The series demonstrates an exquisite attention to detail. The costuming is flawless and the cinematography fits with the era being portrayed. The casting and delivery not only makes the characters believable, but very enjoyable to watch. The two hour premiere shows glimpses of the road to President Kennedy being elected and gives some of the background stories from “Jack” and Joe’s childhood. As a person who currently has a close loved one deployed overseas in the War on Terror, watching any scene where a family is told about the death of a loved one lost in war is difficult. The atmosphere that was generated in the scene where the Kennedys are told of their oldest son’s death was so thick you could taste it, and the score was perfectly aligned with the all of the emotion of the moment.

While watching “The Kennedys,” it was easy for me to slip into the mode that I was watching an entertaining historical documentary. Seeing how this mini-series portrayed Joe Kennedy, the older brother who tragically died in WWII, as a man who was driven to become President, I believed it was true. For a moment, I believed that HE was truly the one that was supposed to run for President, when in fact, I personally don’t know that at all. I never studied the Kennedys in any depth. The left is always trying to shove them down my throat so I want little to do with them even though they were iconic characters in American history. But watching “The Kennedys,” seeing how easily my perception could be altered about them (in conjunction with the reviews of this series from here at Big Hollywood and Rush Limbaugh), it occurred to me that one day my children could watch a miniseries called “The Bushes” (doesn’t have quite the same ring to it).

The left is already trying to portray (in academic institutions and through Howard Zinn mocumentaries on the History Channel) Reagan as the man who ruined the economy and who didn’t end the Cold War (though, the left rarely has an answer for who did). They have already succeeded in skipping over H. W. Bush’s entire Presidency so we can get to the glorious days of Bill Clinton. President Clinton who, as of now, is the most embarrassing President in recent American history (and yes, I’m including Nixon). And we can already see how the left is desperate to re-write history with George BusHitler.

Movies will be made about the times we are living in (and have lived in), but are we going to leave it to the Hollywood-left to make them unchallenged? We can’t ignore that culture determines how history is written. It shouldn’t be 40 years before a fair portrayal of the Bushes is shown to the world. “The Kennedys” and the story of its’ making are a great reminder of the culture war we fight daily against the institutional, Hollywood-left.

—-

Co-produced by Big Hollywood contributor Larry Schweikart, who first wrote about this issue in his book 7 Events That Made America America, and narrated by Adam Baldwin, Rockin’ the Wall gives viewers an intimate look into life in East Berlin, where citizens were restricted by a literal concrete wall from the same free enterprise and thought that their neighbors in the Western half of the city enjoyed.  Commentators in the film range from bow tie-wearing historians to shaggy-haired rock musicians, with the most interesting tidbits coming from individuals who had lived under Soviet rule in East Berlin (some of whom escaped before the wall fell).  Noting that this was the first time in history where walls were used to keep citizens in rather than invaders out, the film conveys a palpable feeling of the quiet rebellion simmering against a regime so petty as to restrict women from putting their hair in ponytails.

The film’s thesis, that rock and roll music brought down the wall, seems spurious at first.  After its fast-paced introduction, we’re treated to a montage of aged musicians opining on the nature of rock and roll, how it embodies liberty and rebellion, and we’re thinking, “Okay, but how does this relate to–” right as director Marc Leif unleashes a barrage of information that convincingly portrays rock music as the driving force of anti-Communist subversion.  We learn about Radio Free Europe, whose modern music penetrated the wall and was forbidden by the Soviets.  We learn about the black market for Western records, where demand was so high that a single LP could cost 1/10th of a week’s wages.  We learn about the conferences for young people warning them of the physical and mental dangers of rock and roll.

We hear the testimony of artists who lived behind the Wall, how Western music represented the freedom they desired and confirmed the inauthentic nature of state-subsidized music (and therefore, the state itself).  We hear how the messages of social change (sometimes incarnated in the bands themselves, such as the interracial Southern blues-rock group “Mother’s Finest”) resonated deeply with the East Berliners.  Finally, we get the perspective of Western musicians who were able to tour behind the Iron Curtain, including one funny incident involving Mother’s Finest and a policeman fan.  When you think that the film can’t take its argument any further, there’s an anecdote involving Leslie Mandoki, a Hungarian music producer, and Mikhail Gorbachev that lays a triumphant capstone on the wall of evidence that had been previously prevented.

The film is well-produced and chock full of all sorts of modern videography flourishes:  split-screen, shallow focus, re-enactment B-roll footage, and the like.  The split-screen can get a little distracting and displays varying degrees of polish throughout the film’s run-time, but thankfully there’s always a steady shot of the interviewees.  Even when the subject shifts to the depressing conditions of Soviet life, the talking heads keep the tone light-hearted, so the climax of the film, chronicling the fall of the wall, isn’t quite the catharsis it could be, but it’s still poignant if not powerful.  The soundtrack features a nice mix of classic and retro rock that thankfully doesn’t distract from the information being presented.

Rockin' it.

Rockin’ the Wall is not partisan in any way. No mention is made of Democrats or Republicans.  The only dichotomy at play is Freedom and Communism.  Ronald Reagan’s “Tear down this wall” quote gets its due, but the most rousing line comes from the Democrat John F. Kennedy:  ”Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in.”  If anyone finds the film hyper-partisan, simple-minded, jingoistic– any of the typical leftist canards– that person will never understand the difference between freedom and tyranny or why it’s important to know it.  How anyone can carry water for an ideology that, without exception, has led ruthless violence, and draconian control over the minutiae of personal lives is totally beyond me.

It’s ironic how some Westerners labeled rock and roll as degeneracy when it became, in essence, a liberating force for the Soviet world.  It’s a reminder that art and society can interact in extremely unexpected ways.  Whether it’s Chinese musicians risking muggings from the police to play Handel’s Messiah as defiant public worship; whether it’s North Korean peasants discovering that their government’s propaganda is false through old VHS copies of 1980s American soaps; or whether it’s a young man who finds out that Stasi have been in his apartment because his Yes record is scratched; there’s a very clear reason why those who seek to restrict liberty also seek to restrict art.  And as of right now, there’s no reminder of that truth that’s quite as informative and entertaining as Rockin’ the Wall.

Hmmm …

As Hamlet says, mortality “must give us pause”.

Therefore, “Hmmmm ….. “

On what must be my tenth viewing of that American masterpiece, I realized how tragically prophetic it has proven to be.

What inspired Elia Kazan  and Budd Schulberg to collaborate in recording what is still The Great American Tragedy?

On The Waterfront is clearly a heroic drama, not a tragedy, with a thrillingly courageous victory for its hero in the end.

What makes it a possible tragedy now?

The testimony Kazan gave to the House Un-American Activities Committee, naming members of the American Communist Party with which he had participated in meetings, not only branded him as a “stool pigeon”, stigmatized him like Brando’s Terry Malloy in On The Waterfront, but, in addition, has grown over the years to carry a tragic foresight within it.

Many distinguished theater critics hold to the elitist’s definition of tragedy, that the word cannot be applied to any figure that has not attained the highest levels of cultivation, those most often symbolized by titles such as King or Emperor … or President of the United States.

In that context, On The Waterfront does not qualify.

However, the basics of the plot for On The Waterfront have now been shifted to the White House.

Our President, as has been said about other would-be Presidents such as Dan Quayle, “is no John F. Kennedy!” Nor even Marlon Brando for that matter, despite our President’s admiration for Don Corleone of The Godfather.

Today, Johnny Friendly is in the White House, he has a Harvard education and can meet regularly with the exact breed of Union leaders whom you find in that disgusting little hut on New York’s waterfront.

The polished manners of the Ivy League do not conceal the bullying obsessions of Chicago mob rule any more than the Dartmouth degree softened the New York Italian ruthlessness of Al Pacino’s Michael Corleone.

This, the Great American Tragedy of Communism’s homicidal insistence upon invading America as a “Progressive Movement” – the assassination of the very Catholic President John F. Kenney being one of its most disgracefully high points – will, I have massive faith, eventually turn out to be just another triumph of America over the mortal enemies of her infinitely and universally resonant Declaration of Independence.

Here, while basking in the  relevance of On The Waterfront, I suddenly see the cosa nostra metaphor, the Brechtian fascination with Chicago mobs, the Obama administration’s Red-packed Czardom and Mao Zedong himself as the Godfather of all Godfathers … this mounting tower of Progressive Babel, making absolutely no sense whatsoever unless you have a ruthless mob willing to enforce it.

Our Second Amendment?!

If we don’t have weapons in our hands, the enlightened despots still know that we’re packing heat.

Most important is our American knowledge of the truth and the power of love.

With our government now run by no more than an Ivy-league educated, gangster’s mob, I recall Terry Malloy’s reluctant acceptance of a pistol from his doomed lawyer brother who insists – following one of screen history’s greatest moments of acting, Rod Steiger’s resigned and tragic sigh, the beginning of his surrender to the inevitability of his own death – “You’re gonna need it!”

Here is where, even before Karl Malden’s firey priest makes his re-entrance, God begins to arrive.

Then, of course, the hair-raising race down the darkened alley when Terry Malloy and Edie Doyle first barely escape being run down by Johnny Friendly’s hit team truck, then see the hanging, dead body of Rod Steiger.

Brando’s childlike plea to Eva Marie Saint to take care of his brother’s now fallen body, that gun in his possession, ready to do business.

Terry goes to Friendly’s bar to reek revenge upon his brother’s killers. With his hand still bleeding from the near-death escape with Edie, Terry hunches on the bar, gun in hand, to await the arrival of Johnny Friendly.

Who shows up?

A priest … a Catholic priest.

God again!!

This is where I will interject my own personal interpretation of Marlon Brando’s seemingly conflicted, two lives: the one as romantic, super-star, acting genius … and then the gradual but metaphysically sudden explosion into a kind of fatter than fat Buddha.

There’s no God in Buddha, only Enlightenment.

Something larger than ourselves is glimpsed by all religions and I have no doubt that Mr. Brando, after sifting through the full implications of On The Waterfront and the size of Kazan’s gift to American freedom by testifying before the HUAC, reached for Buddha to save himself from Karl Marx.

Apropos of the survival instinct Brando found necessary for his soul, George Will at the CPAC conference gave, what I consider, the undeniably best speech of a highly competitive list of speakers. In it he inspired the audience, after regaling them with the absolute insanity of the Progressive hara-kiri being sold America by the Obama administration, and reminded us that America has faced at least as bad a suicidal ideology as Obamanomics, if not worse. Try a Civil War and two World conflagrations out of which America rose as the human race’s hero of nations.

Or, as Brando himself has remarked, “if it doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger.”

I, of course, attribute that to Divine Intervention.

Yes, God.

Apparently Elia Kazan, even though he had hobnobbed with the atheistic likes of the Group Theater, clearly found God to give him not only the courage to testify against Communism but to create in gratitude one of the greatest American films, On The Waterfront.

The only thing I share with Marlon Brando, aside from friendships with both Stella Adler and Harold Clurman, is an alcoholic mother.

As that great actor has indicated more than once, a mother like that can keep you always on your toes.

It is with such alertness that I can show you how Marlon Brando’s entire career and Elia Kazan’s On The Waterfront can lead you up a Marxist gangster’s totem pole to the Godfather of all Godfathers, Mao Zedong.

That Godfather is even colder, more cunning and more ruthless than Al Pacino’s title role in The Devil’s Advocate. Yes, Mao Zedong is the Godfather of all Satanists.

[This dispatch was written by me in December 2008 in southern Afghanistan. It was never published though I recently found it in the unpublished archives. The photos came from the same period.]

Published: from Nepal on 14 October 2009

On May 25, 1961, the President of the United States of America said:

“Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides—time for a great new American enterprise—time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.”

And thanks to bold and visionary leadership, the collective intelligence, courage and commitment of Americans from coast to coast, America had seemed to achieve little more than a stunning list of public failures on the way to space. Our rockets exploded on the launch pad. In the air. Burned up on reentry. Or disappeared into solar orbit. But our grandparents never allowed us to be defined by our faults or failures; only how we greeted adversity. Failure after failure after failure. We got up and launched again, into failure. Fine astronauts were lost. And yet today, in 2008, after a dozen Americans have walked on the moon, citizens from no other nation have managed to land on the lunar surface. What inspiration kept the people at NASA going, when their early years were marked seemingly only by failure? The scientists, engineers and space pilots were living the American dream, not a dream of mere perfection, but of valiant and worthwhile effort. President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1910:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

And so I write these words from Afghanistan, as a grandchild of many great men and women who built “America” and bequeathed it to us. The challenges facing us in Afghanistan, and this region in general, are monumental. We have been failing in Afghanistan. We have been losing the war. But losing does not mean lost. Failing does not mean failed. Yet if we are to succeed in this endeavor, we must be realistic that putting people on the moon was more straightforward than lifting Afghanistan from the stone ages.

“Taming” this land and its human inhabitants into a civilized country will require great investments in time, resources, imagination and intelligence. Bringing Afghanistan out of the Stone Age is not a decade-long project; we are already seven years into the war, and it’s only getting worse. Some people say it will take two generations, but more realistically, a century will be needed. Afghanistan is not Iraq. This is a very primitive, almost lunar place. Yes, cocktail party correspondents can surf their way through meetings in Jalalabad, or Kabul, or Mazar-i-Sharif, and come home with reports of success. But they are wrong. And the counterinsurgency “experts” who come here on short trips, and fly home to America or Britain with poison dripping from their lips, spitting words that we are winning, are doing Great Britain, the United States, and our allies a great disservice. Those who came to Afghanistan with open eyes and open minds, and who are not afraid to jeopardize access or careers by reporting truth, will have clearly reported by early 2006 that we were losing ground here. Who are these “experts” who didn’t see this thing for what it was, early on? And now even in 2008, some people bring home messages that this place is not as bad as it really is. Yes, it’s true that we lost but one U.S. soldier to combat in Afghanistan in November of 2008, but we should not let this number confuse us. The Af-Pak war has great potential to devolve into something far worse than what we saw in Iraq. The “experts” who did not sound the alarm by at least 2006, that Afghanistan by then clearly was slipping through our fingers, are no more useful than a fire alarm with dead batteries. A fire alarm with dead batteries is far worse than merely useless. Let the counterinsurgency “experts” step forward, and show us that they put to writing several years ago what is today obvious. We need to know who to listen to, and who to ignore.

We can succeed in Afghanistan, but we cannot pretend this will ever be the Sea of Tranquility.

Our new President will need to demonstrate wisdom and resolve in dealing with Af-Pak. The peril might not yet be obvious, but the consequences are far too grave to ignore. Enemies of humanity are trying to pull India and Pakistan into war. Ignorance is their primary weapon, and Afghanistan is merely one battlefront. Most of these kids will remain illiterate, and the children of their children likely will not be able to read. Even if they were literate, there are few books available in languages such as Dari or Pashto. This kid in Zabul Province is already lost. Afghanistan will be doing well to get his sons and daughters into a school, but more realistically it will be his grandchildren that might first be reached. We must be realistic. America did not succeed in putting people on the moon by hiring mathematicians who could not expertly use the slide rule or correctly perform the math. America succeeded in part by hiring the best mathematicians, along with the best scientists and engineers of all sorts, who possessed powerful intellects, realistic imaginations, and a volatile intolerance for anything less than pure truth. They didn’t drink anyone’s Kool-Aid.

And so President Kennedy said, “First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.” And they kept pushing through a painful series of dramatic failures, until, within that same decade, in 1969, the first words spoken from a man on the moon came beamed home to earth:

“Tranquility base here, the Eagle has landed.”

And soon astronaut Neil Armstrong was stepping off the ladder, and he said, “That’s one small step for a man. One giant leap for mankind.”

Hard never meant impossible.

The war is intensifying month by month while support for this mission plummets. Your help is crucial to my staying in the war. 2010 will almost certainly prove to be the bloodiest even as coverage dries up. More troops are coming in. The fighting for those who are here is already as tough as any seen in Iraq. Do you trust the Government to tell the truth? Please donate today.

Here’s an excerpt:

Chapter Three

ACTORS TO ACTIVISTS

Sometimes activists happen to become actors and musicians. It happens more than we might think. And why not? It takes a natural drive and outspoken ambition to claw into stardom. So it makes sense that many famous names and faces have something to say – and it’s not off a script. 

Robin Bronk heads The Creative Coalition, the leading political advocacy group for show business. Bronk says nowadays “celebrities need an agent, a manager, a publicist and an issue.” Saving the spotted owl or protesting against landmines isn’t necessarily good for an acting career, but it shows how the power of celebrity can be used to change minds. “There’s no need to check your citizenship at the stage door,” says Bronk.  All of this idealism can come off as goofy to a Washington desk-jockey. But it is wise not to brush it off; celebrities at the top of their game can successfully push an agenda straight through the stuffiest bureaucracy. 

Senate Dining Room, Washington, D.C., 1970’s Actor Marlon Brando dines with Senator Charles Percy (R-IL).  Brando wrote in Songs my Mother Taught Me, “Simply because you’re a movie star, people empower you with special rights and privileges.”  Brando grew to understand those privileges using his influence to stump for civil rights, better treatment for Native Americans and fair housing. (Photo courtesy U.S. Senate Historical Office)

Political media sage and songwriter Mark McKinnon notes, “musicians especially almost always represent the anti-establishment, the voice without power.” Think of activist musicians like Bob Dylan, Bono and Peter, Paul and Mary.  McKinnon continues, “part of the Hollywood-Washington relationship is finding the art of the possible.” 

The result of all this goodwill and ambition can lead to some offbeat alliances — exotic film actress Angelina Jolie plots refugee camp security with Sen. Richard Lugar, trailblazing baseball player Jackie Robinson turns up the heat on President Eisenhower for civil rights and rock star Bono and President George W. Bush buddy up over AIDS policies. 

Grand Foyer, The White House, October 1985 Pres. Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan pose with action star Sylvester Stallone and his wife actress Brigitte Nielsen during a State Dinner for Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.  What better way to impress a head of state – invite Rambo to dinner. (Photo Courtesy Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.)

There is plenty historic evidence that Hollywood is a powerful mouthpiece for political candidates or issues. In World War II, Rita Hayworth, Bing Crosby, and Fred Astaire asked Americans to buy War Bonds to support U.S. forces. Hollywood played a prominent role in the civil rights movement as stars such as Marlon Brando, Paul Newman and Sammy Davis Jr. led marches on Washington in the 1960’s. Dan Glickman sees Hollywood from both the political side and within the film industry as the president and chief executive officer of the Motion Picture Association of America. “When a celebrity shows up at your hearing on Capitol Hill,” he notes, “you are guaranteed to have a full room of reporters, staff members – and it usually means more congressmen show up too.” Whatever the result, it is always great theater when actors turn into activists.

This week the Arizona state legislature answered that question with a resounding, “yes!” The state legislature cleared the way to place the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative or ACRI, on the Ballot in 2010. ACRI is a constitutional amendment that would prevent the state from discriminating on the basis or race or sex in the areas of public employment, contracting or education.

The action taken by the State legislature now makes it possible for the people of Arizona to actually decide if their state (and ultimately our nation) agrees with the sentiments of former President Kennedy.

That is not to say the opposition rolled over. No longer able to gum the petition process; they resorted to stalling tactics and back biting.

Hispanic legislators claimed that Rep Steve Montenegro, who sponsored the measure in the assembly, was not truly Hispanic because he is Puerto Rican and not Mexican. No doubt this must come as a shock to the Obama Administration. Judge Sonia “wise Latina” Sotomayor is being hailed as potentially the first Hispanic to sit on the United States Supreme Court. Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. The good news is that thanks tot his revelation Senate Republicans are now free to oppose Sotomayor. Because she is Puerto Rican and not Mexican, Republicans need no longer fear losing the Hispanic vote.

More fascinating were the words of State Representative Cloves Campbell. During testimony before a legislative committee Campbell insisted that special preferences [based on race] would be necessary for years to come. When asked exactly how many years he responded, “400 years!” Thus Campbell provided credence to the growing sense that he took the small bus to school and also that a good many supporters of racial preferences are more interested in exacting payback then they are in actually realizing equity.

The Rationale of Campbell and others that favor preferences is that they are needed to ensure diversity. Racism in America is systemic so if left to its own devices the system will naturally deny Black people (and other minorities) access. As proof they offer what is known as disparate representation or disparate impact. In other words the fact that a particular minority group is not statistically represented in any endeavor or policy at the same percentage they are of the population is proof of discrimination and it is therefore necessary to cook the books as it were.

The problem, of course is that people are not statistics they are individuals and ought to be judged as such against the same criteria. The very idea of disparate group representation as a rationale for race preferences turns that proposition on its head as it also does the idea of equality before the law and equality of opportunity. It is as if in answer to Kennedy’s question supporters of preferences have said, “Not so fast.”

They must be made to explain how this nation will ever move beyond its ugly history of racial discrimination if we not only allow but encourage government to discriminate based on race. They must tell us if they believe “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” Finally they must explain to the citizens of Arizona (and the larger American citizenry)– what could be more important than having a state constitution unequivocally affirm that it must treat all of its citizens equally and without regard to race?

In 1963 Kennedy asked the country to make a moral decision. In the age of Obama those that continue to support racial preferences must do likewise. They must ground their opposition not in legalese or political correctness but in the terra firma of moral correctness. They must follow the lead of the Arizona legislature and examine their consciences and then take the fist steps toward a truly post racial society.

In the early 1980s, my military service brought me to some of the darker corners of the world. I spent time in South Korea and Marcos’ Philippines when both countries were under martial law. Knowing I could be shot just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time really woke me up to what exactly it is we have here in America. Seeing a thousand Vietnamese Boat People pulled out of the South China Sea in one day only reinforced my belief in America, Sweet Land of Liberty.

Today, the Party of Lincoln and Reagan appears to be in political disarray, which is why I am writing this OpEd now. Yet many promising developments, along with some huge mistakes by Congress and the Obama Administration, have opened many new doors for us. If only we will enter.

I know not all conservatives and Republicans will agree with my recommendations. But perhaps by throwing this all out there, you will realize as I do that a major debate on the direction of the party, in this exciting and danger-fraught age of the New Millennium, is not only necessary but vital if we are to survive as a viable political entity in America. So, On With The Show.

LOVE OF AMERICA: I don’t know about you, but I was totally disgusted with President Obama’s shameless Apology Tour around the world. Apologize to Europeans, on whom we’ve spent untold oceans of blood and treasure to rescue and defend over a century? Apologize to banana republic dictators like Chavez and Ortega in Latin America? To allow them  to slander us as Imperialists, even as they oppress their own peoples? How am I supposed to feel proud as an American now?

Spike Spencer’s OpEd “When In Rome, Fight Anti-Americanism” really sums it up for me. We Republicans and conservatives need to be a lot more vocal on what we and America really stand for and represent, i.e. the “Shining City on a Hill,” as Reagan so eloquently put it. We are not the Great Satan. Not by a damn sight! Liberals may be content to prostrate themselves contritely before dictators. I am not, as I am sure many of you aren’t. I certainly know now Spike Spencer isn’t.

We need more Spikes! And we need to be a lot more specific and vocal on exactly why it is we all love America. Those words and specificity will stand in stark contrast to the relentless America-bashing by liberal Democrats and the Left. Don’t just tell people we love America. Tell them why.

There really is no shortage of reasons. The Marshall Plan ring any bells? Indonesian Tsunami aid, which our Marines even disarmed themselves to deliver, going above and beyond the call? And forget the Left and the Obamamedia. Most Americans really do eat that stuff up. It’s called pride, love of America and self-respect, character traits that are as foreign to Lefties as clean underwear.

–

BIG GOVERNMENT: James Madison famously stated “if men were angels, government would not be necessary.” Conversely, if governments were angels, detractors like us would not be necessary. But big government is far from angelic. In fact, it is outright demonic in many ways, trampling the rights of citizens over the most trivial and insignificant of matters. The larger government grows, the smaller we become, and the more government becomes our master instead of our servant.

We need to promote the outright slashing of the black hole money pit that our government has become, as well as its wholesale reduction. It is also a major sore spot with many Americans when Democrats like John Murtha get massive funding for airports in the middle of nowhere that just happen to bear his name. We need to root out all those pork projects, put them on full public display, and slam the President and the Congress without mercy or relent on them

Make them campaign issues. Voters are not partial to politicians who glut themselves at the trough of our tax dollars in order to aggrandize themselves. We need to hammer Democrats on this issue without quarter, as they slam us on so many issues. The recent Tea Parties were a very good start, but that shotgunning approach now needs to be focused on specific targets.

It seems a very good time to me to resurrect Sen. William Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Award in full measure. Don’t just tell the public the Democrats are wasting public tax dollars. Slow them where. Sen. Proxmire’s own prime example of the Department of Education spending $219,592 in a “curriculum package” to teach college students how to watch television is a real model of what to do.

Let’s use those examples as needles with which we can pin liberal Democrat butterflies under the political glass for all to see. Like the deserted and overfunded John Murtha Airport, they won’t be very hard to find. The real difficulty will be deciding on which outrageous pork projects to choose!

–

FOREIGN POLICY: I am a total Reaganite in this regard. Yet it is Democrat John F. Kennedy who summed up my feelings best on this subject in his Inaugural Address:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

President Obama’s may as well have read like this:

“Let every nation know that we are sorry, and do not wish them ill, no matter how much ill they wish on us. We will pay any price in pride and self-respect, bear any insult, befriend any mortal foe, in order to assure my reputation as a nice guy. I’m not like the other one. And thank you for not blaming me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

The current Obama Administration is dropping the ball everywhere on this, particularly Sudan. Not only is George Clooney unhappy with the present inaction by the government, Mia Farrow is now on a 21-day hunger strike over the situation in Sudan. Even rank liberals have expressed a desire to use whatever means necessary to stop the Sudanese genocide in Darfur, including military action.

I say we oblige them. Omar Bashir is now an international fugitive, and is still committing his genocide unabated and with impunity. We should demand the Sudanese government turn Bashir over to the ICC and stop their genocide or face all-out war. And if we must go it alone, or in tandem with other willing nations, it wouldn’t be the first time. There is right and there is wrong.

Which would be worse in the end? Wiping out Sudan’s genocidal regime and military infrastructure? Or standing by while yet another quarter-million Darfurians are exterminated? Some things are far worse than war. Like Auschwitz, for example. And Darfur.

Iran also needs a spanking over Roxana Saberi. If I were president now, I would give Iran’s thugocracy 72 hours to turn over Roxana, or we cut off their gasoline. See how fast they act when they’re looking at more gas rioting. And if that don’t work, warm up the B-52s and start wiping out their terrorist training camps and nuclear facilities, for starters.

Here’s how a REAL American president should speak and act with regard to the safety of American citizens abroad. Not that you’ll ever hear it from Carter II. Speaking of which. Hollywood Diplomacy isn’t working. Never has. And even liberals at HuffPo are now wondering why President Obama isn’t protecting American citizens abroad. How bad is that?

Neither should we. If dictatorships want to play, let them know that they’ll pay. That won’t happen with this government, of course. But it doesn’t mean we can’t express our vehement opinions on the subject, in stark contrast to the president’s. As I’m doing here. And have been.

We must also continue to win allies and new friends around the world with our generous aid, friendship and even protection. Though the press didn’t cover it much, President Bush was welcomed as a hero in Eastern Europe and Africa. Conversely, Poland, once very happy with Bush, is not in the least with the reneging Obama.

A strong Republican president can make an impact where it really counts. We can do nothing about those nations and people that despise us, even in our own country, except to point out how wrong they are. Repeatedly. And with the force of our convictions, and the overwhelming evidence of American generosity, good will and even heroism that cannot be denied.

–

GAY RIGHTS: The Democrats are absolutely murdering Republicans on gay rights. The GOP’s vehement opposition to the recent Matthew Shepherd Bill, supported far and wide by LGBTs and even law enforcement, was a fatal mistake, and only served to alienate the millions of LGBTs in America even further from the GOP, and drive them all straight into liberal Democrats’ arms yet once again. It was a huge symbolic victory for liberal Democrats, and a terrible political defeat for us.

I know many conservatives and Republicans find homosexuality distasteful, gay marriage even more so. Yet they’re here, they’re queer, and they ain’t goin’ nowhere. And they are an incredibly rich, powerful and numerous political force in America, with the power to propel candidates into office or sink them for good. I’d sure like a real shot at winning races in San Francisco! Don’t you? Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who share our core values there, even gays. But they will never vote R as things stand today vis-a-vis gay rights in the GOP. Let’s give them reasons to cast those R votes.

Republicans need to wake up to the realities of gay life in America. Gay marriage is fast becoming a reality, as it may soon may be in my home state of New Hampshire, and will no doubt be a nationwide reality in the next decade. That’s a fact. On gay rights, we conservatives and Republicans are the political mammoths of the modern age. If the caveman liberal Democrats are not spearing us and feasting on our flesh, we are sinking into political tar pits of our own making.

We must wake up to the reality that gay Americans are a political force to be reckoned with. We continue to ignore that very basic and profound political reality at our own peril. We could also score major political points with LGBTs in one area the Democrats are hopelessly weak on: the horrific persecution of gays around the world, particularly the de facto gay genocide in Iran.

We should begin targeting and denouncing oppressive regimes like Iran’s, Cuba’s and Venezuela’s that persecute, terrorize and even slaughter gays like cattle, as we rightfully should anyway. It would go a long way in bringing many LGBTs into the Republican fold, given Dems’ silence on the issue.

I would even go so far as to punish the Iraqi government in order for them to stop the officially sanctioned persecution of gays in Iraq, which is now rampant and could not be more horrific. What good is freeing Iraq from Saddam, only to allow the present government to facilitate the Al Qaeda-like systematic extermination of Iraqi LGBTs? Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it?

–

IMMIGRATION: Again, liberal Democrats are beating us over the head with the club of ‘racist’ over the illegal immigration issue. Yet the successful stuffing of the Amnesty bill under Bush, driven by Rush Limbaugh and Herculean grassroots efforts, showed just how strong the undercurrent of opposition to illegal immigration in America really is, even from legal immigrants.

Again, we need not just oppose illegal immigration, but be specific as to why. The purpose of Ellis Island, where millions of legal immigrants were screened for diseases, psychosis and criminal records, has not changed, and should be our model. We welcome legal immigrants from all over with open arms. Always have.

But the protection of public health and safety must be paramount. We must state our case on legal immigration far more forcefully and eloquently than we have to date. I believe millions of Americans, the same who burned up the switchboards in Congress over amnesty, are dying to hear that message. I know I am.

–

THE BORDER: We need to lock the border up as tight as possible without totally restricting the free flow of trade. The Mexican cartels are to blame for Mexican drug violence that is raging out of control, not us, as SOS Clinton would have us believe. It is not Americans slaughtering cops, beheading rivals in Tijuana, or that have made Phoenix the kidnapping capital of the USA. It is the cartels. Those same cartels are using our border as the Viet Cong once used Cambodia’s.

And all that doesn’t even take into account Al Qaeda’s and Hezbollah’s attempts, some successful, in infiltrating our country. We are a nation at war. To continue to leave the Trojan Horse of our open border to stand will get a lot of innocent Americans dead in the end.

–

THE DRUG WAR: I’ve thought of a solution to the drug problem that may not go over very well with Republicans, and may even be more Libertarian in its approach. I say we legalize marijuana like alcohol, tax the shite out of it, and use that money to fight the real hard drug evils, of which cocaine and heroin are the most devastating. Come on! How many regular pot smokers do you folks in Hollywood know? I know dozens! Yet they are all normal and productive citizens who like lighting up after work, as many people like hitting the bars for a drink. Yet another reality we have to face.

What would be better? Continuing to waste billions in resources on stopping pot, which just ain’t gonna happen? Continuing to prosecute offenders and waste court resources on a relatively mild and very popular recreational drug? Or turning the situation around in our favor, as I have recommended? A bold statement, agreed. I seem to be making a career of them these days.

–

CLIMATE CHANGE: The American people are about to be slaughtered with draconian taxes and regulations on Global Warming bills, including Obama’s cap-and-tax scheme that may raise our electric bills by 50%. I already wrote a scathing Big Hollywood OpEd on this discredited Ponzi scheme-like fraud, that may just destroy the economy and our way of life if implemented.

We need to be as forceful with Congress on this issue as we were on amnesty. Bush, McCain and Congress were all for amnesty at that time, but they all knew where their bread was buttered, too. We need to remind them of that fact vis-a-vis The Great Global Warming Swindle.

31,000 scientists signed a petition declaring GW a scientific fraud. But that is not enough. We Republicans, as Reagan did, love the outdoors, and believe in sensible conservation. We much show our Sierra Club side. And speaking of clubs, whenever Lefties and GW Moonies slam us as tools of Big Oil, ask them how Al Gore’s net worth soared from $2M in 2000 to $100M today. Even Big Oil ain’t handing out that kind of money. A most Inconvenient Truth.

–

ABORTION: This is a subject that is very tormenting to me. I despise the mass disposal of human life it represents, yet the issue has touched on me personally as well. Until and unless Roe v. Wade is overturned (and let’s face it, that ain’t happening), we must also accept the reality of abortion in America as a legal right for women. Based on my own troubling experience with this issue, I do not believe sending women back to the days of back alleys and coat hangers is the way to go.

Yet I am also vehemently opposed to such barbaric and Dr. Mengele-like practices as partial birth abortion, or how much organizations like Planned Parenthood have made a cozy, profitable and blatantly corrupt industry out of infanticide on our tax dollars, and with full liberal Democrat support.

Some incredibly cold and inhuman practices by Planned Parenthood have even earned the term ‘black genocide’ by African-American activists. MLK’s niece, Dr. Alveda King, called the sweeping promotion of black abortions Planned Parenthood’s ‘racist agenda’.

A realistic and reasonable approach to yet another established reality in 21st Century America would go a long way in winning many hearts and minds. Conceding the issue of legalized abortion (as we should anyway, it’s been law for 34 years), along with other hot-button issues I have addressed here, could go a long way in winning the GOP many new gay, black and women voters, who may oppose Democrat policies but remain in the party for reasons given. Let’s give them an out.

In addition, by exposing the corruption rampant in the abortion industry in America today, especially regarding the Nazi-like Planned Parenthood practice of mass-marketing the abortion of black babies, we might even win over MLK’s niece. How phenomenal a political victory would THAT be?

IN SUMMARY

Many of you staunch conservatives, Republicans and devout Christians may consider some of my positions blasphemy, far left even. But if you look closely, they are the ultimate in Reaganite political pragmatism. You are all welcome to cling to the rigid and inflexible ideologies of the past. I would much rather accept 21st Century realities, and make some important political compromises and concessions in order to see some semblance of a Reaganite GOP survive, than to stand by and watch liberal left-wing Democrats turn America into a total one-party state. Is that what you want?

I believe my positions on immigration, foreign policy, love of America, reduced government, the border, the fraud of climate change and even the drug war are right in line with what President Reagan’s would have been, and are all hugely popular with millions of Americans. As to gay rights, abortion and the legalization of marijuana, I am merely facing the realities of the America we live in today. Those realities cannot be denied, any more than the brutal realities of today’s Islamist Iran can be denied by liberal Democrats.

Some adjustments on those latter issues must be made for the times, or we risk losing any future control over the former for all time, in Quixotic battles with windmills that will eventually rend us asunder politically. On the issue of abortion, a great deal of reform can be pursued in purist fashion that may even win us throngs of new female and black voters, if they see that our concerns on partial birth abortion and Planned Parenthood’s targeting of the black community for boffo business are genuine and real, and not just political camouflage to undermine freedom of choice.

Gay rights are now a 21st Century reality that should be accepted in full by both parties, as many issues like civil rights are now. To remain at odds with the tremendously powerful and hugely influential American gay community is to be like the hardline segregationists of old, who alienated every black American. It can only result in even more truckloads of votes and cash being queued at the DNC loading dock. Votes and cash we can ill afford to forego. I don’t want that. Do you?

I myself have built many new friendships and bridges to the gay community, both within and without America, in my relentless reporting and dissemination of investigative journalism on the Gay Holocaust in Iran. It is in fact that horrorshow, that Auschwitz for gays in Iran, that has caused me to re-evaluate my own perception of gays everywhere.

My heart breaks to think of how much innocent gays are suffering around the world, and it has stirred a compassion in me that just wasn’t there before. And it pains me to think that GOP representatives in Congress, in their heated opposition to what is in effect a symbolic bill named after Matthew Shepherd, one of America’s most well-known victims of real homophobia, may have burned some of those bridges and friendships for good by the anger and mistrust that kind of opposition inspires. How does that help us in rebuilding the party? Or attracting new voters and supporters?

Sorry. I’m with George Takei on this one.

Supporting gay rights in full measure is the right thing to do. And we have an opportunity here, by attacking the worldwide persecution of gays (which we should do anyway, just on basic human rights principles), to actually become their foot soldiers and heroes, something liberal Democrats are basically MIA on. They’re too busy trying to make friends with the gay butchers of Iran. Just like Chamberlain with Hitler. How many new gay votes do you think THAT would win us?

We can either accept new realities while sticking with the truly core issues that make us who we are, or we can sacrifice their future on the altar of rigid ideological purity. What’ll it be, boys? Yes or no? Many more issues, granted. I just wanted to get the debate rolling. But consider this also. If we make important political compromises as I’ve recommended, think of how many weapons we remove from the leftie liberal Democrat arsenal. They would then be forced to debate us toe-to-toe on all the other major issues outside gay rights and abortion. Those are battles they can never win.

Also let it be know far and wide, in Reagan-like “Let Poland Be Poland” fashion (which the Left also hated, but at least they’re consistent in betraying Poland), that I believe that we should let Fat People Be Fat, Gas Guzzlers Be Gas Guzzlers, Energy Burners Be Energy Burners (like Big Al), Gun Owners be Gun Owners, Hunters Be Hunters, Christians be Christians, Atheists Be Atheists, Straights Be Straights, Gays Be Gays, Tea Partiers Be Tea Partiers (of either party), Franken Be Franken, Moore Be Moore, Rush Be Rush, Beck Be Beck, O’Reilly Be A Factor, Stewart Be Daily, Government Be Small, Immigration Be Legal, and Smokers Be Smokers.

Unlike some people. I also believe we should let mass-murdering dictators like Omar Bashir, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il also Be Smokers. ’nuff said. Discuss Amongst Yourselves. And remember, elections are only eighteen months away. Get busy, people!

See you in the next DHS report!

Oh, and did I forget? Let Specter Be Democrat. Was, anyway. And since LibDems have super-majorities now, it seems a great time for the GOP to clean house of all the RINOs that are a left-wing liberal cancer in our party, like Specter was. I won’t go so far as to write a DHS report on them, but we need to show them the door. If they want to be asses, they can do it on Dean’s dime, not ours. We will never get to where we need to go as a party as long as they’re subverting us from within.

To paraphrase President Bush, you are either with us, or you are with the Democrats. Make your choice, Senator McCain. You are free to leave too, if you like. You can either wise up, or push your amnesty bill from the other side of the aisle. We could sure use a hell of a lot fewer John McCains and Arlen Specters, and a hell of a lot more Jim DeMints. Fortunately, McCain may be following Specter shortly, anyway. And for the same reason. Hope Springs Eternal.

Amen, and God Bless America and Ronald Reagan

MAJOR UPDATE: Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring. Obama has a vacancy on SCOTUS now. If Republicans oppose an Obama nominee based on gay rights advocacy or non-extremist pro-choice positions, you can stick a fork in the GOP. And call me an Independent.

I’d rather climb off the mammoth while I can, as opposed to sinking into the tar with it.

The handsome man instinctively brushed aside the hair barely hanging down on his forehead as he pressed on towards the residence portion of the house.

“Ah… I am here to see Obama” he told the secret service guard inside the residence. The guard did not react at all.  John Fitzgerald Kennedy knew right off that his presence would be seen only by his intended audience and the guard saw nothing. “Fix your tie pal.” Kennedy joked as he walked passed the oblivious sentry.

“You must be President Kennedy”, Obama sheepishly asked the figure now standing above him as he lay in bed.  ”These visits are getting quite regular, are you the last?” 

“Well, Teddy Roosevelt wants to come and see you, but ahh… we talked him out of it… well okay we restrained him.  Well,  I wouldn’t worry too much about that… for now.

Obama turned and looked towards his wife.

“Don’t worry Mr. President, your wife will hear and see nothing… time is standing still.” Kennedy mentioned, as he pointed to then tapped his watch.

Obama moved to get up, and President Kennedy interrupted; “Please don’t get up on my part, what I have to tell you won’t take too long, and you will be needing your rest for the coming months and years my friend.”

“Well, here it is Barack;

 I’m all for social programs that really work, and I know you need money to pay for them, but when you create bureaucracy that can only barely pay for its own fat self with those hard earned tax dollars, burdening the government itself and of course the poor taxpaying citizen, well son, then you are on the road to socialism.

You are creating agencies and bureaus that exist to feed themselves, and how the hell is that going to help a nation that is in deep debt? The state is not always the answer Obama, American know-how, and the unfettered creativity that powers it almost usually is. Yes, tighten the belt on business cheaters and scammers, but don’t choke off the growers and the doers. It’s real simple Barack, if you turn each and every time to bureaucracy, well, let’s just say you’ll be turning our country in the wrong direction.

We aren’t Europe. We aren’t communists. We aren’t socialists. And we sure as hell aren’t in the business of making the latter two of those particular groups stronger.

For you to raise a communist island that enslaves it’s people up to equal our democracy with so called talks is just nuts son. They are rotting away faster than their ‘57 Chevrolets and you want to bring them into a dialogue? You notice how Fidel’s brother said that the prerequisite is that you talk as equals? This guy is now gonna dictate the talks? Instead of trying to ‘understand’ what every other country is about, I suggest you study and understand what we are all about. Not every one on this earth is worth being friends with.

“Mr. Kennedy, you are a Democrat!” Barack exclaimed incredulously.

“Don’t give me that crap Barack. Your party does not even resemble the Democratic party of my day. You’re acting like a teenager that thinks he knows everything there is to know, and all that came before him was so ‘uncool’. Come on, the only ones you won’t talk to are the people in your own country who are hopping mad at you and your policies. For instance, you can ignore that Tea Party all you want, but it sure is a group I’d be talking to, before the seeds they are sowing start taking root. Those are Americans for God’s sake, and you got that Pelosi out there belittling them. That is just silly. I don’t hear her even saying one cross word to the despots and dictators you both are facing.

“President Kennedy, I ‘ve gotta say, on that note sir, you once said: ‘Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.’

“Yes I did Barack, but there must be some kind of a goal there. Cuba? Iran? Chavez?  Unless you are now in the business of helping communists and terrorists, what are we as a democracy to gain from them?  And I think you really need to think about the first part of that quote and search your soul Obama.  You might think you are making it easier to be liked, but what you might just be doing is making it easier for us to be beat. Obama, understanding who your real enemies are is much more important than being nice to everyone. And for goodness sake, start using the word terrorist again. 

Listen, I’ve got to go, but let me leave you with another one of my quotes; ‘The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.’ 

Well, I wish you luck son, .. oh and I’ll try to dissuade Teddy Roosevelt from charging on in here” 

With that he smiled that million dollar smile, turned, and disappeared into the golden light beaming through the bedroom window.

–

If present-day Hollywood had their way here are five things you’d never know…

1. That JFK had way more in common with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush than most of today’s Democrats: By modern standards, Kennedy was a fairly conservative Republican; forward-leaning on national defense and a tax cutter who may not have called it trickle-down but to improve the economy and grow the treasury he cut taxes across the board (yes, including the evil rich). Kennedy’s “tax cuts for the wealthy” not only worked but would become the starter blueprint for both the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts.  

–

From the Jaws of Victory…

2. That Richard Nixon won the peace in Vietnam: It took longer than anyone would’ve liked, but Nixon and Kissinger did stop the war in Vietnam and protect the South’s sovereignty with the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Our combat troops came home and our Vietnamese allies were able to safeguard themselves with only a billion-plus dollars in annual American aid.  Congressional Democrats, however, couldn’t stand the thought of America not losing the Vietnam War and gave the North the greenlight to invade with the introduction of a bill that would dramatically cut our support to a sovereign ally we were pledged to protect.  Three domino’s fell — South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos – and a few million people died. But whatever, America was put in her place and Hollywoodists have worked overtime since to lay the blame on those who felt stopping a holocaust (which John Wayne predicted would happen way back in 1968 in “The Green Berets“) was something worth fighting for.

–

3. That the Pope, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher might have had more to do with winning the Cold War than boozy, womanizing Democrats: We’ve had one big-budget mainstream film about the end of the Cold War and Hollywood credits a guy who belonged to the party whose policies mostly sided with the enemy. Pure, unashamed propaganda – but also an admission of how wrong they were. 

–

4. That those who served in Vietnam and Iraq are not psychotics and victims: Because Leftists wholly own our culture and the news media, in order to forever button up their defamatory image of America and those conflicts, heroes cannot be allowed to emerge from either conflict. After all, if the general public were to ever learn that it was good, brave, selfless, and honorable people who served in both wars and were willing to die in order to bring liberty to strangers, all the Left holds dear might disintegrate into a new era of moral clarity. You’ll also discover that the soldiers and Marines portrayed as moral and mentally sound in these films are usually those opposed to the war they’re fighting (translation: want to abandon millions of innocents to slavery, death and torture).

–

Nick Nolte (no relation) “Down and Out in Beverly Hills”

5. That most homeless are in fact not mystics and wise men: On a clear day I can smell Santa Monica from here. Having lived in two metropolitan areas, I’ve seen homeless folks in desperate need of compassion and psychiatric care and others in desperate need of a kick in the ass, but a unique insight….? Uhm, no.

Obsessive, leftist trolls will leap in with one or two exceptions to these examples but don’t let them accomplish Mission Axelrod and wrap you ’round the argument axel. You should also come up with your own list: FDR interred the Japanese? RFK was a ruthless Commie hunter? The Rosenbergs were guilty? Alger Hiss was guilty? You know the drill…