.com

Top 5 Social Security Myths!

USA Beanie Bear in his favorite mug! This is truly his "Mugshot"!

Top 5 Social Security Myths!

Rumors of Social Security's demise are greatly exaggerated. But some powerful people keep spreading lies about the program to scare people into accepting benefit cuts. Can you check out this list of Social Security myths and share it with your friends, family and coworkers?
 

Myth 1: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.[1] After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.[2] Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth 2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.[3] What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.[4] But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth 3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.[5] Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.[6] But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth 4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs.

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.[7] The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth 5: Social Security adds to the deficit.

Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.[8]

Closing remarks-

 So, be scared, be very scared, and not of the facts, but by those who continue their constant fearmongering that they seem to embrace on just about every issue out there. 

Why do they constantly do that you ask? Because many people, who are un and under-educated, and possibly too lazy to do their own research on the subject in question buy into the lies, myths, misinformation and the fearmongering. 

One of the major problems with our country is that the American electorate does not do their homework, and instead they buy into the 30 second sound-bites, pundit talking points and outright lies, and the cable news networks. Now you can pick your poison on which side you favor, or if you are in the majority and are "independent", but if you come out of your formal and/or informal education and formative years and you haven't learned to think "your" own thoughts and speak your own mind, well you just haven't learned anything of prime importance. Oh, you may be able to repeat the square roots of every number, or speak 5 different languages, but if you can't form an opinion on the way the world is going, and have the ability to stand on that opinion, and I don't mean by regurgitating your political leaning's talking/bullet points, you really haven't learned a damn thing.
Sources:

1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/

2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security" Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009
http://www.eoionline.org/retirement_security/fact_sheets/StraightFactsSocialSecurity-Sep09.pdf

3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement"Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/social-security-and-the-age-of-retirement/

4. "More on raising the retirement age" Ezra Klein, Washington Post, July 8, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/more_on_raising_the_retirement.html

5. "Social Security is sustainable" Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/social_security_is_sustainable/

6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010." Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240

7. "Trust Fund FAQs" Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

8. "To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/

The Equality State shows it's True Grit!

The Equality State done itself proud, in a rare break from it's normal ultra-conservative reputation. Although it wasn't totally liberating, they didn't take 2 steps backwards.

This year, in Wyoming's 60th Legislative Session, House Joint Resolution 17, also known as the "Defense of Marriage" resolution, failed by a vote of 35-25. If it had passed, it would have put on the ballot for a state constitutional amendment to be put to the voters of the state. That will not happen this year, but I don't see the issue as a dead one. Becky Vandeberghe, who is chairwoman or chairperson to be politically correct, of WyWatch Family Institute, a Wyoming based group that lobbies in support of legislation that promotes the "Sanctity of Marriage" and other narrow-minded "Let's control all the state's social issues by our own warped sense of reality" issues, called Friday's vote a "grave injustice." Oh yes, it was a truly grave injustice, but for whom? Is Becky not comfortable with her own morality and sexuality?

"The elitist legislators decided not to accurately represent the people of Wyoming, and we certainly do hope that their constituents will take a look at their voting record and keep track of it for the election in 2010," said Vandeberghe, who promised to push for similar legislation in the future. Oh no, she made a promise for more misguided political theater.

Becky, that sounded like a threat to me! Oh Becky, what are we going to do with you? Mr. Dobson might be looking for a new protege, hay?

Although it didn't pass the House, it does not mean same-sex marriages can be legally done here, because Wyoming law already stipulates that only marriages between a man and woman are valid, but the law also requires the state to recognize valid unions performed in other states. That was the part that the right wanted to change, the part where "the state recognizes valid unions performed in other states". That was how they were going to defend marriage, by giving a religious, or their religious definition to a legal civil union. How they think it will defend there own narrow-minded concept of marriage is beyond me. How are they really threatened? Is it a physical threat? Verbal? Sexual? Moral? A threat to their self-esteem and self-worth? I don't know? I give up!

The resolution sponsor, Rep. Owen Petersen, R-Mountain View, said, "It's my opinion that voters should be allowed to express their opinion on this social issue, and not leave the matter to the courts or some other source,"
Rep. Petersen stated he was inundated with tons of letters in support of the resolution, (I would truly like to see the tons of letters myself.) and he pointed to a private study (And I'd like to see that private study too.) that he said showed overwhelming support for the amendment among members of the Wyoming public.

Petersen said, "It is a society policy decision that needs to be done." No, it is a decision that wants to impose your moral/religious standards on everyone else. Separation of church and state comes to mind here.

Something that is forgotten by legislators, both on a state and national level, and many citizens, is the question, what is a democracy or a republic?

We have heard for many years that we are a "democracy". This was not the vision of our founding fathers, as they saw democracy as another form of tyranny. The word “democracy” appears no where in our Constitution, or “The Declaration of Independence”. We are a constitutional republic. These words are not interchangeable, but over time, semantic inattentiveness has caused us to use these words way too loosely. Our founding fathers would be deeply saddened by both our laziness, and our lack of comprehension of the differences.

So you are probably thinking now, “What is the difference between a democracy and a republic form of government?” In a republic form of government, there is rule of law, and the law can protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. All of its citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. The government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. The framers' vision of a republic contrast with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that visualized under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be revoked by the government. In a democracy, the majority rules, meaning that there are no protections for minority rights. Whatever the majority wants rules the day.

Chalk up one for the good guys, at least for now. Until tomorrow, Ciao!