Click the photo to go the EBay page to make your donation.

Thank you

While I have no argument with his basic premise that capitalism is a corrupt system, I have a serious problem with how he makes some of the arguments in the movie. Most notably, his ironic portrayal of the Catholic Church as one of the heroes of anti-capitalism.

Among his many biases, one of the greatest seems to be his fondness for the Catholic Church, the world’s largest, and often throughout its history, most corrupt multinational corporation. Of all religions to choose as somehow the antithesis of capitalism, Moore’s seems an odd choice. The Catholic church has made its fortunes off the backs of the middle class and the poor, though its exploitation has been the sham of selling spiritual relief as its phantom product rather than things more tangible, things that might actually contribute to the well-being of people and society. And then there is the Catholic school system, the largest propaganda and sales network ever devised. Finally, the Catholic Church has fought harder and more successfully than any large corporation against unions in their own workforce, and still does to this day.

Though there are certainly many individuals within the church, including clergy, that are sensitive to the working classes – as there are individuals in any large corporations – the Catholic Church is one of the great cogs in the history of capitalism , and indeed should be considered by Moore, if he we a little less naïve, as one of his antagonists.

I guess it will be up to someone else to make that film.

Watch the video to see how it all ends.

Mary Travers (1936-2009)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

These embarrassments that the Quakers suffer’d from having establish’d and published it as one of their principles that no kind of war was lawful, and which, being once published, they could not afterwards, however they might change their minds, easily get rid of, reminds me of what I think a more prudent conduct in another sect among us, that of the Dunkers.

I was acquainted with one of its founders, Michael Welfare, soon after it appear’d. He complain’d to me that they were grievously calumniated by the zealots of other persuasions, and charg’d with abominable principles and practices, to which they were utter strangers. I told him this had always been the case with new sects, and that, to put a stop to such abuse, I imagin’d it might be well to publish the articles of their belief, and the rules of their discipline.

He said that it had been propos’d among them, but not agreed to, for this reason: “When we were first drawn together as a society,” says he, “it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors; and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths. From time to time He has been pleased to afford us farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing. Now we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge; and we fear that, if we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves as if bound and confin’d by it, and perhaps be unwilling to receive farther improvement, and our successors still more so, as conceiving what we their elders and founders had done, to be something sacred, never to be departed from.”

This modesty in a sect is perhaps a singular instance in the history of mankind, every other sect supposing itself in possession of all truth, and that those who differ are so far in the wrong; like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road he sees wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear, tho’ in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them. To avoid this kind of embarrassment, the Quakers have of late years been gradually declining the public service in the Assembly and in the magistracy, choosing rather to quit their power than their principle.

Ben Franklin – (Autobiography)

photo from the National Portrait Gallery

To give her the benefit of the doubt that she is a somewhat intelligent woman, I then have to conclude that Maklin knows she is herself a liar.  Yet, Malkin does not give her own readers and audience the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to their intelligence.  However, she may be justified in that.

On her web site Malkin posted that Democratic U.S. Congresswoman Melissa Bean (Illinois-8th) charges her constituents $25 to go to her town hall meetings. She does not.

Malkin referenced (and linked to) meetings being held by two local chambers of commerce for their own membership, which invited Bean to speak. They did charge their members to attend the meeting, one of which which also included a breakfast.

One of the chambers which organized the private event called it a “Chamber Breakfast with Congresswoman Melissa Bean” in their ad and made no representation of any kind that it was a public event.

Malkin blatantly changed the wording on her post to “Town Hall Breakfast meeting with Congresswoman Melissa Bean”.

The other made no reference at all to theirs being a “town hall” either.

All of Bean’s public town hall meetings are free and open to the public.

And Michelle Malkin is a bald-faced liar.