Whoopi Goldberg feels the same way about North Korea’s government.

Goldberg shared her latest profound political thoughts on “The View” earlier today. The all-women panel were pontificating on the sudden death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and the greater geopolitical picture in his absence. That meant the conversation veered toward Communism, and the Oscar-winning Goldberg sounded like she wished she lived in a Communist-run country.

On paper, at least.

Joy Behar: By the way, Saddam Hussein who is now taken out, dead. He also liked American culture. It didn’t- In other words, it doesn’t always matter.

Whoopi Goldberg: No, it doesn’t matter. Because, you know, if you say that this is how our culture is and then you send your child to a Swiss boarding school -You know, this is what happens with communism. It’s a great concept. On paper it makes perfect sense.

But once you put a human being in power, it shifts. We saw it in Russia, we’ve seen it all around the world. It’s nuts. But, I keep my fingers crossed.

Except the piece currently up at The Huffington Post is a lie. No one at Fox News called the Muppets communists – at least according to material quoted in the HuffPo story or via the link provided by the noxious Media Matters. Last time we checked, our dear friends on the left insist “liberal” does not equal “communist.” Did we miss a memo?

Yes, Fox News aired a segment in which the host and a guest called out “The Muppets,” the new film starring those felt and fur characters, for using an evil oil man as its go-to villain. Chris Cooper plays Tex Richman, an oil baron who wants to raze the old Muppet Theater to dig for oil.

In Hollywood, daring to cast a Muslim character can be considered a hate crime, but repeatedly casting businessmen, Christians and Southerners as villains is enlightened.

“The Muppets’” choice of villains is fair fodder for debate, especially since it’s hardly the first children’s film which eagerly inserted liberal messages into its story. Try watching “Monsters vs. Aliens” or either “Happy Feet” film for exhibits A, B, and C.

By dropping the ideological “C” word – communism – HuffPo only muddies the argument with an untruth.

In the bonus features of the commemorative DVD release, Warren Beatty says that he made this film to combat America’s “inordinate fear of communism.”  But the majority of screen time dealing with politics involves those who don’t buy into it.  Eugene O’Neil, played cynically by Jack Nicholson, calls Bolshevism the “latest theocracy.”  Maureen Stapleton’s Emma Goldman early on recoils from the Soviet regime’s abuse of civil liberties.  Reed himself attacks the Bolsheviks for censoring his copy and looks on in horror as the Soviet Army marches by.

Beatty must have realized impassioned support of Leninism wouldn’t have played well with ’80s audiences.  Hence he drastically edits Reed’s political speech down to one word:  in answer to a Democrat’s question about what World War I is about, he says “profits.”  When asked by Louise Bryant what Reed’s views on politics are, Beatty avoids the all-night speech by fast-forwarding to morning, where Reed attempts to embrace Bryant.

What must have polled better to audiences was the sex element.  Why else use interviews with the apolitical Henry Miller (who criticized Orwell for even involving himself in Spain since all political efforts were doomed anyway)?  Or why include Rebecca West, whose only included reminiscence about Reed isn’t his commitment to the working class but his lines with women (“Aren’t you pagan enough?).  Beatty even gets his political classification wrong; he forgets when calling the film “the last gasp of the Old Left including me,” that he was born in 1937, when the Stalinist—not Leninist—Left was in high tide and  he came of age during the New Left period.
In fact, the New Left is what the film has been shaped around.  Comrades live in a communal Provincetown cottage and swap lovers.  Glora Steinem-style feminism has been anachronistically inserted when Beatty has Diane Keaton spend most of her screen time griping about no one taking her seriously as a writer.

There has always been controversy about whether Reed intellectually broke with the Bolsheviks before his death.  Beatty supports the break thesis but follows the familiar “dream-is-still-alive” theme of the left by having Reed, in the aftermath of an explosion, chasing the same type of wagon he did when he was in Villa’s Mexico.

Thus, Beatty’s film doesn’t combat an ideology, unless it is one of puritanism.

No matter how close two people’s opinions might seem to be, eventually there will be a difference of some sort between them.

In short, we are all confronted eventually with the isolation everyone feels because of their own inalterable uniqueness.

Not even Siamese twins can agree about everything.

At such times, philosophers such as France’s Jean Paul Sartre conclude that “Hell is other people!”

“L’enfer est les autres!”

I don’t agree, of course.

What had always been hell for me was the fear and experience of isolation itself.

I then realized how God’s very existence in the lives of men was inspired and maintained by such moments of inevitable isolation.

“Someone or something must and does understand me!”

Then, of course, one’s relationship to such a Something is up to debate.

Does the Something expect something of you, demand something of you and, of course, if you don’t measure up?

Hmmm … what are the consequences?

This is where my immeasurably vital experience with Alcoholics Anonymous comes in: “Let go, let God.”

That is their incantation: “Let go, let God!”

Which means: “Stop asking yourself that stupid question and let God answer it for you and He will.”

And He has.

How?

By erasing the nightmares of anxiety that arose from your asking the stupid questions in the first place.

If you know for certain that no one in the world can ever understand you completely, you begin dropping such stupid expectations of them.

Even your enemies begin to look almost human because … well … there’s no denying that they are only human.

This, of course, leads me to the responses erupting from my article, Sarah Palin’s Pre-Presidential Power.

“If you don’t like the message, malign the messenger.”

Sarah Palin is a growing threat to all who have surrendered to “America’s inevitable decline” and who have bought the equally inevitable obligation for America to humbly join the Progressive New World Order.

From Bush Sr. to Clinton to Bush Jr. to Obama, the Progressive New World Order vision has held the reins of the White House for over 22 years.

That Communism, for these four Presidents, became an acceptable governing philosophy to share the world with? This concession by four Presidents not only ended the Cold War but prepared the way for an undeniably Marxist President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

I sensed such “inevitability” 18 years ago. In the Fall of 1993 I met Attorney General Janet Reno and knew that this most powerful law enforcement officer in the world had been given orders to attack the Koresh Compound in Waco, Texas and to attack television as a primary cause of violence in America. The Clintons, both of them, had begun their Presidential administration with the same Marxist arrogance we still find more openly and shamelessly in Barack Obama.

In 1994, when my protests fell lamely through the nets and sifters of the MSM and the Clintons were not only reelected ’96 but Janet Reno retained her post as Attorney General, I knew America was in for the longest spiritual bloodletting of her entire history.

Mankind’s last and greatest hope for continued individual freedom and responsibility,  the United States of America, had been co-opted by the most cunning sabotage efforts in world history.

The Soviets and their KBG, ordered initially by Joseph Stalin to primarily infiltrate the “soft underbelly” of the American performing arts, had successfully turned Hollywood and New York into its very own propaganda machine.

The subsequent invasions of Washington D.C. and the White House by the increasingly radical Left became inevitable until we ended up with a President Barack Obama.

Thank God I left for Canada.

Canada, suffering through decades of the same love affair with the Marxist Utopia and having a large taste of it with Pierre Trudeau, has begun, with the invaluable leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to right herself as the individually, freedom-loving half of North America.

 What has happened to the United States?

22 years of steady decline into the arms of President Obama.

A Marxist Islam or Red Jihadists are what my former homeland is quivering under now.

We Americans were more at peace, more prosperous and more self-assured under President Dwight Eisenhower’s Cold War of the Fifties than under any of the last four Presidents. If you don’t believe me, read Bill Bryson on the United States in the Fifties. Despite the Cold War or perhaps because of it, America became the most entirely self-sufficient nation in the history of the world. That is obviously and shamelessly not what President Barack Obama wants.

Now, with any line in the sand between freedom and Communism erased?!

The bipartisan, Bush/Clinton New World Order policies have driven America into debt and increasing dependence upon utterly hostile corners of the world, both Islamic and Communist.

With President Obama we see the End Game of New World Order Chess: a decidedly Marxist vision of humanity’s future. When a fraudulently Independent Mayor of New York prohibits men of faith, priests, ministers and rabbis from participating in a 9/11 Memorial Ceremony, what do we have?

An olive branch offered to none other than Godless Communism and the blood-lusting symbols of Islam.

Mayor Bloomberg isn’t offering the appeasement policies of Neville Chamberlain. He is pure Marshall Petain of Vichy France.

What percentage of Americans who have died in two world wars, Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East defending the freedom of religion are now rolling in their graves over Mayor Bloomberg’s heinous and undeniably Leninist insult to America’s national identity?

I offered, in my most provocative editorial, Sarah Palin’s Pre-Presidential Power, the only possible Presidential candidate for the 2012 election: Sarah Palin.

Only her profoundly personal value system and her classically American, conservative values can drag not only the United States but the entire world back from the brink of Red Jihadist suicide.

—–

So I love Mila Kunis for two very good reasons.

First off: she accepted the invitation by a young soldier to attend the Marines Ball – and I hope she still plans on going.

But even more, I love her for what she said in a recent GQ interview, while promoting her new flick, called “Friends With Benefits.”

The interviewer asked her if she’d ever been in one of those relationships, herself.

She answered, quote:

Oy. I haven’t, but I can give you my stance on it: It’s like communism-good in theory, in execution it fails. Friends of mine have done it, and it never ends well. Why do people put themselves through that torture?

And so, in just a few sentences, Kunis proved she’s smarter than just about every major movie star combined.

She was able to deflate one common cultural assumption propagated by Hollywood – that casual sex is harmless – while also dismissing a deadly ideology that garners glowing depictions on big screens everywhere.

That puts her head and shoulders above any of the more common Hollywood intellectuals – the type of clowns you see parading their Chomsky books at the local Starbucks.

(I’m talking to you Matt Damon).

Anyway, maybe it’s because she’s Ukrainian, and therefore understands how important a free market and a moral compass is.

That place was under the thumb of a system that rejected both.

Or she could just be really smart.

Either way, that’s why I like her.

It’s not cuz she’s hot.

Not at all.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobe.

Tonight’s Redeye may be the most entertaining one ever. Our guests:

Andrew WK, Mahsa, and Bob Beckel. It gets out of control. In a good way.

On his Wednesday show, Adam Carolla interviewed Andrew Breitbart to discuss Andrew’s new book, Righteous Indignation. Let me assure you, you’ll LOVE this duo. Andrew’s been a guest on Carolla’s show before, but this was hands down the most entertaining so far.

Check out some of the comments from Carolla’s regular listeners – not surprisingly, some aren’t exactly Breitbart fans (which makes it that much more enjoyable for me, at least).

Carolla tackled topics with Andrew on just about everything – from Righteous Indignation to Communism, the Left’s Racist meme, the racket of building permits and greenwashing, and unions, just to name a few. And a whole lotta LA, which, as Andrew illustrates for us, ain’t what is used to be. The two were on such a rant roll over our waning freedoms, Carolla, who has described himself as having libertarian leanings, almost sounded like another grassroots activist. Who knows? Sounds like he may just have a bit of Presidential appeal. Andrew certainly thought so!

“By the way, are you aware that the Republican Party has nobody running for the presidency right now, and if you had put that out there by mistake and people heard that, and that was your spiel, you would have gone up to Donald Trump level, you would have gone up to 17%?”

Oh yeah – Carolla’s also not a big fan of Maxine Waters. Not. At. All. Which reminds me, this audio is NSFW.

If you’re familiar with the political concept of The Overton Window (no, not the Glenn Beck thriller), you’ll also enjoy the duo’s discussion about how smokers have unwittingly allowed themselves over time to be regulated almost out of existence. Carolla makes creative use of both the war on smokers and the NRA to make that analogy, in a rather unforgettable way. Listen as he sets up what has happened over the years and how we’ve gotten where we are today.

It’s funny that you used the smoking thing. I think about that all the time and I always use it as an example of the difference between the guys who wanted to smoke and the NRA… I secretly suspect this is what the NRA does, not a fan, but this is what they do, this is part of their strategy…see…

So, somebody came into the restaurant and said ‘Hey smokers, you know what, we’re gonna need to move you on over here and just create a little smoking section on this side of the restaurant, so would you just pick it up and move it over here please?’ And everyone went ‘oh yeah, OK,’ and they went and sat in the smoking section. And then at a certain point, somebody came up and said ‘Hey, uh, smokers listen, uh, gonna need you to clear out of the dining area but if you wanna smoke at the bar that’d be fine‘, and they just sort of got up and went ‘yeak, OK, alright’ and then went and sat at the bar. And then the same guy came back again and said, ‘bad news, gonna need to move you out front, outside, can’t have any smoking in the bar or the restaurant, just go out front’ so they went ‘yeah, OK,’ so they stood out on the sidewalk in front of the valet and smoked a cigarette. And then the guy came out and said ‘gonna need you to move down the street 80 paces to smoke a cigarette’ and you see, they just kept getting up and moving.

What the NRA does is they say, ‘f*** you, we’re not moving, let’s argue about it,’ and they’re staying where they are. Meaning, they said, ‘hey man, we need those hollow tip bullets’ and went ‘I don’t think so,’ and now they just argue about it. Now, I don’t think they’re really arguing about that. They just don’t wanna keep sliding out down the sidewalk with the smokers.

And this is the way we are, especially in CA. Which is, we go, ‘hey do this,’ and then someone goes ‘alright.’ Or, we’ll go ‘hey put a tax on cigarettes for a dollar,’ and then next time they go ‘hey make it another buck’ and then they go, ‘eh make it 5 bucks!’ And then Rob Reiner goes, ‘it should be 10 bucks!’ And then all the people that don’t smoke and are full of f***ing righteous indignation, they go ‘oh yeah!’ And then someone says ‘give it to the kids’ and then, next thing you know, we’re where we’re at.

All in all, Carolla seemed quite inspired by Andrew’s plight (and that of Righteous Indignation). Political correctness has run amok, regulations are overbearing, and our freedoms are dissipating before our eyes. How much longer are people going to just sit back and take it all? While there are so many memorable…and colorful quotes in this interview, perhaps this one from Carolla bluntly states the sentiment best:

“What we all need to do in life is just start standing up and telling people to f*** off.”

I suspect many of the Bigs readers might agree. Hell, I certainly do.

Looks as though the times really are a-changing:

Counter-culture hero and 1960s protest singer-songwriter Bob Dylan got a rapturous welcome from fans on Wednesday at his first ever concert in China, despite having agreed to sing only an approved set designed not to offend political sensitivities.

Famous for his songs against injustice and for civil liberties and pacifism, Dylan struck a cautious line in Beijing and did not sing anything that might have overtly offended China’s Communist rulers, like “The Times They Are A-Changin”.  …Promoters tried to bring Dylan to China last year, but the Culture Ministry did not give its approval, as is required for any concert in the country.

China’s agreement this year came with the proviso that Dylan “performed with the approved content”, according to a brief statement issued last month by the ministry, which gave no other details.

Dylan’s concert comes at a sensitive time in China, where musicians and artists have always had to contend with at least a measure of government control and censorship.

More here.

“The Way Back” isn’t your typical Hollywood movie. The story focuses on the long trek the men took to escape the prison camp that they were forced into. The drama shows these men as they try to survive in brutal weather and harsh conditions. Their journey is dreary and long but their story is worth seeing for its focus on freedom and on man’s fight to overcome injustice.

Jim Sturgess plays Janusz, a young man who is betrayed by his wife and sent to the camp early on. Janusz quickly learns that looking out for others isn’t the best way to survive there. The weather is freezing and the food is scarce and some prisoners don’t bother caring for the weaker prisoners knowing that many of them won’t survive much longer. Mr. Smith (Ed Harris), a fellow inmate, tells Janusz to only look out for himself.  At one point, Smith even says, “We’ve all done terrible things to survive,” and you can tell he means it. Janusz eventually befriends Smith and the two join several others in a plan to escape and journey to safety.

However, escaping the prison walls isn’t the most difficult part of their quest. After breaking free from the prison itself, they must survive and travel in the harsh Siberian wilderness. Along the way, the escaped inmates befriend Irena (Saoirse Ronan), a young runaway who wants to join the group. They eventually accept her as they travel from the Siberian wilderness through a harsh desert and beyond.

One of the story’s greatest qualities is the relationship that develops between Smith and Irena. At first, Smith doesn’t want her to join the group but when she does, the two become friends. Colin Farrell, who appears as another escaped inmate, and Sturgess do solid jobs creating interesting characters but neither of them stand out. It’s Harris and Ronan who really steal the show.

The story plods around at a slow pace as the group walk dutifully along. The stakes aren’t raised as high as they could be though and some of the drama falls short. However, the story is told in a compelling way and it’s difficult not to connect with the characters who are only looking for a chance to be free.

“The Way Back” ends on a high note with images of feet on the screen shown over videos of major events related to the rise and fall of Communism. Through it all, the feet walk one step at a time like the men did. Their trek was worth it and is captured in great detail in “The Way Back.” Although this movie quickly disappeared from theaters after its release, it’s definitely worth a rental when it comes out on video. It’s a journey worth taking.

In 103 minutes, this documentary gives Americans, especially young ones like me who know little of Reagan’s presidency, a complete summary of the historic highlights of Reagan’s eight years in office within its national and international context. The film doesn’t shy away from mistakes Reagan may have made. It isn’t overly worshiping. It simply presents Reagan in his own words, honoring a man who changed the world.

The film begins by putting Reagan’s presidency in its historical setting: a nation pulled apart by warring liberals and conservatives; where Vietnam savagely cut America in two, Nixon’s Watergate had tarnished the GOP, and Carter’s foreign policy had left Democrats looking weak. Reagan brought the nation together by giving Americans a mission: to defeat a true opponent – the U.S.S.R.

From touching dedications and eulogies to rousing speeches and calls to action, the documentary features footage of Governor Reagan’s GOP convention and presidential nomination acceptance speeches, his national address following the Challenger tragedy and, of course, his demand that the Soviet Union tear down the Berlin Wall.

As a Cold War fanatic, I would have appreciated more coverage of Reagan’s fight against the U.S.S.R. and communism, but segments on presidential debates and the dedication of the Kennedy Library were nice touches and great supplements to the expected footage.

Reagan had a dream of America as a “shining city on a hill,” a phrase borrowed from John Winthrop, who had adapted it from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. And as Reagan left office, he saw that “[America] still stands strong and true … and her glow has held steady no matter what storm.” This film explores America before and after Reagan, concisely capturing the enduring effect that his administration had upon the nation.

As the film nears its conclusion, it focuses on a Reagan quote inscribed in granite at the Reagan Library: “I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” Reagan lived his life guided by this belief. His defense of the enslaved people in the Soviet Union, of freedom over tyranny every time, are proof.

Reagan said in his address to the 1984 Republican National Convention, “There are no limits to growth and human progress when men and women are free to follow their dreams. … In this springtime of hope, some lights seem eternal; America’s is.” On the eve of springtime 2011, the light of Reagan’s legacy is shining more brightly than ever, and this film will help Americans see it for generations to come.

Kengor’s strength is research (the book’s introduction alone lists 35 citations), and Dupes authoritatively identifies both dupes and true Communists in Hollywood, documenting them down to their Communist Party USA registration card numbers and how many times they wrote for Communist publications.

Take playwright extraordinaire Arthur Miller, for example. It is widely accepted that “The Crucible” is about McCarthyism. Beyond that, today’s educators have allowed what Senator Joe McCarthy and his “witch hunts” found to blend with the work of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. In reality, they were entirely separate.

Kengor points out that the falsely titled “HUAC,” (a recent New Yorker article, which gives a good review of former Communist Elia Kazan, used the “HUAC” abbreviation too) which suggests the committee was the actual un-American organization, was chaired by Democrats for much of its existence, and it was attacked for its work by Communists regardless of who was in charge.

Finally, among the most famous witnesses called by the House Committee on Un-American Activities were the “Hollywood Ten,” a collection of industry workers suspected of being Communists. Claiming they weren’t Communists, these Communist sympathizers and actual Communists convinced liberal actors and actresses to come and defend them in Washington, D.C. Kengor points out, “It is interesting that while many liberals have been concerned about the reputation of Communists…those same Communists had no qualms about tarnishing the reputations of the liberals they preyed upon – even when the liberals were friends and relatives.”

Humphry Bogart was among those who was duped into testifying, and after the testimonies, he was anything but happy about it. The truth is, the Hollywood Ten were not clean. Kengor said in an e-mail, “From the very first day that the main four members of the Hollywood Ten were called to the stand, in October 1947, we’ve known their actual Communist Party numbers, which were published at the time, in all the newspapers, and which I’ve been forced to re-publish in the book – such is our ignorance. John Howard Lawson, Dalton Trumbo, Alvah Bessie, Albert Maltz. All were Communists and pro-Soviet patriots, period.”

Few remember the truth of the hearings – only the “horror” that the Hollywood Ten were blacklisted afterward. Perhaps they were blacklisted more for lying to their would-be defenders than they were for being Communists. If someone stabs your back, you generally don’t pat theirs in return.

Director Elia Kazan new the truth. He was once a Communist, but was kicked out of the Party after refusing to follow orders. He testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and was attacked for it. He wrote in his diary, “I’d hated the Communists for many years and didn’t feel right about giving up my career to defend them.” Unfortunately, many in Hollywood held it against him for years.

And Arthur Miller, who portrayed these trials as witch hunts? He applied to join CPUSA, and admitted to helping Communist front groups.

I find it interesting that the left continues to use one of the favorite strategies of Communism – name-calling – on a regular basis. Kengor quotes F. Scott Fitzgerald on this: “The important thing is that you should not argue with [Communists],” Fitzgerald said. “Whatever you say, they have ways of twisting it into shapes which put you in some lower category of mankind, ‘Fascist,’ ‘Liberal,’ ‘Trotskyist,’ and disparage you both intellectually and personally in the process.” Liberals use this strategy today when dealing with social conservatives or with Tea Partiers.

“One of the greatest successes of the left…has been its ability to discredit anti-Communism and anti-Communists,” Kengor said. “They stereotype and broad-bush anti-Communists, trying their best to push every new stalwart anti-Communist into their ever-widening category of ‘another Joe McCarthy,’ of which there were far more than Joe McCarthy. Long before Joe McCarthy, the left was smearing liberals like Woodrow Wilson’s attorney general, Alexander Mitchell Palmer, Wilson himself, and Democrats in Congress like Martin Dies, the first head of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, all for the unforgivable sin of strident anti-Communism. Believe me, that’s a short list of the anti-Communists that the left crucified.”

Kengor’s non-partisan approach to looking at Communist influences in America led him to defend many liberals, and also hold conservative-loved dupes accountable. Take Ronald Reagan for instance. He was a duped liberal before he became a staunch anti-Communist and then a conservative.

“Reagan was very candid about this,” Kengor said. “I’ve tried to be honest in this book, highlighting even political heroes of mine – like Reagan – who were once duped. But it was what he learned from that experience that helped convert him into arguably the greatest anti-Communist. He became first a chastened liberal, which was part of a deeper, wider awakening.”

Speaking of Reagan, I asked Kengor about the status of the Reagan film that will be based on his books. “We’re plugging away,” he said. “Ronald Reagan was a great, inspiring historical figure. The man merits a major, serious ‘bio-pic’ that accurately represents what he did and how he helped change the world for the better. This is another area of history that we can’t leave to the extreme left.”