However, Obama is animated by seemingly crude gestures made powerful by his position.  He and his motivated White House staff, without explanation, used a black painted piece of plywood to cover up the letters IHS (Latin for “Jesus Savior of Men”) when he spoke at a Jesuit University (Georgetown), but while speaking abroad, our president deftly referred to the Koran as “ holy,” a descriptive primarily used by followers who believe in the Islamic faith. Why?

These choices are thoughtful, not thoughtless, and symbolic of current White House ideology. When Obama was simply a candidate, and not yet our chosen leader, he had already attempted to use a circular symbol suspiciously reminiscent of the presidential seal to signify that the prize was all but attained before the fact. It was adolescent pop psychology, symbolic and laughable, but a telling trait that should have warned us that we were dealing with a symbol-holic, and a degree of hubristic thinking that had danger written all over it. 

Human symbols are the glue for his “green” and very radical political testament. It’s humorous to listen to the apologists excuse the appointment of Van Jones as a failure of vetting procedures. Jones is a soul mate, not a soul mistake. He’s a beloved symbol and a disciple who habitually uses the required neo-com radical lingo.  Catch phrases such as “redistribution of wealth” or “redistributive justice” are the common symbolic logos of all of Barack’s brothers and sisters like Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, and Valerie Jarrett.  

Manipulating words for symbolic effect is an important aspect of Barack’s background skills. He proclaimed September 11th “a national day of service and remembrance” … service first and remembrance second. Service is an unnecessary little addition to that horrible anniversary that we certainly did not need, but for it to precede remembrance in the spoken or written phrase is an affront to our national dignity. Can you imagine every news report mentioning Joe Biden first whenever referring to our national leadership? It would be demeaning to the president.

Obama symbolically and purposefully diminished the real meaning of that day, the remembrance part, for his egotistical linguistic and ideological needs.  In America we don’t have a problem with service, our problem is remembering certain truths that are self evident and remembering those who first enunciated those truths to the astonishment of the entire world.

Obama has traveled that world denigrating his own country wherever and whenever possible; bowing to a Saudi king and listening to communist Daniel Ortega savagely berate the US for an hour with nary a word offered in defense of the American people are just two examples. He also smiled warmly in the direction of Hugo Chavez, a porcine tub of human excrement who happens to be presently allied with holocaust deniers and killers of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

If Obama treats his own country with such obvious disdain, can we really be surprised by the way he treats new Eastern European allies? Betraying them on the 70th anniversary of the Polish invasion was not a mistake any more than the gift of 25 dvd’s was a mistake. It was for Barack a perfect degree of respect! They will deny it, but reneging on our missile treaty agreement on this specific historical date will always remind us of the harm done to our new relationships,  and of those who so arrogantly chose to abuse symbolic remembrance.

Because the American news media has not properly and openly questioned Susan Rice about her deliberations with the IPCC, nor the U.S. intentions concerning proposed international “monies” related to CO2, you are obliged to read the referenced CEI and EPA documents yourself;  pay close attention to the copies of the emails contained in the CEI disclosure.  Here are the essential elements and findings of the Carlin/Davidson report dated March 9, 2009: PDO-Pacific decadal Oscillation / AMO-Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation/GCM-General Circulation Models/ IPCC- UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/CCSP- Climate Change Science Program/ TSD- Technical Support Document [click to enlarge]:

Although the suppression of this document prior to the recent vote in the house borders on criminal deception, there is a larger issue: the fraudulent determination that CO2, your exhalation, is a pollutant. Although ostensibly pertaining only to industrial exhaust, the court’s determination will inevitably be used against the individual. The Federal Government will be called upon to determine how much of a pollutant an American citizen is, not just as a consequence of possessions, but rather as a consequence of existence. This is a legal inevitability unless legislation is challenged and changed. The President is not stupid. He knows the truth and is determined to press his ideological experiment, through the IPCC, upon the American people no matter what  damage is inflicted upon the people, because he ultimately deems U.S. citizens as expendable for the larger global good.

You are a pollutant, and Obama is paving the way for the international carbon tax, an excuse regulated by the global EPA, also called the UN, to remand American wealth back to the world, from which Obama believes it was unfairly taken. “Global warming” conveniently became “global climate change” and so in short order Obama’s “hope and change” will become “change without hope.”

Winston Churchill once said, “Never was so much owed by so many to so few.”  During WW ll the American population was nearly 130 million, from which 17 million men and women in uniform fought for world freedom. Today we are a country of over 300 million people, yet less than 1.5 million Americans, a precious few, volunteer to defend western values from the kind of chaos which leads to the fall of civilizations. Churchill’s words are even more apt than in 1940, and were he alive, he would be moved  by the courage, deep conviction  and disarming humility displayed by the incredible men and women of the United States Military.

Dwight Schultz

–

How about that bit of groveling before the Saudi King? “No, no, no, he wasn’t bowing!” said the loyal press contingent! ….no… “The president was reaching for something on the floor.” Oh hell, just spit it out!  It was a DVD of that sci-fi horror classic, “It! Sharia From Beyond Space,” wasn’t it! It fell out of the hole that Karl Rove neatly tore in your jacket. How else do you explain that bow?  You gawk, like a newborn camel, mysteriously fumbling about, and then we must listen to an American president kill, through disremembering, the memory of shed blood, leadership, proper pride, and financial philanthropy what have been the hallmark of American exceptionalism. These things were evident at least for as long as you were a… what?  A Com…..Community Organizer?  Is that what you once were? 

Charles Krauthammer properly characterized your behavior while appearing on Fox News:

Well where does one begin? Obama says, in America there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. …Well maybe it’s because when there was a civil war on Europe’s doorstep, in the Balkans, a genocide, it didn’t lift a finger until America led. Maybe it’s because when there was an invasion of Kuwait, it didn’t lift a finger until America led.  it’s because with America spending over half a trillion a year, keeping open the sea lanes in defending the world, Europe is spending pennies on defense. It’s hard to appreciate an entity’s leading role in the world, when it’s been sucking on your teat for sixty years as Europe has, in regard to the United States parasitically! …And then he (Obama ) goes on and he calls America arrogant, dismissive and derisive, regarding Europe…….I think what he did in order to gain the adoration of the crowds… he denigrated his country, in a way that I think is disgraceful.

Some United States citizens, Mr. President, cannot imagine why you would devalue the country that you supposedly represent. We noticed how easily upset you were to both spoken and written criticism. You publicly whined when you thought Sean Hannity, a mere talk show entrepreneur, wasn’t being fair with his public critiques of you and your mentor Jeremiah Wright.  You kicked three journalists off your plane because their respective papers didn’t support your presidency, and there was an observable reluctance to call on a TV correspondent from Fox News for quite some time. You are sensitive to things said about you, and yet you’re just brimming with cold and cavalier language about the great American populace that has elevated you to the pinnacle of world influence. Why?

When you return home, how sad it will be that you will not have been able to leave what you said in some tawdry saloon, perhaps spoken under the influence of alcohol or another depressant, and therefore forgivable by some stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately, nothing will prevent you from bringing the fruit of your painstaking and laborious speechifying back with you.  And please don’t tell us, in your familiar way, that you inherited the very particular discord that will surely follow your return, as your fellow United States citizens finally realize that your revolution was nothing more than a turgid European melon;  green on the outside and on the inside, very, very red!

The second most frequent query is two pronged and relates to a conservative blacklist in Hollywood and what minority status is like on a day to day basis. This I can comment on. I believe Hollywood is now a liberal Bastille. This was not always so, but it is the reality now.  The atmosphere is intimidating and oppressive, but that’s not an official blacklist.  It’s more like viral note taken on wet cocktail napkins secretly passed between smug lib execs describing a young actor as a redneck loving Nazi simply because he said he supported President Bush. It’s a social network where you might have no advocates, but then again you might if you just happened to pull in $35 million over the weekend. I don’t want to borrow a phrase from Don Rumsfeld , but I only know what I know.  I don’t know what I don’t know and well, you know the rest; so I’ll rely only on my actual  experiences during my daily Hollywood business, and encounters of the first kind with two famous and now deceased liberal  Hollywood game players, Bruce Paltrow and Paul Newman.

During the last 8 years, I have rarely been to an audition waiting room where I have not been assaulted with anti-Bush, anti-Reagan, anti-Republican outbursts. Speaking up alone, one against five or ten righteous liberals is foolish, I know because I’ve tried it…. There is never a sense of decorum. I have never heard a pro-Bush, Pro-Reagan, Pro-Republican outburst! Even while on the job, during the lead up to the last election, liberal actors would without hesitation blurt out ugly anti-Sarah Palin nonsense just seconds before you have to be very, very funny. Words like “Abu Ghraib” are substituted for scripted text as a sarcastic admonition, to clarify moral superiority and solidarity with others in the room. The lack of respect for differing thought is symptomatic of no thought. This is the atmosphere that every conservative in Hollywood deals with. There is a job every now and then that is an exception to this; a job where this never happens and you lift your arms to God in thanks for that job.

Now let me be specific about events that apply only to me. I don’t mean to imply that similar events haven’t occurred to others, but that these events have shaped my understanding of liberal Hollywood.

In 1980 I had the privilege of working with Charlton Heston at the Ahmanson Theater in Los Angeles in Paul Giovanni’s Sherlock Holmes thriller “The Crucifer of Blood.” One evening, following a rehearsal, Mr. Heston asked me very politely about the election between Carter and Reagan. I was a huge Reagan supporter, as was he, so for about 25 minutes we engaged in a conversation that will stay with me forever. I don’t think Chuck, as he wanted to be called, had any idea of my political persuasion, although it is possible that Paul Giovanni, who I absolutely adored, could have given him a nod that we were of like minds when it came to politics. In any event, I took the memory of that rehearsal conversation, and my joy over the Reagan win with me to The Williamstown Theater Festival in the summer of 1981.

Artistic director Nikos Psacharopoulos and Williamstown represent for me the highlight of my career. In terms of pure personal satisfaction, I had never experienced such mutual confidence from a director nor the kind of freedom he gave me. He showcased my talents and actually allowed me to choose the role I wanted to play in my debut year of 1978.  Many doors were opened to me as a result, and one of them would lead to the pure great fortune of landing my role on “The A-Team.”

Blythe Danner was just one of the talented luminaries ensconced at the Festival.  This was a fast paced summer theater where,  somehow, great productions sprang from the tension of a tight two week schedule, and there was always a wonderful opening night buffet, an actor’s favorite, provided by some of the generous patrons from Williamstown. At an opening night party I was talking quite openly and happily about my conversation with Charlton Heston concerning Reagan’s win, and as I moved to the end of the food line an unfamiliar voice popped up: “Dwight, so you’re a Reagan asshole!” It was Bruce Paltrow, Blythe Danner’s husband. That is how I knew him at the time, and I was stunned by his comment. I cannot even remember my reply. Whatever it was it was bereft of brave retort. I told Nikos’s assistant about Paltrow’s aggressive comment and wondered why there was such hostility. Was the political aspect a cover for nailing a non talent? I was assured “That is Bruce…don’t take it personally…. He was probably joking…testing you.” Paltow never said another substantive thing to me. He never said “good job” or “nice to see you again,” only an occasional very limp “hello.”

In very late 1981 or early 1982, I was called in to read for the part of Fiscus in the upcoming series “St. Elsewhere” produced by Paltrow.  I ran into Howie Mandel, with his familiar blown up rubber glove hanging from his belt, and the guy who would eventually land the role.  He was standing just outside the waiting room, and as I headed toward that designated area I passed a small narrow side room in which Bruce Paltrow was seated on a desk chair with wheels; he turned to me, rolled a little in my direction and said, “Dwight! What are you doing here?” This is not a question an actor wants to hear before an audition; not from the show’s producer. I told him I was called in to read for Fiscus and his response was soft and monotonic, “…There’s not going to be a Reagan asshole on this show!” He then turned away, and went back to his desk. I was unable to overcome the totality of my crumble, my inability to deal with that kind of personal garroting. Although he had said something similar before, this was not a buffet line, this was a work line. My pathetic audition was a disaster, and I could never have gotten the job after what I gave them.

But let’s be clear!  In a very short period of time “The A-Team” came along, same network in fact, and it shot to number one. Of course NBC chortled that “The A-Team” wasn’t quality, and that “St. Elsewhere” was, but that’s show-biz.  Lost one!  Got one! I only lost a job, not the complete ability to work!  Let me add that if I had given a brilliant Fiscus audition, as a better man might have done, I believe it is quite likely that Paltrow would have lost a tough battle with the network. Paltrow’s crass, reptilian nastiness, using that “Reagan” political qualifier, which he clearly remembered and enjoyed using as a weapon, was a dominating marker for me, a preparation for the coming liberal ethos. It was made political by Paltrow, even if it was personal. His choice!

In 1988 I was cast in the role of Robert Oppenheimer to play opposite Paul Newman in “Fat Man and Little Boy” directed by Roland Joffe. Newman had seen my portrayal of Lenny in the Williamstown production of Pinter’s “The Homecoming” and came backstage to give his regards for a job well done and was particularly kind to me. The experience behind the making of the film is a story for another time, but it was a left of center Faustian retake, with a predominately liberal cast. At one moment I could be up against a wall, with one of the only two conservative actors that I now know were on the set, literally surrounded by 10 cast members challenging us to address the fact that Bush was clearly a drug dealer, and at another moment John Cusack would come running up to me, with just a little spittle in the corner of his mouth, speedily reading Noam Chomsky quotes about the Vietnam War. That was the set!

Paul Newman asked me to dinner one evening and we were discussing the film, when suddenly he switched gears and started saying things like “…You guys, all think like this…blah blah blah…what about Gorbachev…blah blah blah.” He knew my political leanings and started to question me about how I could possibly think the way I do and when I told him why I believed Reagan had been a great president, he actually listened. I talked for about five minutes without an interruption from him. When I was through he asked me what I thought of his take of the post-Reagan era. He wanted to know not just what I thought but why! This private, civil discussion between polar opposites without the ugliness was rare in my experience. Paul Newman always behaved with a quiet sense of grace, because I think it was his natural state.  We frequently talked politics on the set, both the 1988 and ‘45 variety, and it was never about snarled lips. We could and did find areas of agreement, and then set everything we disagreed about aside. There was a film to be made.

I know that Roland Joffe jumped through hoops to get me cast in his film and he knew my political take was not his.  I also know the studio was against my being given the role. I will not say anymore except I was cast, I did it, and it was probably the worst decision I have ever made from a career standpoint, but from a life standpoint, it was invaluable.

So, what about that blacklist? If it exists, in my opinion it’s social, not institutional. But the social aspect of this business is, to a large degree, everything there is. Newman’s grace does not predominate, rather Paltrow’s stomach slithering, in your face expletive defines the daily culture, and it has reached the pustule stage.

I wish I could say that I have always been a courageous fighter, but my attempts to deal with the present Hollywood are similar to the Kubler- Ross five stages of death; denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. This has been especially true since the events of 9/11. I have accepted it!

In October of 2001, I appeared in an episode of “The Agency,” a TV series about the CIA. It was my last on camera appearance. A female member of the production crew asked me why I was so quiet, and I told her I was still numb after the 9/11 attack and her reaction was, “I had no real connection with it.”  I immediately began ruminating about that. How could you be unconnected with 9/11? Where in God’s name is was I? 

The answer soon came to me. Hollywood!

So I shouted at Shepard, “What’s wrong with threat number two, you big beautiful blue eyed capitalist! What’s wrong with Fox News and your staff? There are only two warnings in that speech for God’s sake, if you’re going to honor a historical document maybe somebody could at least read it, and maybe for once in almost fifty years remind us of Ike’s second warning: “…that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Does anything come immediately to mind when you read that?  Ike goes on, “…Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” And, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

Do you think Ike was warning us that politicians like Al Gore and Barack Obama could cuddle with the scientific technological elite alike and, oh, I don’t know, maybe get behind Obama’s plan to tax your breath?  Do you think that perhaps some time in the near future you might not be considered a person but a carbon footprint … does something like that sound  ridiculous?

Have you seen how fast Obama has placed environmental academic hysterics and socialists in positions of real power? Steven Chu, John Holdren, Carol Browner and others are there to see to it that every exhaust in your life is a financial event favorable to the government.  So how is it that one of Ike’s warnings became famous and the other a historical ghost note?

It’s really not hard to grasp.  Our educational institutions monitor and control historical information and also educate and train the future guardians of public discourse — the indispensable journalists we read, see, and hear every day. By definition both the media and our nation’s scholars digest information and parcel it out in what should be an honest and thoughtful way. They digested Ike’s warning about the military and saw fit to warn us 10 billion times that the military is bad and needs to be feared and pushed off campus. They digested Ike’s warning about universities, scholars, federal money, science and policy, then gave it to Helen Thomas to scatter on some hot house tomatoes in the Nevada desert. It doesn’t get any simpler.

Think about this: How many times have you heard that the debate over anthropogenic global warming has ended?  When and where was this debate? The mere recitation of the words, “the debate has ended” closed the discussion without you having ever heard it because, get it! It’s ended! Get It! Neat trick! Gore says the debate has ended….McCain says the debate has ended…Obama says the debate has ended …Hanson says the debate has ended, and no one in the media wants to ask, “What debate?” When? Where?  Was there a scientific or political debate… or, God forbid, both, and who was for and who was against? 

Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth,” has by now been proven to be almost a 100% big fat lie, and yet there is no media outcry against it or price for Gore to pay because he is supporting the scientific technological elite who want to hold public policy captive to the carbon tax that Socialists and Democrats have wanted since the 1992 Rio summit.

This is a clear example of years of liberal bias in protective favor of the university media structure. It just takes a lot of repetition and a strong ideological preference for saying: American military bad! American university good! CO2 bad! Tax our breath! Raise the tuition! Kick the Marines off campus! Long live man made global warming and the tax dollars we shall inherit from it. STING shall be our band and “Every Breath You Take” shall be our song … revenue streams for eternity.

Repeat after me this slogan … or, if you would rather stick this on the backside of your transportation vehicle , please do and remember, paying higher taxes is patriotic, so breathe baby, breathe for your country, just don’t breathe behind our back and not let us see you, ‘cause we’re talk’n money now, baby! The debate has ended!

…Hmmm?

Warning number two? What warning? Oh, you mean the military thing? We’ve taken care of that. Here’s Matt Damon’s number, he’ll tell you all about it. He went to Harvard you know. Remember, be upscale, don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, breathe! And did I tell you to pay your taxes and act patriotic, especially when they’re going up?

Gotta run, I’m meeting Tom Daschle, Laurie David, Tyrano-Soros and secretary Geithner for lunch.