Why won't the mainstream media review or talk about Aaron Russo's blockbuster America:Freedom to Fascism?

Answer 1

Because the mainstream media is controlled by the government and the government wants everyone to pay there unconstitutional income tax. I saw the film on google and it is very good.

Answer 2

Because the mainstream media, like any other business, go where the money is. If the "blockbuster" has a limited audience, then it will have a limited amount of space in the media.

Is there sex or violence in the movie? Big stars? Action? Romance? Special effects? No, so what makes people want to go and see it? Answer that question, and ask how many people will want to see it. If you were the head of a business that put out a newspaper, would you give it precious space in your paper?

It's just business. If it's going to be a blockbuster, the producer or studio might have to buy some space or time.

Answer 3

Mainly because the mainstream media has long discredited the film as poppycock, found it to be a bad movie, and it completely flopped at the box office.


From the NY Times: "Facts Refute Filmmaker’s Assertions on Income Tax in ‘America’"

"...examination of the assertions in Mr. Russo’s documentary.. shows... they ... collapse under the weight of fact."

"Many of the reviews in major newspapers have accepted as having some factual basis the film’s main contention, ... even though every court that has ever ruled on these issues has upheld the constitutionality of the income tax.

"All of the federal income tax revenue, the film says, goes to these bankers to pay interest on the national debt, even though by the broadest measure the federal government’s interest payments are less than 40 percent of the individual income taxes"

"... Mr. Russo says ...that the Internal Revenue Service has refused every request to show any law making Americans liable for an income tax on their wages. ... Yet among those thanked in the credits for their help in making the film is Anthony Burke, an I.R.S. spokesman. Mr. Burke said that when Mr. Russo called him asking what law required the payment of income taxes on wages, he sent Mr. Russo a link to documents, including Title 26 of the United States Code, citing the specific sections that require income taxes be paid on wages. Title 26 says on its face that it is law enacted by Congress."

"..Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them..."

"... Mr. Russo says in the film that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and thus a tax on wages is unconstitutional. This claim has been made in various forms by thousands of tax protesters since 1913, and so far their batting average with the courts is .000.

To buttress the claim that the 16th Amendment is invalid, the film displays a quotation from a federal district judge, James C. Fox. But the transcript from which the judge’s words were taken shows that while he spoke those words, they were in the context of laying out issues and that the conclusion he reached was the opposite of the words quoted."

(ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies/31russ.html?ei=5088&en=05c0d0988f58fc50&ex=1311998400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rs )



From Rotten Tomatoes (a movie review site):

- 78% of the review gave it a thumbs down (in some form)

"MOVIE CONSENSUS: This documentary about the American income tax and whether citizens must pay it is more of a scattershot diatribe than a persuasive argument."

- Box office total: $61,200
- Number of theatres shown: 10
(Not exactly a blockbuster)

(Ref: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/america_from_freedom_to_fascism/)


However I would agree that it could be an interesting story in the media on the small cult following of people that take the film's message as gospel.

Answer 4

In 2008 Obama became into appropriate with FDR interior the media in print and pictures in an attempt to improve his acceptance. Now it fairly is Reagan. With the election closer than it fairly is seems it's time for campaigning and who extra effective to flow alongside with Obama than a president that gained 40 9 of fifty states. After the state of the union speech, liberal media has been applying Obama and Reagan interior the comparable sentence back and back. to confirm Obama status next to Reagan on the conceal of Time isn't basically an insult to a great president like Reagan, it fairly is an attempt to link Obama with a guy he has not something in common with. Will this ploy artwork? i think of it is going to. the attention span of the undemanding American is approximately 5 seconds and that they'll lap this **** up and blindly associate a great president with a awful one. Edward Bernays may well be proud.

Answer 5

As it stands now, the President can declare somone an enemy of the state, aka an enemy combatant, a less than criminal for whon no laws of the land apply, and who could presumably be tortured or killed, which no one would know about because they are in indefinate incommunicado dettention, perhaps their arrests never even publicly acknowleged or known about outside of the Executive Branch.

And since no courts, press, or public access are being allowed in this proccess by the President, only he knows who has been tortured and killed, and who has not.

With the President have absolute facist authority to declare enemies of the stat eand imprison in secret military prisons indefinately and incommunicado, no other law of the land matters. Everybody (including the Congress and Judges)exists at the will and the whim of the President, and if he decides to disaapar you, good luck because you may never be heard from again, and that will be the law of the land.

This is the "law" as the President sees it now. And it is not even time of war. The two countries we fought long ago were wiped out and replaced by freindly governments. We are at most in peacekeeping now.

Will the Supreme Court formaly allow the suspentio of court access for such "disappeared" citzens to stand for good? If so, it is the last of the matter, the courts will have defered to the President that they have no authority to help or act in maters of enemies of the state, and that will be that.

I find a connection between Russo's book and "Toxic Faith: Liberal Cure. A Reasoned and Judeo-Christian Response to the Alarming Assertions of the Religious Right." by Daniel C. Bruch and Thomas Strieter

This book is an answer to those who claim that liberalism is immoral and is somehow destroying the cultural values of the USA. It also seeks to provide a careful and reasoned response, in a specifically Judeo-Christian context, to many of the most vocalized and divisive current issues: patriotism, war, abortion, homosexuality, poverty, and the environment. Using quiet, confident scholarship and reason, the authors seek to restore and energize a more informed response to the Religious Right.

Another book, "The Origins of Totalitarianism" is the most thought-provoking to the modern day reader. Arendt was always a provocative philosopher and analyst and in affirming that both Stalinism and Nazism shared similar characteristics -- despite their divergent political ideologies -- she opened a new vista on the totalitarian problem of the "isms."

Bush/Cheney are the modern day descendents of the totalitarian governments of the last century, although Bushevism is still a work in progress. Arendt was a believer in personality responsibility and in a reawakened sense of the abilities of active communities to reshape the fate of humankind. In short, totalitarianism is not always inevitable, given a threshold of people who are aroused from their passivity into action.

It is noteworthy that in another book on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, Arendt "raised the question whether evil is radical or simply a function of banality — the tendency of ordinary people to obey orders and conform to mass opinion without critically thinking about the results of their action or inaction."

In short, with all our rage about the perils of Bushevisim, we may be confronting another age in which we are seeing the banality of evil unfold. Evil becomes so commonplace in the policies of our government, there is no longer a standard of outrage to judge it by. It becomes routine and acceptable. Just look at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, for example.

Answer 6

It is not a blockbuster.
Too many movies come out, so the media concentrates on blockbusters.

Answer 7

Because it's not really a blockbuster.

Currently being cruuuuushed on Amazon by things such as, "10 Minute Solution: Rapid Results Pilates" and "I Dream of Jeannie - The Complete Third Season", as well as such hits as "Yoga for Stress Relief" and "Lady & The Tramp II - Scamp's Adventure"

When it is actually important, it will get it's media coverage. Cheers, mate.

Answer 8

Let me see if I've got this straight, ok - it's a "blockbuster" and the MSM isn't reviewing or talking about it, right?

Before we go any further you'll need to explain this paradox for us.

Answer 9

Who?

Answer 10

Maybe because it's not factual?