Expect to see a similar nasty portrayal by Julianne Moore in HBO’s “Game Change.” Moore confesses that it was hard to find a good side to Palin, and the miniseries is candid that her ambition outstrips her capacity. Hollywood knows well that you only get one opportunity to introduce these figures of national or international import, and they intend to make it bad impression on their behalf.

So it is with Lady Thatcher in “The Iron Lady,” whose creators have ridiculously compared Meryl Streep’s Thatcher to a modern-day King Lear in their disgusting attempt to dance on Thatcherism’s memory.

“Iron Lady” producer Harvey Weinstein, director Phyllida Lloyd and screenwriter Abi Morgan are engaged in a caricature of conservatism, through a caricature of Lady Thatcher and all those around her. Weinstein has even claimed that Thatcher is a “social progressive,” as if being pro-choice, pro-gay, and pro-national health service were all there were to Thatcherism.

Alas Weinstein and Streep never show us Thatcher’s considerable economic and political successes, preferring to spend two-thirds of the film luxuriating on her old age. This is as fictional as it is slanderous. We simply do not know how Lady Thatcher is doing because she has lived a life far removed from the press.

This is a subtle project, but a thorough one. Here are but a few problems with the film:

• Thatcher’s cabinet is portrayed as a bunch of Tory grandees, when, in fact, Thatcher appointed a record number of Jews to help bolster the meritocracy that her policies made possible. She also included homosexuals, too, though not in the ostentatious way that the professional homosexual left would like.
• Her husband, Denis Thatcher, is portrayed an oafish figure played by Jim Broadbent, rather than the rogue, debonair former Artillery man who lamented that he did not see action in World War II. Thatcher loved him because he was a remarkable man, “with a certain style and dash.” When he died Thatcher eulogized him thusly: “Being PM is a lonely job. In a sense, it ought to be – you cannot lead from a crowd. But with Denis there I was never alone. What a man. What a husband. What a friend.”
• Never once is anyone else given credit for inspiring her. F.A. Hayek, the inspirer of Thatcherism, ever discussed. Nor is Keith Joseph, who coached her. Nor is Enoch Powell who had a sort of Thatcherism avant la lettre. Nor is the Centre for Policy Studies, which, like a Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute of its day provided the theoretical heft for her free-market ideas.
• Thatcher is portrayed as the only Lady member of the House of Commons. This is also wrong and more than a tad insulting to the memory of MPs like Barbara Castle, Judith Hart or Harriet Slater.
• The Soviet menace, which Thatcher worked to undo with Reagan and Pope John Paul II, is ignored.
• Her daughter, Carol, is portrayed as taking care of her, when, in fact, she spends much of her time in Switzerland. Not surprisingly, Thatcher’s family rightly rejected an invitation to watch the film.

But the most spurious attack of the film is on Thatcher’s politics. It tries to portray Thatcher as somehow a rugged individualist who had to suffer the loss of power that she so coveted. The fictional young Thatcher declares, defiantly, that she will never wash a tea cup but in the end she’s brought down to earth, washing tea cups as if all of her actions were for naught.

But Thatcher would have been the first to tell you that her successes were from the community that raised her, the largely Jewish constituency that retained her, and the philosophy that animated her, not from some sort of “we’re all on our own” libertarianism.

That’s why the film does not include Immanuel Jakobovits, Chief Rabbi of England and Thatcher’s spiritual adviser who knew full well that a reduction in the state would see a rise in communities looking out for their own. Thatcher and Jakobovits wanted to strengthen “the moral sense of the people,” as Thatcher put it, through religious institutions, not through the state.

While Thatcherism relied on “economics…[as] the method; the object is to change the soul,” and so, her project was necessarily religious. The Orthodox rabbi had come to Thatcher’s defense in 1985 when he rebutted a blistering, 400-page report on Thatcher’s government by the Church of England. Thatcher’s government, the report held, was anti-poor and therefore anti-Christian and immoral. Jakobovits rightly disagreed. The Jewish and the Thatcherite contribution to poverty reduction, “would lay greater emphasis on building up self-respect by encouraging ambition and enterprise through a more demanding and more satisfying work-ethic, which is designed to eliminate human idleness and to nurture pride in ‘eating the toil of one’s hands’ as the first immediate targets.” He, like the very Christian Thatcher, blamed the trade unions for Britain’s woes, writing, “The selfishness of workers in attempting to secure better conditions at the cost of rising unemployment and immense public misery can be just as morally indefensible as the rapaciousness of the wealthy in exploiting the working class.”

The rabbi and the prime minister shared the belief that “self-help” was the “means whereby we make ourselves useful.” Helping oneself by helping others, without the meddlesome state, is what Thatcher believed.  (To those seeking a corrective to this cinematic slander, I recommend the excellent BBC series, Tory! Tory! Tory!, you can watch all episodes here, for free.)

Enoch Powell, the Tory genius and one-time possible prime minister whose work Thatcher knew well, said it best when he said all political lives end in failure. But “The Iron Lady” makes a fetish of Powell’s statement, never once showing that her fights with the unions were as necessary then as they are now.

He’s also using Thatcher’s name to praise President Barack Obama.

I always find myself rooting for people who stand up for what they believe in, and it always gives me a great charge to see it happen. But it’s all too rare, and I know this will shock my Republican friends, but I know President Obama is someone who stands up for what he believes, and I know the First Lady does as well. They are strong believers in helping America’s underserved. They might go about it differently than Margaret Thatcher, but their belief is strong. And in the end, lending a helping hand, may achieve the same result as Thatcher, if it is done properly.

Perhaps Weinstein hasn’t noticed that Guantanamo is still open, or that Obama never televised the health care debates as promised, or that all that talk about reaching across the aisle was just that.

The hard-charging executive is famous for his aggressive, and successful, Oscar movie campaigns. So when he picked up “Butter,” an indie film satirizing the GOP, Weinstein decided to invite Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann to an early screening.

Looks like that move backfired – big time.

Bachmann just pulled out of the GOP presidential race, and by the time “Butter” hits theaters this Spring the congresswoman won’t be in the headlines anymore.

The film itself might need all the help it can get, marketing wise.

Early “Butter” reviews paint it as a clumsy swipe at the Right, one lacking the finesse of great satires like “Best in Show.”

Here’s Entertainment Weekly’s Lisa Schwarzbaum tearing into the film:

the movie has the backfiring effect of making its liberal core audience look just as smug, self-righteous, and condescending as conservative opposition insists it is….

Representative Bachmann might do well to screen the thing for her followers as an example of everything she’s fighting against. She’d gain more support than that publicity stunt could have imagined.

“Butter,” which stars Jennifer Garner and “Modern Family’s” Ty Burrell, follows the travails of a Bachmann-esque woman who enters a butter carving contest.

In other words, had Weinstein’s movie been snubbed altogether, I think people would remember it more fondly than they do. If I recall correctly, no one was complaining much that the movie was nominated, but the win immediately changed the perception of the movie.

I loved a lot of movies released in 1998, but only one of them was nominated for Best Picture. It’s a very tough year for me to pick a favorite. The nominees:

“Shakespeare in Love” – Only saw it once, and I liked it. Costume dramas really ain’t my thing, but costume comedies? Well, that’s…wait, I don’t like them much either. But I guess this one’s alright.

“Elizabeth” – See above. Never seen it.

“Life is Beautiful” – Roberto Benigni winning Best Actor for this remains one of the great whiffs in Academy history.

“Saving Private Ryan” - The invasion sequence alone remains worth the price of admission.

“The Thin Red Line” – For my money, this is a pretentious mess. I’ve got a buddy who says it’s his favorite movie. I say he’ s trying to seem smart. But what do I know? I’m the guy who would have nominated…

“There’s Something About Mary” - Stalker? Big time.

“The Big Lebowski” - Am I wrong? Am I wrong? No, you’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an assh*le.

“Out of Sight” - You don’t have an extra clip I can use, do you?

“Rushmore” - Never in my wildest imagination did I ever dream I would have sons like this.

“Saving Private Ryan” - The Statue of Liberty is kaput. That’s disconcerting.

This is really an absolute squeaker. Why? Partially, it’s because I love all of these movies so much. But mostly, it’s because I’m stupid.

Peter and Bobby Farrelly established themselves with “Dumb & Dumber,” then made the box office bust “Kingpin,” which deservedly found an audience on video. No one expected much from their third movie. Leading man Ben Stiller was not yet a star or a box office draw, but he had honed the nervous stammering act of his in pretty solid comedies like “Flirting With Disaster” and turned in hilarious supporting work in “Happy Gilmore.” In 1998, he had a breakout year, appearing in the underrated “Zero Effect” and the misanthropic “Your Friends & Neighbors.”

Released in the middle of July, less than a week after “Lethal Weapon 4″ and just before “The Mask of Zorro,” the Farrelly’s comedy was a genuine word-of-mouth sleeper hit. It hovered in the lower half of the top five until the end of August, when it finally crept up to number 2 at the box office. First week of September, it claimed the number one spot — a full seven weeks after it debuted at number 4.

Its performance is part of the reason I pick it over the more obvious choices on the Academy’s list and my own list. I worked in a theatre at the time, and I witnessed the slow build. By September, older couples were coming to see the movie — and were loving it. The Farrellys had done something amazing; they had made a vulgar comedy that crossed over to people who would never see a vulgar comedy, much less embrace it.

The key to their success is the unconventional screenplay, and the cast.

Ben Stiller and Cameron Diaz have been more than overexposed by now, but in 1998, they seemed like a breath of fresh air. I don’t think I’ve ever rooted for a dude to get the girl more than I did in “There’s Something About Mary.” No one has ever deserved a girl who was so out of his league in the history of movies.

This is set up from the very beginning and then pounded into our heads, sometimes with subtlety and sometimes with the force of a sledgehammer to the nuts. The Farrellys make Ted (Stiller) go through hell to land dreamgirl Mary (Diaz); it’s a journey during which no good deed goes unpunished for Ted, and our heart sinks with his about a dozen times over the course of the movie. Consider:

- He comes to the aid of her mentally challenged baseball loving brother Warren (W. Earl Brown – fantastic performance) and almost gets his ass kicked for his trouble. He later gives the gargantuan Warren a piggy back ride.

- He shows up to pick up Mary for the prom and is told by her father Charlie (Keith David? Genius casting.) that Mary already went to prom with Woogie — a Mr. Everybody’s All American type from a different high school. Ted slumps, frowns, but what makes it UNBEARABLE is that he not only pretends that he’s not hurt by the jilting, but that he seems to think he deserves to be jilted. Of course, Mary’s dad is “just f*cking with” Ted, and Mary is home the whole time ready to go to prom with Ted.

- Ted offers Warren a baseball but inadvertently touches the big man’s ear; Warren goes psycho, tears the room apart and delivers a belly to belly suplex on Ted atop a coffee table. I love the  tension in the aftermath of this moment. Ted’s freaked out, Mary goes upstairs with Sheila, her hot mom (Markie Post), to fix her dress, and Charlie consoles Warren and barks at Ted. Ted defends himself, Charlie responds: “Are you yelling at me? Are you yelling at me in my own damn house?” Ted insists he’s not. Awesome. But the capper is when Ted asks where the bathroom is and Charlie answers, “Grrrrrrrrrrr!”

- The bathroom scene. One of the two most talked about scenes in the movie. “Franks & Beans!” Once again, a misconstrued situation — this time only a look, a glance, a harmless peek! — leads Ted into an uncomfortable situation. Perhaps the most uncomfortable situation in movie history. Sheila sprays Bactene on his nuts, a cop shows up (“What? The f*ck?” he exclaims), a fireman — pretty soon the bathroom’s packed with people and Warren is in the hallway screaming, “Franks & Beans.” If you don’t exit this scene with pee-stained pants from laughing yourself wet, there’s something wrong with you. More importantly, if you don’t exit this scene hoping Ted gets Mary, there’s something wrong with your soul.

- On Ted’s day off, he helps his boss’s brother move. Not his boss. Not his brother. His boss’s brother, who happens to be a crusty, mean, profane man in a wheelchair. Genius line: when Ted complains that a gigantic armoire is heavy, the guy in the wheelchair seethes, “Heavy?! What I wouldn’t give to know what heavy feels like, you insensitive prick!”

- He also, out of the goodness of his heart, offers a serial killer a ride, takes a fish hook to the mouth, and is made to dress up in a superhero costume. Nothing in the movie would have been as funny without our empathy for Ted. In “Mary,” the Farrelly Brothers dodge a landmine. She likes golf. She likes to drink beer and watch football. She likes to talk about football. In essence, she’s too perfect, and women should have rooted against her. But, using subtlety and a sledgehammer, the Farrellys make her vulnerable… to stalkers. She’s got so many stalkers she had to change her name. The only reason that Ted ever got a chance to go to the prom with her is because her high school boyfriend Woogie “got weird.” Like a stalker.

Ultimately, it’s my pick because from a pure story standpoint, it’s the most difficult of any of nominees (actual and in Cam-Land) to pull off — a comedy about stalkers that’s actually really sweet despite relentless vulgarity. Its unconventional-but-still-mainstream-and-not-weird structure (the romantic leads are apart for a good chunk of the movie — ask Gore Verbinski how hard it is to pull that off) makes it an even more difficult movie to pull off. But ultimately, it’s the constant barrage of jokes both verbal and visual, great characters and strong performances that make it my favorite movie of 1998.

Weinstein was there to support some of his recent films, including the Oscar-bait biopic “My Week with Marilyn,” but the Fox News host opened with a salvo of political questions.

The longtime Democratic supporter took the bait, first waving away concern about President Barack Obama’s falling poll numbers – “they go up and down,” he says in a calm, dismissive tone – and then saying the president will breeze to re-election.

Then, the Obama worship really began in earnest.

Bill O’Reilly: What is it about Pres Obama that appeals to you?

Harvey Weinstein: He’s a man of great intellect and a man of great moral character. He’s a knowledgeable man. Anybody who models a cabinet as Lincoln did has gotta be a smart guy.

Host and guest then discussed whether it’s wise to have the rich pay even more of their money to the government. Weinstein agreed they should but couldn’t offer any specifics on the matter.

Finally, Weinstein played the Left’s most valuable card, what Homer Simpson would call, “It was like that when I got here!”

“President Obama didn’t start this [struggling economy]. He inherited this. He didn’t cause the crisis … at the end of the day, he didn’t cause  it. He did not cause it.”

Jennifer Garner on Defense Over New Film

We’ve at least made some strides. A few years ago, Hollywood attacked Middle America and Republicans with wildly open abandon; a few years ago they apologized for nothing and proudly wore their preachy cinematic leftism on their sleeves. Today, however, you have George Clooney assuring us his political movie isn’t political and now this:

“I don’t know if I would want to watch it with a politician, but I would like to watch it in Iowa and see if they are still friends with me after because we made it with such respect,” she said. “And I come from a small town, so I just want to make sure that they enjoy it and have as much fun with it as we intend for them to have.”

This is with respect to her new indie film “Butter,” which is probably going to be one those preordained flops Hollywood makes to aggrandize themselves.

This is also the film where producer Harvey Weinstein issued a challenge that our resident badass Dana Loesch took him up on. And now after six weeks and no response, it’s probably safe to say that Weinstein — whose Indian name is He Who Supports Fugitive Child Rapists – was just blowing more of that cowardly Hollywood smoke.

‘Jack and Jill’ hits 2% at Rotten Tomatoes

Now I’m even more convinced it’s a classic.

‘Margin Call’ Approaching 250,000 Video-On-Demand Rentals

Huge deal:

“Margin Call” has grossed more than $2.5 million in 178 theaters, a relatively large number for a film in limited release and that is available simultaneously via video on demand.

Feltheimer said he expects the thriller about Wall Street’s financial crisis to generate at least as much in video-on-demand revenue as it does in ticket sales.

If a relatively low-budget film with almost no marketing can do this, what can a high-profile film do?

My guess is that part of the reason the studio was so quiet about this launch was to avoid the inevitably crybabying from theatre owners who would’ve exploded over this and maybe even refused to screen it. This is what they did to “Tower Heist,” where the idea was simply to VOD it three weeks after the theatrical debut in just a few select areas.

—–

—–

SCOTTD’S EPIC LINKTACULAR

MICKEY ROURKE ALWAYS INVITES HIS SHRINK, DENTIST & MECHANIC TO MOVIE PREMIERES

VINTAGE ARTICLE: ANDREW PRICE’S TOP 25 WAR FILMS YOU SHOULD KNOW

RANKED: TERRY GILLIAM FILMS FROM WORST TO BEST

GORDON LIGHTFOOT CHANGES LYRICS TO ‘WRECK OF THE EDMUND FITZGERALD’

VIETNAM IN HD A “CATHARTIC” EXPERIENCE FOR VETERAN ADVISERS

KATHRYN BIGELOW BEGINS CASTING HER BIN LADEN PIC

TEASER TRAILER FOR ‘SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN‘

TRAILER #3 FOR LUCASFILM’S WWII ADVENTURE ‘RED TAILS’

… AND THE COOLEST TRAILER YOU WILL SEE ALL YEAR!

GEORGE TILLMAN JR. TO DIRECT MILES DAVIS BIOPIC

LEGENDARY PICTURES HIRES SCREENWRITER FOR THEIR IN-DEVELOPMENT GODZILLA FILM

BRETT RATNER TO REMAKE ‘THE LAST AMERICAN VIRGIN’ AND TROMA’S ‘MOTHER’S DAY’

DREAMWORKS SCREENING ‘WAR HORSE’ FOR CANADIAN VETERANS

CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF ‘BODY HEAT’

FOR YOU SCREENWRITERS: HOW TO SELL A SCRIPT IN 6 MONTHS

TOP 10 GUILTY PLEASURE FILM FRANCHISES

IN HONOR OF 11/11/11, IT’S NIGEL TUFNEL DAY!

—-

—-

CLASSIC PICK FOR SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 12

4:15 AM EST: Slither (1972) – An ex-con and his misfit team search the underbelly of American life for a cache of embezzled loot. Dir: Howard Zieff Cast:  James Caan , Peter Boyle , Sally Kellerman .  C-96 mins, TV-14, Letterbox Format.

Loosely plotted character-driven story. Typical 70’s fare but with a good cast, a number of great moments, and a rare opportunity to catch it all in widescreen.

Please send all the event details directly to Dana Loesch at dloesch@breitbart.com.

She’ll see you there!

And more directly from Dana to Harvey here.

Full story here.

A regular profile in courage:

“In 20 years of coming to the Toronto Film Festival, I’ve never released a statement for a film. But I would like to take this moment to formally invite Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota and Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann to co-host with me the big premiere of Butter in Iowa in a few months from now. I know Michele will already be in Iowa for the caucus, so we can save some money on airfare and travel. I would, of course, be more than happy to fly in the other leading members of the Tea Party movement to make an entire day of it. We could take some math classes in the morning to help balance the budget, brush up on the Constitution in the afternoon, play some ping-pong, and then maybe some verbal ping-pong on gay rights and women’s rights (especially the right to choose). But at night we can all go hand-in-hand to the premiere of Butter, a fun and important film where we’ll share some popcorn and laughs. These are the kind of bipartisan effort that makes America great. I look forward to hearing from Michele, and I’m particularly looking forward to those classes on the Constitution. All my best, Harvey.”

Rep. Bachmann and Tea Party leaders should definitely take him up on on making an entire day of this.

I’m especially interested in that part of the Constitution that says it’’s okay to drug, rape and sodomize a thirteen year-old girl and flee from justice if a guy named Harvey really dug “Chinatown.”

Full story here

They never come right out and say they love to lose. Instead, when their movie of choice loses the Oscar to “Crash,” they say things like, “Hollywood’s homophobia could be on par with Pat Robertson’s.” The case of “Crash” versus “Brokeback Mountain” turned into an absolutely hilarious pissing match that saw liberals clamoring to stake their claim to being at least as liberal as the next whiny liberal.

About the only thing liberals love more than losing is claiming they’ve been victims of — gasp! — censorship! If I seem like I’m making light of — gasp! — censorship! it’s because, well, I am.

In the vast majority of cases of — gasp! — censorship! there has in fact been no censorship.

Take Harvey Weinstein’s latest claim.  The Hollywood Reporter reports that ABC asked for three cuts to the trailer for “Our Idiot Brother,” on the basis that three shots violated its “long established ad-guidelines.” Where you and I might see an entity exercising its right to purchase and air WHATEVER THE HELL THEY CHOOSE TO PURCHASE AND AIR, Harvey sees an opportunity to reassert himself as the undisputed champion of hemming and hawing about so called censorship. The Weinstein Company quickly cut together a new red band trailer, which Harvey knew would be useless without a press release that made him look like a victim. Putting on a happy face, Harvey proclaimed, ““We’d like to dedicate our new red band trailer for Our Idiot Brother to censorship everywhere. Enjoy!”

Is this censorship? No really. I’m asking: Is. This. Censorship?

If a writer pens a spec script, sends it to The Weinstein Company (TWC) and TWC rejects it, refuses to buy it, or film it, or distribute; has that writer been censored?

I find these kinds of claims fascinating. The Super Bowl has in the last few years become a bizarre battleground for claims of censorship. There was the whole Janet Jackson affair, which was either a fiasco or an unbridled success, depending on your point of view. I recall a story in Rolling Stone, in which some journalist wrote- … … …  …

(Sorry. I was laughing hysterically at the idea of Rolling Stone employing journalists to do journalism, and a swallow of Newcastle went down the wrong pipe.)

– Anyway, Rolling Stone decried critics of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction as hysterical Bible-thumping, pitchfork-wielding, stake-burning prudes. Their accompanying photo of Janet Jackson really hacked me off; the so-called offensive part of her anatomy…was blurred. Or, censored.

I’m averse to in-depth research, but I found this story, published four years later in Rolling Stone, where in they shriek, “The incident led to an almost-censorship of live events, with tape delays becoming the norm to avoid future unscripted situations.”

“Almost-censorship.”

Alrighty, then.

Another fantastic censorship whine-fest from the last decade involves none other than The Dixie Chicks. Perhaps I’m too thick-skinned, but I wasn’t exactly offended by what Natalie Maines said in London. Why? Because being offended by what she said lent her credibility. She’s a country singer. A pretty damn good one, in my opinion. I don’t expect her to have earth-shattering opinions about George W. Bush or any other President. It was a goofy thing to say.

The ensuing hullabaloo made a mountain out of a mole hill in my opinion. Her comment deserved nothing more than an eye roll and a, “Dadgum, that Natalie done lost it. Put on ‘Goodbye Earl’ and let’s get good and ripped.” Getting together with a bunch of other people and burning Dixie Chicks CD’s was, in fact, about the silliest thing I ever heard of until Al Gore weighed in on the matter.

“They were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said. Our democracy has taken a hit,” said Gore. “Our best protection is free and open debate.”

Wait — What?

Gore commits a classic blunder here, in defending the poor, poor, pitiful Dixie Chicks. Yes. They have freedom of speech. They could have said even worse things about Bush, and have. And I, and other loons, are free get offended and to burn their [bleeping] records in retaliation.

For her part, Maines apologized for her “brave” Bush rant, and later reneged on said apology. Why?

“I’m Not Ready to Make Nice,” she crooned on the lead single from their next album. Yes, it seemed that The Dixie Chicks had taken a page from the Weinstein playbook, and figured out a way to profit from the controversy. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Harvey himself coached them on how to ride this particular gravy train. After all, Harvey’s company distributed “Shut Up & Sing,” the documentary/whine-fest about the Dixie Chicks horrible ordeal. When NBC and the CW rejected ads for the movie, Harvey gravely intoned, ”It’s a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America.”

I am telling you what. Crying about censorship is good work, if you can get it.

Yet another hypocritical left-wing gazillionaire mouthing off about his desire to pay more in taxes…

Harvey Weinstein was on [Piers Morgan] last night, talking about his support for President Obama and the fund-raiser he held for him at his home last week. Weinstein echoed Warren Buffett’s call for the wealthy in the country to be taxed more — and said that he considers it an investment in the country, not an unfair burden.

We’re here to help you lead by example in two easy steps, Harvey:

1. Immediately stop with any deductions on your quarterly/annual taxes.

2. Go here and put your money where your child rapist-supporting mouth is.

You’re welcome.

The only thing stopping any of these fithy rich Leftists from paying more in taxes is their own selfish hypocrisy. In public they pose, in private they grasp.

None of them want to pay higher taxes. If they did — they would! 

But the reason they call for more taxes and environmental regulations is simple … and mercenary: Those who already hold political and financial power possess enough money and enjoy enough write-offs to weather anything the government might do. They also have enough influence with liberal DC corporatist like President Obama to ensure that’s always the case. The people who can’t survive these added burdens, however, are the up-and-comers — the potential competition. It’s Preston Tucker scenario all over again, where the best way to stay on top is to lobby in favor of the competition-killing taxes and regulations you can handle but entrepreneurs on the rise cannot.

Warren Buffet, General Electric, Harvey Weinstein and the like DON’T see burdensome taxes and regulations as  burdensome taxes and regulations. They see a friendly government as their partners in a ruthless and corrupt game of King of the Hill.

It’s the same with Hollywood’s phony posing over the phony Global Warming “crisis.” As they sit in big air-conditioned mansions, they demand the government tell the rest of us to live like Quakers. Anyone who truly believes the planet is in crisis lives as though the planet is in crisis, not like an Egyptian Pharaoh.

They are The Man and they want to keep the rest of us down in order to remain The Man.

Liars. Hypocrites. Phonies. Posers. Leftists. Period.