This is so sad. He was only 54 years old. I was looking forward to a comeback from this wonderful guy.

Vandross died at John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Edison, N.J., said hospital spokesman Rob Cavanaugh. He did not release the cause of death but said in a statement that Vandross “never really recovered from” a stroke two years ago.

I always liked his music, particularly “I believe in the power of love”.

I remember seeing clips of him at the Apollo Theatre early on in his career. Man, that audience could be rough.

I saw a part of the interview with Matt Lauer where Tom Cruise got angry and started ranting about the history of psychiatry, anti-depression medications and Brooke Shields. Apparently Brooke experienced some post partum depression after she had her baby and has admitted to taking drugs to treat her depression. Tom Cruise and Scientology are totally against any kind of psychiatric drugs (or drugs to treat a pscyhiatric ailment).

“Matt. Matt. Matt, you don’t even - you’re glib. You don’t even know what Ritalin is,” he said.

“If you start talking about chemical inbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, okay? That’s what I’ve done.

“Psychiatry is a pseudo science,” he said.

“She [Brooke Shields] doesn’t understand the history of psychiatry. She doesn’t understand in the same way that you don’t understand it, Matt.

“You don’t know the history of psychiatry. I do,” he added.

It’s unfortunate that scientologists think the way they do, but that’s the reason why so many people are dead.

–According to a poll published on Friday by the MSNBC television channel, 69 percent of viewers said Cruise was “just plain wrong” on the role of doctors and the use of drugs to alleviate mental distress.

–About 61 percent of Entertainment Weekly magazine’s readers said they did not like the new ebullient Cruise as much as the quietly controlled superstar of yesteryear.

–And 41 percent said they would not go to see his new film, against 34 per cent who would.

I guess the inhinged Tom Cruise fired his old publicist, and hired his sister, another wacko scientologist. It seems to me the guy is totally wacked out and could use some medication himself to even out his temperment because he’s either making a total fool over himself over his new flame who he’s seen often enough sucking face with, or he’s beating up on someone in public like he did with Matt Lauer over scientology; which you’ve got to admit is really creepy.

Everything I’ve read on it indicates to me that they’re a death cult who kill people because they have some weird fixation about youth and life. There is a long list of victims who died under strange circumstances while being “tended for” by fellow scientologists.

Sorry, I want them FAR away from me. Pinellas County, Florida is pretty far, but it gives me the creeps that all that stuff having to do with Terri Schiavo was going on in Scientology central and look what happened to HER.

2nd part of Matt Lauer’s wacky interview with the weirdo Tom Cruise is coming up on Monday on NBC Today. If it doesn’t conflict with my husband’s favorite program American Chopper, I might get a chance to see it.

The fast food chain Carl Jr’s is currently running a “sexy” ad featuring stupid, spoiled whore Paris Hilton trotting around in a dress with as much fabric as an eyepatch washing a car, getting herself wet, dry-humping the car, and chomping down on a big ol’ cheeseburger. A bunch of people, including the Parents Television Council have written the burger franchise to express their outrage.

Personally, I’m outraged too. Not in the same sense that these people are, but outraged at how in the hell can people think this skinny beanpole of a chick is sexy? I mean, she’s a carpenter’s dream (you probably heard the joke) and suffers from that new disease “Noasitall”. Maybe the ad points out that if anybody needs to eat a big 500 calorie burger bigger than their waist out there, it’s Paris. That’s what I’m guessing. I watched the 30 second clip with a bit of curiosity. I know that there’s a million different words out there for erection, but what’s the opposite of that? That’s what I got watching the commercial.

So if you’re outraged at the commerical, just don’t go to Carl Jr’s or Hardee’s for their Sh*tburgers. I won’t be upset until they get Rosie O’ Donnel to start seductively eating Twinkies during a commericial in the middle of dinnertime. Yuck City.

Point is, PARIS HILTON IS NOT HOT!

Post from The Right Dominion.

It had to happen sooner or later. A major TV network is planning to produce a mini-series with the events surrounding September 11, 2001 as the backdrop.

Some may argue that it’s too soon, that to give 9/11 the Hollywood touch is cruel and unfeeling to the family members who lost loved ones both in the air and on the ground that horrible day.

These reasons haven’t stopped TV moguls in the past. The drama about Lacy Peterson’s murder was aired less than two years after the poor woman’s family went through a trauma no family should have to go through; the loss of a daughter, murdered at the hands of a formerly beloved son-in-law. And who could forget the “Long Island Lolita” Amy Fischer who had three made for TV movies in the can before poor little teenage Amy was sent to the pen for trying to murder her older lover’s wife.

One can imagine Mrs. Buttafucco’s distress at having to live that nightmare over and over again.

In this case, there should be a recognition that 9/11 is different. As much as we feel for the individuals and family members who lost loved ones, September 11, 2001 is a day that belongs to all of us. It was the single most transformational day in American history. Pearl Harbor, for all of its devastating surprise and outrage, was nonetheless carried out at a time when the rest of the world was already at war. The shock was tempered by the foreknowledge that sooner or later, we were going to be involved. FDR’s institution of the first peacetime draft in American history and other signposts like the passage of the Lend-Lease Act that placed the US firmly on the side of Great Britain and Russia against Hitler showed that America, however reluctantly, was moving to intervene.

And the day JFK was shot generated its own degree of shock and horror but was hardly as immediately transforming as that horrible September day. An argument can be made that the triple shocks of assassination/Viet Nam/Watergate demonstrated over a period of a decade or more that America would never be the same. Some say we lost” innocence” as a result of those events. Perhaps its more accurate to say we had our eyes opened to the perfidy and faithlessness of the people we elect to represent us.

But on September 11, 2001 the United States and the world were at peace - or what used to pass for peace in the post cold war pre 9/11 reality. We had troops in the Balkans trying to keep an uneasy peace. We were in a low level combat situation in Iraq trying to keep Saddam Hussein in his box. And there were the usual tribal conflicts, coup d’ etats, genocidal rampages, and border disputes that somehow never quite made it through the screen erected by the guardians of information in the mainstream media so as to penetrate our consciousness and cause us to lose any sleep.

This self-generated myopia disappeared in the clouds of fire and smoke that rose from the ruins of the twin towers. For some, September 11 was a call to arms, a sudden and transmogrifying episode that not only showed how vulnerable we were to our enemies, but that these same implacable foes were hell bent on killing all of us in a very real and very literal sense.

For others, 9/11 remains a tragedy but not much else. They resent measures we’ve taken to protect ourselves be it passage of internal security proposals or the implementation of new military strategies like pre-emptive war.

At bottom, the difference in these two views of the meaning of September 11 is what drives most our politics today. In that respect, there has never been a day before or since in American history that has had such a profound effect on either our domestic political alignments or our foreign policy. America is divided between 9/10 and 9/12 advocates.

The question for ABC is from what perspective will the miniseries approach the events surrounding that day? From the looks of this report on the casting calls, it could go either way at this point:

Here it comes, the miniseries no one wanted to see.

Nevertheless, ABC seems to be readying a major and secret “fictionalized” multi-parter about the history of terrorism, from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the disasters of Sept. 11, 2001.

From the looks of it, the story is going to be about how stupid the government was: If only they’d listened to one man, all would have been right!

The title offered on call sheets for actors is “The Untitled ABC History Project.”

Last week, the call went out for dozens of Arab actors. Today, ABC showed a little more of its effort by putting out requests for 16 characters.

The main one? Former FBI agent John O’Neill, who seems to be the lead figure in this ‘history.’

The use of O’Neill as a central character may give away more about the thrust of the story than ABC may have wished. For almost a decade, Agent O’Neill, who was something of a legend in the counter terrorism culture of our national security apparatus, tracked many of the 9/11 hijackers. The excellent Frontline documentary about his exploits and colorful personality gave tantalizing clues to just how close O’Neill came to unmasking al Queda and preventing the attacks on 9/11.

The problem from ABC’s perspective is how to show that the Clinton administration and especially FBI Director Louis Freeh tried to thwart O’Neil at almost every turn without making it seem as if the worst attack on American soil in history could have been prevented. Part of the problem was O’Neill’s personality. The way Frontline portrayed him, O’Neill was something of a roue who liked fast women, fast cars, and fast times. Part beefy Irish cop, part dandy, O’Neill was a bulldog when he got a hold of a case. His relentless pursuit of al Quaeda led him to accidentally stumble upon elements of Mohamed Atta’s 9/11 cell in the Philippines and Indonesia. Realizing that something was being planned, O’Neill haunted the locations of terrorist attacks throughout the 1990’s; in Africa at the site of our embassy bombings, in Saudi Arabia at the Khobar Towers bombing, and finally in Yemen where the USS Cole was struck by suicide bombers and where O’Neill could have just about cracked the 9/11 conspiracy wide open.

The conspiracy to bomb the USS Cole had the involvement of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers. But due to bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and the State Department, the connection was missed. Shortly after being rebuffed in continuing the investigation in Yemen and marginalized by Director Freeh back home, O’Neill resigned from the FBI.

And in one of the supreme and tragic ironies of 9/11, O’Neill took a job as Chief of Security at the World Trade Center. He started his new job in late August, 2001 and died a few days later in the attack.

Clearly the dramatic potential is there for a blockbuster series. The real problem appears to be in the creative staff hired to make the project:

Historians should have a field day with this version of the decade-long terrorist plot. But why not? Screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh got his start on another soap opera, “Falcon Crest.” He also wrote the upcoming miniseries “Into the West” and was cited for “The Day Reagan Was Shot.” Marc Platt is the producer, and David L. Cunningham — who helmed the recent miniseries revival of “Little House on the Prairie” and several B-movies — will direct.

“The Day Reagan was Shot” was an excreable effort that portrays President Reagan’s cabinet as a bunch of hapless buffoons with Richard Dreyfuss’s portrayal of Secretary of State Al Haig as some sort of megalomaniac intent on overthrowing the government a low point in “docu-drama” film making. The fact that this hack has been hired to write the script for a mini-series on 9/11 does not bode well either for history or entertainment for that matter.

Regardless of who writes or directs, the fact that such a series is even being contemplated is probably a good thing. Even the upcoming release of “The Great New Wonderful” which will track the lives of New Yorkers who lived through that awful day (and in which the star Maggie Gyllenhaal has said “America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way” for 9/11) will be a valuable contribution to our national dialog on the subject.

And given the impact of that day, perhaps its time to put the events of 9/11 into the pantheon of American myth as only Hollywood can do. Like movies about World War II that followed closely on the heels of the end of that conflict - “From Here to Eternity” comes to mind - sometimes a close perspective to a particular event can crystallize emotions and sharpen the senses about an incident that will haunt those of us who lived it until the day we die.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network and Rightwing Nuthouse

Raven over at And Righty So! sent me a heads up about Human Events Online and the billboard campaign, thanking Hollywood for Bush’s second term.

Underestimating the intelligence of the red tater staters, they continue to bash the President and the important initiatives such as Iraq and spreading disinformation and lies. Human Events certainly has a sense of humor! Because ultimately, intelligent dems who at one time used to oppose the party of the proletariat are now jumping like rats off a sinking ship…because ultimately, the Democratic Party HAS BECOME the party of the proletariat.

Hilarious!!!

Billboard Blitz to Blast Hollywood

This information is brought to you by CitizensUnited.org, the same folks that brought you Celcius 4.11

Entertainment Weekly’s lavish cover story for November 19 claims that Oliver Stone’s new movie, Alexander, about Alexander the Great, is “an honest fairly explicit treatment of Alexander’s famous bisexuality.” It wasn’t like Stone had taken historical liberties, the article continues. “His rendering of Alexander’s life is…more or less in the mainstream of scholarly research. By most accounts Alexander did like men, women and eunichs–his best friend Hephaistion was his longtime lover.”

A New York Times article for November entitled “Breaking Ground With A Gay Movie Hero,” says of Stone’s film: “Historians of antiquity say the picture’s depiction of Alexander is more or less accurate…They also note that Alexander’s bisexuality was common for the time.”

The straight population is largely unaware that “gay” and lesbian “scholars” have been busily rewriting and “reclaiming” history, in a fevered effort to confer legitimacy on the “unspeakable vice”. A major part of this effort involves resurrecting famous historical persons as “gay heroes”. According to various homosexual authors and academics, the list of famous sodomites includes Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Achiles, Solon, Cicero, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, King Richard the Lionhearted, Williams Shakespeare, Florence Nightingale, and many more. In 1999, The Times of London reported that a Professor Stephen Knight had uncovered evidence that Robin Hood and his Merry Men actually were a band of homosexuals. The professor’s “evidence” was pretty thin: a few lines of troubadour ballads that he claimed showed homoerotic overtones!

The historical claims of the homo-revisionists range from ludicrous to the blasphemous, the worst case of the latter being their repeated references to a homosexual relationship between Jesus Christ and St. John, the “beloved disciple”. Similarly, they find a queer connection in the biblical account of the friendship of David and Jonathan. John Shelby Spong, the retired radical Episcopal Bishop of Newark, claims that St. Paul was a sodomite. Likewise, the Lavender Lobby asserts that virtually all biblical “pairings” are evidence of same-sex relations: Ruth and Naomi, St. Peter and St. Paul, St. Peter and St. Andrew, St. Philip and St. Bartholamew. These claims are usually based on the work of Yale history professor John Boswell, a homosexual activist who died of AIDS in 1994 at the age of 47.

The point of this revisionist “research” as many of these radical academics admit, is to establish that homosexuality is normal (or even superior to heterosexuality), since so many former and talented people were “gay”. This agenda to legitimize perversion should be borne in mind whenever appeals to antiquity are made on behalf of buggery. Which brings us back to Alexander the Great, one of the names that appears frequently on the homosexual activists’ list of “Famous Queens”.

In Oliver Stone’s depiction of Alexander “honest” and in “the mainstream of scholarly research,” as Entertainment Weekly asserts, and is there a consensus among historians, as the Times claims, that the movie’s “gay” theme is “more or less accurate”? Dr. Craig Johnson, a Fellow of International Academy in strasbourg, France, and professor in residence at Chalcedon Academy in Agoura Hills, California says:

Aristotle’s dictum still stands: “He who asserts must prove.” When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that claim. Let’s ask some clear, practical questions in light of Stone’s Alexander: Did Alexander ever kiss a man on the mouth? No evidence. Did he ever play a passive or active role in same sexual unions? No evidence. Did he have sex of any kind with eunach Bagoas? No evidence. Did he ever play footsie with men or boys at a sports bar? No evidence. Did he have sex with Hephaestion or any other man, young or old? No evidence. Was he anything other than a married, heterosexual male with children who chose “power as his supreme mistress”? The answer in concert with all the primary sources is again: No evidence!

Alexander scholar Dr. Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman, professor of history at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, notes that the earliest and most important sources do not describe Hephaistion in terms that support Stone’s “gay” treatment:

Our Three Greek historians (Arrian, Diodorus, and Plutarch) never term [Hephasition] eerastes or ermonos, only philos or mailista timomenos, Alexander himself calls him philalexandros (friend of Alexander). Curtius and Justin use only amicus, never amans. The only implication of a sexual relationship or use of the term eromenos for Hephaistion occurs in late sources or thos of dubious authorship.

Dr. Reames-Zimmerman says that “while we do have evidence that it was possible, in Macedonian society, for young boys of roughly the same age to form attachments to one another which included a sexual expression, there is no indisputable evidence for such an attachment between Alexander and Haphaistion.” (Emphasis in original.) The professor says she personally believes there is circumstantial evidence to support the claim, “but I do not think we must acknowledge that we cannot state with certainty that Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers, either as young men, or continuing throughout their lives.”

“Like the detractors of ancient times,” writes historian Agnes Savill, in her two-volume Alexander the Great and His Time, “some modern writers have tried to explain Alexander’s attitude toward women as due to homosexuality. But when Philoxenes told the king that two beautiful boys had been offered for him, Alexander was furious: “What evil has he seen in me that he should purchase for me such shameful creatures?” he exclaimed. “Tell the dealer to take his wares to hell!”

Savill also notes that Alexander “likewise reprimanded young Agnon, for offering to purchase Crobylus for him, whose beauty was famous in Corinth.”

Suffice it to say, these and many other historians who could be cited belie the claims made by Olver Stone and his media and academia apologists. Mr. Stone is always more propagandist than historian or storyteller. His most notable films -Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, The People vs. Larry Flynt, Natural Born Killers, Looking for Fidel (a glorification of Fidel Castro)–carry a vicious anti-American and anti-Christian message. “Alexander lived in a more honest time,” Stone told Playboy magazine. “We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality.” Or, rather pre-Christian amorality.

Bill Leap, a professor of anthropology at American University, praises Stone’s Alexander as a film that will be “good for the gay civil rights movement.” The more we can talk about how men had sex with men all over the place,” Professor Leap tol the New York Post, “the stronger the liberation movement is going to become.” Sounding a similar note, Sean Lund, national news media coordinator for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), said: “This is a big-budget epic that is going to move the goal post in terms of what we can expect to see in these movies in the future.”

That’s what Stone’s movie is really about: mainstreaming homosexuality into popular culture, not representing historically “mainstream” film depiction of Alexander the Great.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

If you’re looking to be on the winning side of prediction; stock prices, record sales, to presidential election results–assume the opposite of anything Michael Moore says and you’ve got your finger on the pulse of what’s happening. If he says jump, hit the dirt.

—————–
1989: Moore releases Roger & Me, an attack on General Motors

1989-1995: GM’s annual profits soar by $1.6 billion
————-
April 15, 1999: Moore denounces the bombing in Kosovo: “Yes, (Slobodan Milosevic) must be stopped. But bombing the people of his country is exactly the wrong way to stop him. In fact, it strengthened him.

June 3, 1999: Milosevic caves in under the bombing and withdraws from Kosovo. He loses an election, is arrested by his own authorities and is tried for war crimes.

————-
2000: Moore endorses Ralph Nader and campaigns for him.

2000: Nader goes down in flames, taking Gore with him, thus electing George W. Bush.

——–

2001: Moore writes that at least Nader’s campaign gave democrats control of the Senate.
2002: Democrats promptly lose control of the Senate.

————-
2001: Moore critizes Dick Cheney for being reluctant to sell his Halliburton stock.
2001: Having sold his stock, Cheney saves millions when the price collapses.

————-
September 14, 2001: Moore opposes the Afghan war. “But I beg you, Mr. Bush…do not declare war and massacre more innocents.”

November 14, 2001: The Taliban collapses, and Kabul falls to American forces.

————
March 24, 2003: Moore denounces the Iraq war. “Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you!”

April 9, 2003: The Iraqi army collapses, and Baghdad falls to American forces.

————
2003: Mel Gibson refuses to finance Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.

2004: Mel Gibson produces the Passion of the Christ, a film featuring a nearly unknown cast speaking Latin and Aramaic. It gorsses over $300,000,000 in its first five weeks.
————
June 2003: Disney subsidiary Mirimax finances Moore.

March 3, 2004: Disney stock values slump, and Michael Eisner is booted as chairman of Disney.
————
April 7, 2003: Moore defends the Dixie Chicks and proclaims the boycott against them is a failure: “Take the Dixie Chicks…the truth is that their sales are not down. This week, after all the attacks, their album is still at #1 on the Billboard country charts and according to Entertainment Weekly, ont he pop charts during all the brouhaha, they ROSE from #6 to #4.”

September 26, 2003: The Dixie Chicks announce they have been driven from country music: “Talon News reported on Tuesday that Dixie Chicks violinist Martie Maguire believes the group no longer has a home in country music…’How can you leave a party now when the hosts had shown you to the door six months ago,’ Natalie Maines complains, responding to many of the country radio stations who stopped playing their music after she was critical of Bush on foreign soil.”
——————
November, 2001: Moore predicts: “(Bush Office of Management and Budget Director) Daniels also owns stock worth between $50,000 and $100,000 in GE. Citigroup and Marck. The chances of this administration allowing a prescription drug benefit for seniors to pass in the next year are about as good as those of me setting myself on fire in front of a Rite Aid” (Stupid White men, pp 23-24)

December 8, 2003: President Bush signs bill giving prescription drug benefits to seniors.
——————
January 14, 2004: Moore endorses Wesley Clark: “I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country. And he will cream George W. Bush.”

February 11, 2004: Clark drops out of race after two New England liberals beat him…in southern primaries.
———————
January 20, 2004: Moore hedges his bet, also backing Howard Dean: “Though I am backing Clark…the worst thing that could happen now would be for the Dean revolution to come to an end.”

February 18, 2004: Dean drops out of the race. Dean revolution comes to an end.
———————-
December, 2003: Moore tours Europe to tout his anti-Americanism.

March 2004: President Jacques Chirac forestalls disaster by announcing his intent to meet with President George Bush and restore Franco-American amity.
———————–

September, 2004: “Bush is a goner – if we all just quit our whining and bellyaching and stop shaking like a bunch of nervous ninnies,” continues Moore. “The country is almost back in our hands. Not another negative word until Nov. 3rd! Then you can bitch all you want about how you wish Kerry was still that long-haired kid who once had the courage to stand up for something.

November, 2004: Bush wins.
—————-

The only thing I’ve seen that is accurate thus far in all of his pathetic droppings is this:

If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can’t win… Dammit, of COURSE he’s a lousy candidate – he’s a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win!

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Actor and comedian Chevy Chase, hosting an event in Washington this week, shocked even the liberal organization People for the American Way, which sponsored the event, with his closing remarks.

Chase called President Bush a “dumb f–,” but Chase used the full f-word. He then declared, “I’m no f—ing clown … This guy started a jihad. … This guy in office is an uneducated, real lying schmuck … and we still couldn’t beat him with a bore like Kerry.”

People for the American Way has now issued a statement, insisting, “Chevy Chase’s improvised remarks caught everyone off guard, and were inappropriate and offensive. It was … certainly not the language [we] would ever use in discussing any president of the United States.”

The organization’s founder, Norman Lear, called Chase’s comments, “utterly untoward.”

You’ve got to admire the tenacity of leftists. The same people who were colossally wrong about the war on terror (in both Afghanistan and Iraq); who clamored for America to sheathe its sword when America itself was under attack; who defamed America and its supporters as enemies of freedom even after the wars that led to liberation — these same people, now that history has thoroughly embarrassed them and refuted their claims, are … on the attack!

They have not taken a moment to reflect on their treacherous antics, which would have kept the Iraqi oppressors in power and anti-American terrorists on the loose; they have not reserved a second for regrets about blackening America’s image or weakening her citizens’ resolve in resisting the forces that would bring this nation down. But having attacked – in time of war — their President as a “Nazi” and their country as “the real axis of evil,” the left is now complaining because others have called them to account.

From Greenwich Village to Hollywood the American left is crying victim — “McCarthyism,” “persecution” — because Americans are revolted by what they said and did. And of course the left is once again — in the same hypocritical breath — presenting itself as a defender of the American liberties it refused to defend. And of course the left is yet again “defending” them not against the fascist threat from Iran and other terrorist states still at large, but from America itself. “A chill wind is blowing in this nation,” is how actor and anti-war leftist Tim Robbins characterizes his triumphant country while complaining about his “persecution” and “silencing” on national TV.

Yet there is nothing new, even in this brazen reversal of the facts. As far as the left is concerned it is so familiar as to be, well, boring. Fifty years ago America was also engaged in a global war – at that time with the most oppressive empire the world had ever seen, and the left took an identical stance. American Communists who were organized and funded by Moscow created the Progressive Party to oppose America’s defense of freedom, and marched to undermine America’s defenses. They even formed the “Progressive Party” to attack America’s “Cold War agendas” and push for the United States to unilaterally disarm. And they did so for the entire duration of the conflict.

Yet when called to account they presented themselves as victims of a “witch-hunt,” and defenders of the Bill of Rights and other American freedoms. And they were successful. They gave the word “McCarthyism” its unending currency, ready for use any time they came under attack. Properly identified, of course, the era of the Fifties should be referred to as the era of the “Red Threat,” when hundreds of thousands of Americans sided with the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin and hundreds became actual spies for the Soviet Union. But thanks to the left’s hegemony in the media and the academy this treasonous epoch is today known as the era of the “Red Scare” instead.

Leading the leftist juggernaut in its current attack on America’s defenders is the largest and most influential hate group in America, misnamed “People for the American Way.” People for the American Way is a permanent campaign of fear and hate aimed principally at Christian conservatives but at every group that attempts to defend America against the assaults of the left.

People for the American Way conducts a permanent witch-hunt at “Rightwing Watch Online.”[1] No sooner was the war in Iraq successfully concluded than this site published a special “report” called “Talking Out of Turn: The Right’s Campaign Against Dissent.” A sister leftist site, TomPaine.com (funded by Bill Moyers among others) also posted the report. Echoes of its claims can be heard among leftwing Democrats in the chambers of the House.

Among the chapters of the report: “Demonizing Dissent,” “Protesters Are Communists,” “Protesters Hate America,” and “Protest Is Treason.” Needless to say, the conclusion of the complaint claims the “First Amendment As A Model” for the protesters. Of course, nothing in the report sustains the charges it makes in its chapter heads, just as nothing in the First Amendment guarantees a right to slander those who disagree, even when the slander is aimed at the political right.

People for the American Way begins its indictment with this piece of Alice-in-Wonderland logic (characteristic of the document as a whole): “While most people see President Bush’s post-9/11 assertion—‘Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists’–as a call for the world community to join America in defeating terrorism, right-wing activists have taken a narrower view. To them, what the President is really saying is ‘Either you toe the administration’s line, or you’re in league with terrorists.’ They see Bush’s policies toward Iraq as indistinguishable from America’s interests…. To them, President Bush is the state and, therefore, dissent is treason.”

Earth to People for the American Way: President Bush is the elected President and the war powers he used were given to him by a vote of the United States Congress, including the majorities of both political parties. It was, in fact, the second such majority vote calling for a “regime change” by force if necessary in the last four years. The other war resolution was submitted by President Clinton and passed by overwhelming majorities in both political parties. So yes opposition to the war on Iraq is opposition to the policy of the elected government of the United States in its entirety, and whose sovereign is the American people.

While this does not make dissent treason (more on this in a moment) it certainly does make opposition to America’s war in Iraq opposition to America’s war. Second, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” is a very narrow formulation by any standard. It does not mean you can be with the government of France or Iran and be with us at the same time. It means there is a war and a war has only two sides and everyone must choose which side they are on. BTW: What is this “world community” anyway, kemo sabe?

People for the American Way’s indictment continues: “From the beginning, the Right has sought to portray anti-war protesters as radicals. This does not gibe with the facts. A New York Times piece on dissenters emphasizes the diversity of the peace movement. While it is true that one group involved in the peace protests, International ANSWER, has socialist ties, most major anti-war organizations have mainstream connections to groups like the NAACP and the National Council of Churches. These mainstream peace coalitions have gone out of their way to distance themselves from more radical elements and to disavow their tactics.”

People for the American Way is of course itself a radical organization (although obviously not by its own standards). The New York Times story was conveniently written to serve the interests of People for the American way, which (as the Times reported) held a meeting in its offices of more “moderate” elements of the antiwar movement to discuss the counter-productive tactics of the antiwar movement to date.[2] Up to then (March 2003), all the large demonstrations (Washington, San Francisco etc.) had been held under the auspices of a self-proclaimed Communist Party[3] in the name of International ANSWER – an organization that has “socialist ties” — as People for the American Way delicately puts it — to the terrorist regime in North Korea. A second organizer of the antiwar demonstrations (not mentioned) was Not In Our Name – a group organized by leaders of the Revolutionary Communist Party. The meeting in the People for the American Way Offices created a new coalition organization, “United for Peace and Justice,” which held its first demonstration in New York in March 2003. The organizer and head of the new organization was Leslie Cagan, a pro-Castro Sixties radical who was still a member of the Communist Party USA after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Cagan called on protesters to “disrupt normal life” once the war started. So much for the “moderates.”

Now to declare a personal interest. David Horowitz, a former leftist, has tried to sound the alarm over the internal threat to the security of this country presented by organizations like International ANSWER, Not In Our Name, United for Peace and Justice and other neo-communist groups.[4] He has done this through many articles documenting their activities published in www.frontpagemag.com and The War Room. People for the American Way is well aware of this and responds as follows: “David Horowitz of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture is perhaps the most rabid advocate of the view that dissent equals treason. Each weekday, Horowitz and his colleagues at FrontPage Magazine offer new articles on the evils of dissent, liberally sprinkled with such key phrases as “aid and comfort,” “clear and present danger”, “blame America first,” “hate America Left,” and “fifth column.” In fact, FrontPage has an entire “Fifth Column” section containing 380 articles to date.”

This is the typical Big Lie approach of the radical left. David has never equated dissent with treason nor given any indication he thought dissent as such was “evil.” Nor have any of the other conservative groups indicted in the People for the American Way hate sheet. Instead, we have asserted the right of critics to dissent from government policies both explicitly and by example – as when David published an article on the war[5] by Professor Todd Gitlin — an antiwar dissenter who was even part of the Columbia teach-in at which the infamous “million Mogadishus” rant was given. He published Gitlin because despite his dissent on the war, he denounced the anti-Americanism of the antiwar protests, something that People for the American Way has failed to do, confining their idea of “distance” to creating an organization which is also radical in its agendas but careful in its “tactics” not to expose those agendas).

The one admirable aspect of the People for the American Way document is that it provides quotes from the conservatives it defames that disprove its own accusations (the true test of a radical evidently is that being so far in left field that one reads plain English with entirely different meanings from ordinary people):

“A January 21st piece entitled ‘The ‘Peace’ Movement Isn’t about Peace,’ demonstrates Horowitz’s standard modus operandi: link dissenters with Communists and dissent with treason. ‘When your country is attacked, when the enemy has targeted every American regardless of race, gender or age for death, there can be no “peace” movement. There can only be a movement that divides Americans and gives aid and comfort to our enemies….The so-called “peace movement” today is led by the same radicals who supported America’s totalitarian enemies during the Cold War. They marched in support of the Vietcong, the Sandinista Marxists and the Communist guerrillas in El Salvador.”

And so they did. The organizers and board members of People for the American Way among them.

—————————————————————————–

[1] http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=10389#1

[2] Kate Zernike and Dean Murphy, “Antiwar Effort Emphasizes Civility Over Confrontation,” NY Times, March 29, 2003

[3] The Workers World Party for which International ANSWER was a “front.”

[4] www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7396

[5]Todd Gitlin, “A Patriotic View From The Left: Gore Vidal and Other America Haters,” www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2901

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Most people don’t know that in the 1980s, Michael Moore was fired from his position as editor of the leftwing magazine Mother Jones. What precipitated Moore’s firing was his censoring an article about Nicaragua by the socialist Paul Berman because it was mildly critical of the Sandinista dictatorship. Moore was too much of a Stalinist even for the leftists at Mother Jones. As a Marxist who believes that America is an imperialist leviathan run by evil corporations, Michael Moore is a self-conceived enemy of America. Michael Moore denies that there is a War on Terror. Of course he does. In his eyes, America is an aggressor responsible for the attacks upon itself. America is the root cause of the War on Terror. This is the view shared by many people on the political left and by most of the people who marched in the “anti-war” demonstrations. This is their credo. It is what they believe.

But lucky for the United States, most of middle America doesn’t buy into that stalinist crap.

Stalinist/Marxist = leftist

And this isn’t my opinion: They identify themselves as leftists. Mother Jones identifies itself as leftist.

That picture should be shaped more like a horse-shoe. Fascism is very close to socialism/communism. Capitalism should be on the right hand side, as it is opposite the political spectrum from Communism.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Michael Moore is campaigning for his fakeumentary, Fahrenheit 9/11 to win the Peoples’ Choice Awards. Freepers say: Don’t let Fahrenheit 9/11 win the Peoples’ Choice Awards. Click here. And I wholeheartedly agree. Click here for the peoples’ choice awards. Go back and see if it will let you vote more than once. I tried again this morning and it looks like it recorded my IP address and wouldn’t let me vote again. I’m thinking that if that travesty wins the Peoples’ Choice Awards, that would be like America saying, “you’re right, Michael, America sucks, I’ll spit on her, too.” I’d like to see that the people deliver a strong message to Michael Moore that he can shove it. While you’re at it, don’t forget to vote for the Passion of the Christ. If anybody catches when the voting for this ends, I can’t find it anywhere. They say ‘tune in on January 9′ to see who wins. But when does the voting end?

LOS ANGELES - The putz Michael Moore is back on the campaign trail trolling for votes –this time–for the People’s Choice Awards.

His fakeumentary”Fahrenheit 9/11″ –was one of the films selected in the “favorite movie” category of the annual prize ceremony. Last Thursday he posted a letter on his Web site to mobilize fans to cast their ballots for the film.

“Now, normally I wouldn’t make a very big deal out of something like this,” Moore wrote. He said he was inspired to make his appeal after a group of leading Republicans took out ads in USA Today and Daily Variety that he said included “a not-so-subtle threat to the Academy Awards voters that, in essence, said don’t even THINK about nominating ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′ for Best Picture.”

Moore said the People’s Choice nomination proves the message of his film still resonates with people across the country, even though President Bush won re-election.

“Fahrenheit 9/11″ attacked Bush’s rationale for the war in Iraq and accused him and his administration of fostering fear for political gain. Moore spent the weeks before the election traveling across the country to urge Americans to vote Bush out of office.

In his letter, Moore said the movie still speaks “the truth about Iraq, Bush, terror and fear. The election has not altered or made irrelevant, unfortunately, a single one of these issues.”

He added, “I promise, if we win, to give a nice and polite speech,” a reference to the vitriolic speech he gave against the Iraq war last year when he accepted the Academy Award for best documentary for “Bowling for Columbine,” a look at gun violence in America.

Other People’s Choice nominees for favorite movie include “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” “The Incredibles,” “Shrek 2″ and “Spider-Man 2.” Nominees were compiled from about 6,000 people across the country through the magazine Entertainment Weekly.

Moore also is pushing “Fahrenheit 9/11″ for an Oscar in the best picture category, after saying he would not submit it in the lower-profile documentary field.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Please help The Passion Of The Christ win the best movie of the year in CBS’s People’s Choice Awards! Cast your vote and then forward this to your friends and family and ask them to vote for The Passion Of The Christ.

As you know, Mel Gibson is not the favorite person in Hollywood because of his making this movie.

Help us make sure The Passion Of The Christ gets more votes than any other movie in history! Voting ends December 13. Please take action now.

Click here to register your vote.

From the American Family Association website you will be directed to CBS’s Peoples’ choice awards. You can’t forward the voting to your friends from the CBS website, but I encourage you to cut and paste this message into an email and send to anyone you think would be interested.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

You know, there was a time when I was fascinated by the movies and music coming from LA and Hollywood. But now, I’m both fascinated and disgusted with their politics.

Here’s an article on Richard Dreyfus and Hollywood’s hateful left.

Now, I must warn you: I’ve been reading “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left”.

Now I see it everywhere, and a frightening picture is coming into view.

That the Hollywood likes of Dreyfus don’t really like capitalist America is pretty clear. What is not well known is that they don’t like Israel either. Although Dreyfus is Jewish he has a soft spot for Arab terrorists who murder Israeli children and who call for the extermination of Israel.

Dreyfus was master of ceremonies at the so-called Geneva Accord. The non-government Israeli delegation was led by the extreme leftwing Yossi Beilin, one of Israel’s most despicable politicians. The Palestinian (terrorist) delegation was led by Yasser Abed Rabbo.

The implementation by Israel of this phony treatment would eventually see that destruction of the Jewish state. But the politically dense Dreyfus cheerfully gave it his support.

Dreyfus’s support for the treaty was not unexpected given his sympathy for Palestinian terrorists. This is Arlene Peck’s account of a revealing incident that involved Dreyfus:

“As a journalist, I once attended a ‘memorial’ for the Arabs who were killed by Baruch Goldstein, which Dreyfuss sponsored at UCLA. I was appalled! I was almost escorted out when I asked for a ‘moment of silence’ for the victims of Arab terrorism instead of the ‘poor downtrodden Arabs.’

Although I’ve never been able to grasp the phenomenon of self-hate it does appear to me that Hollywood celebrities like Dreyfus suffer a double burden: self-hatred as Jews and self-hatred as Americans.

What a shame. That for some strange reason, they’re joining forces with the terrorists on our own soil, championing the cause. I see what they’re doing as extremely dangerous. It should be obvious that a solution to turn this around would be simply; don’t watch their films. I think we should boycott Hollywonk…at least those who don’t support our troops and the president, and undermine what it is we’re trying to accomplish.

Whatever the case, Dreyfus, Bette Midler, Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Robert Redford, Ed Harris, Julia Roberts, Ed Asner, Danny Glover, etc., have created an atmosphere in Hollywood that is not only intolerant of conservatives views but even treats them as illegitimate and worthy of nothing but abuse. And this is from an outfit that shamelessly abases itself at the totalitarian feet of the sadistic Castro.

I guess what is irritating about this is these people are not in public office, and they have no business using their celebrity status to influence voters or public opinion. A Susan Sarandon would have much more influence talking about her politics than say, ME, for example, and the fact that Hollywonk is virtually altogether on the other side stinks out loud. I saw an interview of Ron Silva after he spoke as a democrat who supported George Bush at the Republican National Convention. The reporter interviewing him had the audacity to mention that Silva hasn’t worked in a while, a backhanded way of telling him his politics aren’t ‘correct’ enough for him to get a job in Hollywood.

Sharon Lawrence, a Hollywood actress and life-long Democrat, blew the whistle on the Hollywood left’s intolerance when she told the columnist Liz Smith:

“If one is even perceived to be a Republican in Hollywood, there can be an excluding reaction and people resent you.”

In turn, Smith wrote this damning indictment of Hollywood’s commissars:

“We are ashamed of our fellow Yellow Dog Democrats in Tinseltown who would seek to ostracise others . . . perhaps even deprive them of employment [which is exactly what Robbins and Sarandon brazenly attempted] . . . because they are members of the Grand Old Party. That’s not the American way.”

But it’s Hollywood’s way. Edwards is right, there are two Americas: there is one that believes in the constitution and the inherent goodness of America; then there is the other ‘America’ that would trash our constitution and our traditions in the belief that our America is a racist, sexist, unjust and exploitative society.

Now here comes the interesting part. More and more of what Clinton is about is being revealed; I recently saw a picture of him and Arafat the consummate terrorist. Knowing what happened during the Clinton years to set us up for 9/11, and his strongarm tactics toward the ‘resistance’ which is anyone who disagrees with him, it would seem that his nickname should be the Criminal Clinton.

Although Dreyfus has revealed to which America the hateful Hollywood left belongs Harold Ickes Jr is doing his damnedest to make sure that this fact is brought home to the American public.

Ickes, Bill Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff and a Hillary Clinton advisor, is urging Hollywood airheads to turn the next Academy Awards into a Hate Bush session by using the occasion to slime the President and belittle the liberation of Iraq.

What motivates a man like Ickes? Hate, bigotry and malice. His father, Harold Ickes Sr, was a Stalinist and a member of the Soviet front organisation League for Peace and Democracy. And Junior is a real chip of the old block. Doing what dad would have done, he supported the communist invasion of South Vietnam and Pol Pot’s takeover of Cambodia. To make sure these barbarians succeeded in their bloody deeds he worked with Hanoi to cut off American aid to the South. The operation was called “Project Pursestrings”.

Harold is real principled charmer. This walking advertisement for Democratic integrity and compassion, particularly for Marxists-Leninists, admittedly to corruptly trying to evade the new campaign finance law in order to help Hillary Clinton.

Just in case any reader is sufficiently naïve to think that his unprincipled actions on Hillary’s behalf were a temporary aberration, Ickes is also a legal representative for some very shady labor unions, one of which was put under federal trusteeship in a 1992 because of a civil racketeering suit that accused the union of being run by the Colombo and Gambino crime families.

(Imagine the outrage if a prominent Bush advisor was shown to be linked to the Mafia. But as the trendy Hollywood set would say: Anything goes — but only if you’re a lefty Democrat).

Ickes was also the mastermind behind the 232-page White House report called Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce that tried to depict the Clintons’ as victims of a “vast rightwing conspiracy”. The content was so patently absurd that even their media stooges dropped it.

And now this blood-drenched hypocrite with his shady union connections has been in Hollywood working to turn the Oscars into an Orwellian Hate Fest. That he feels confident his efforts will succeed tells us just how corrupt the Hollywood elite really is.

Let us not forget that this is the same crowd that supported Gore’s attempt in Florida to deny military personnel the vote. (So much for Dreyfus’s “principled” activists).

From hereonin I will carefully boycott any movie that these characters are in. I will turn off the TV if they’re on, and erase them from my memory. There is nothing whatsoever that these people have to add to my world. And what they’re trying to do, is take away from me and my progeny all that I feel is right and good about being an American and growing up in the United States.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.