The Politico-inspired loud-mouthing about Herman Cain’s apparent indiscretion – or perhaps his avuncular bonhomie toward a malevolently ambitious female – the accusations hurled at the presidential candidate have backfired!

It highlights the beauty of freedom of speech.

Yes, we in America also have the freedom to lie and to maliciously exaggerate. However, the court of public opinion in American democracy will decide whether or not accusations are justified or merely the product of greedy but increasingly frightened political ambitions.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the first-such target of left-wing, railroading, character-assassinating, Beltway connivances. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

In fact, American freedom of speech may have handed our next President, Herman Cain, the American liberty which Marxist ideologues will forever be choking on. They, the American progressive useful idiots, have patronized their own dwindling constituency, “liberated” them into the Occupy Wall Street self-indulgences, leaving these spoiled, perennial sophomores doing real sexual damage to one another.

It’s Woodstock Redux without the star-studded performances.

The image I see is an orgy of lemmings, willing victims traipsing behind their Pied Piper, President Obama, right off the cliff of common sense. Whether it is economic common sense or sexual common sense, the American left prove themselves the “useful idiots” of a very alive Communist New World Order.

The greatest of useful idiots has been William Clinton. He himself faced the repercussions of his own White House taste of Woodstock
Redux with Monica Lewinsky. No, those two weren’t lying on the grass of a farm in New York, but the attitude that couple had was obviously Woodstock in the White House.

Oh, no question Clinton and his repeatedly embarrassed wife have been heavily paid off by a Democrat Party that gave them the White House for eight years. However, now that a more hard-line Barack Obama has usurped the Democrat Party’s throne, we see what “useful idiots” the Clintons have been all along.

When an African-American Conservative, Herman Cain, is within reach of the White House, the Democrats are forced to reach into the bottom of their barrel for political dirty tricks. The American Democrat Party is, in and of itself, an orgy of lemmings.

How would I know?

I used to be a Democrat–a New York Democrat, of all things. No greater “useful idiot” exists now than Manhattan’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg who continues to allow OWS Lemmings into Zuccotti Park until, of course, his “useful idiocy” becomes self-evident to the entire world.

The informed call it “enabling an addiction.” What is this orgy of lemmings addicted to? Both the economic and sexual delusions which the American left has fed them. The delusions: a bottomless supply of money and bottomless sexual freedom.

Who are most susceptible to believing these fantasies?

The idealistic young, the Woodstock hippies, and the Zuccotti lemmings. American youth are increasingly wed to the growing popularity of anarchy as the political philosophy of a so-called Inevitable Future.

A former friend of mine, one of England’s intellectual elite, claims he is an “Anarchic Syndicalist!” How multi-layered of him! How in touch with the times of both London and New York! Meanwhile, the leaders of World Communism, who are not Anarchic Syndicalists, see the Anarchizing of America as a major first step to communizing the entire human race. A tyrant cannot “clench his fist” nor “put his foot down” in a democracy until a nation is in a state of “anarchy”!

Meanwhile, Cain is here to “bring American home again!” That he is a black American conservative is precisely the heart of God’s Plan.

That Jon Stewart and other leftist comedians should be piling ridicule on the back of Herman Cain is the obligatory trek up a symbolic Mt. Calvary. Many “Progressives” and Perryistas are already planning humiliating wakes for the presidential candidate’s hopes.

There is, however, “Resurrection.” The assaults on Cain have only solidified his support and possibly added many admirers from the independent corners of America.

All know that every President in history has faced trying times in their own, private White Houses. Cain’s composure and grace throughout these challenging days in his campaign will be solid evidence for his strength and endurance.

I personally believe he can’t be stopped, not after his appearance at the National Press Club. Cain is, in my opinion, an American black conservative with a much finer, more natural singing voice than the black American Communist Paul Robeson. There is nothing the least bit pretentious about his undeniable talents.

The black conservative movement in the United States, with the likes of Cain, Allen West and Thomas Sowell, is a trinity of power that will not only lead America out of her very white, self-indulgent, Woodstock/Zuccotti Park enable-ings – greatly inspired by the African-American President, Barack Obama – but will create a life-adoring, rainbow family of indomitably American, individually free, world leaders.

Because of eloquently conservative black Americans, the Third World is much less an easy target for World Communism.

Our black Ronald Reagan is here and will be hitting home runs to end the Marxist New World Order vs. American Common Sense World Series. Such a universally important World Series will never be played again. Karl Marx will at last be seen for the intellectual disease he and his tyrannical admirers have virulently spread throughout the free world.

God sent us the antibody for Communism’s Third World: Cain. It is, indeed, Cain vs. Marx. President Cain will gently but firmly, clearly but eloquently, charmingly but inevitably send Marx home–home to the very godless hell from which Marx came.

This venture came to my mind following an end of the year visit to my son’s middle-school.

My wife and I attended a parents’ night at our son’s school. As we entered his English classroom, I noticed that the walls of the classroom were covered with photos of Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, and Vladimir Lenin. The eighth-grade students had been studying George Orwell’s “Animal Farm.” On every wall was a hand-made poster featuring a photo of Karl Marx, some biographical information, along with some pithy bit of wisdom attributed to him. As we left the room, I whispered to my son, “Tell your teacher that your father wants to know when she will teach the work of John Locke.” My son responded, “Who is John Locke?”

Written by George Orwell in 1945, “Animal Farm” is the allegorical tale of the wickedness and terror of Stalinist Russia. Significantly, the book is not a condemnation of Marxism. Rather it is a cautionary tale about Stalinism. “Animal Farm” is really a commentary on how Russian apathy and political corruption derailed the Marxist utopia. It’s also a rather cynical tale of the inevitability of totalitarianism.

Orwell’s novel also happens to be a fine piece of literature and one that I believe has a proper place in our children’s literary curriculum.

But was the problem with Stalinism only that it corrupted the Marxist ideal? Is totalitarianism the natural end of all forms of government, or are men capable of ruling themselves? Without the foundation of Locke, do American children have the philosophical foundation necessary to understand what is truly evil about Stalin and Marx and conversely, what is good and unique about America? I am concerned when young students can’t identify the source of the ideas upon which their nation was founded, but can easily identify men whose political beliefs are in direct opposition to those ideas.

Locke was a 17th century physician and philosopher and is also known as the father of empiricism—the theory that knowledge is gained through evidence acquired through experience. Locke developed his ideas in his “Essay Concerning Human Understanding.” However, it is the publication of two books–“The First Treatise on Government,” and “The Second Treatise on Government,”–that makes Locke important to the study of political philosophy in general and the American founding in particular. In these great works, Locke refutes the divine right of kings and sets forth the nature of legitimate civil government, based on (what was at the time) the radical idea of natural rights and the social compact. It was the revolutionary ideas of natural rights and government limited to the occupation of securing those rights that influenced America’s founding fathers. Locke is quoted and paraphrased throughout much of America’s founding documents.

Over the years, there has been increasing pressure on America’s public schools to increase the level of math and English education. There has also been a corresponding decrease in the emphasis on teaching American history and civics. For instance, here in California, entrance requirements into the public university system call for only two years of history and government, as opposed to four in English and math.

But civic education is at least as important.

According to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, civic knowledge not only “exerts a broader and more diverse influence on the American mind, but it also “increases a person’s regard for America’s ideals and free institutions.” In other words, the health of our republic depends on a citizenry educated in the history and source of its political ideals and the institutions those ideals produced. Certainly, that is as important as geometry. And if students must study literature, which they certainly should, why not read works that also have the benefit of teaching the source of the ideas of the American Revolution?

Between Karl Marx and John Locke, who is more important to our national political identity? So why are our children hanging posters of Marx on their classroom walls instead of Locke? I am not claiming that there is a Marxist conspiracy to indoctrinate our children. However, I do know that if we continue to neglect educating our children about the men on whose ideas this nation was built, this nation will not stand. The borders may remain the same, but the character of this nation will be lost forever.

Enter Howard Zinn – an author, professor and American historian – who, with the help of Hollywood and the History Channel, intends to change the way our pre-K through high school children learn American history. His current curriculum suggestions, like introducing three-year-olds to the lynching of African-Americans, or quizzing seven-year-olds on which Presidents owned slaves, should be a red flag to parents.

Zinn has spent a lifetime teaching college students about the evils of capitalism, the promise of Marxism, and his version of American history – a history that has, in his view, been kept from students. His controversial 1980-book The People’s History of the United States paints traditional American history as a façade – one that has grotesquely immortalized flawed leaders and is based on principles that victimize the common man. In 2004, Zinn wrote a companion book entitled Voices Of A People’s History Of The United States, which includes speeches and writings from many of the people featured in The People’s History.

These two books have now become the basis for a new documentary, entitled The People Speak, to be aired December 13th at 8pm on the History Channel. The trailer portrays the documentary as a collage of compelling one-person readings, told through the words of “ordinary” people who have struggled throughout American history against oppression. Produced by Zinn, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and Chris Moore, the documentary appears to be cloaked, ironically (given Zinn’s admitted socialist agenda), in many of the traditional ideas that were behind our founding. The verdict is still out on the doc, but it is not for the books that inspired the film as well as the educational initiative associated with it.

Perhaps due to their one-sided perspective of America’s past, Zinn’s history books have largely been limited to colleges and universities, until now. In the press release announcing the broadcast, HISTORY introduced a partnership with VOICES Of A People’s History Of The United States, a nonprofit led by Zinn that bares the same name as his companion book, to help get his special brand of history into classrooms.

Delving into Zinn’s nonprofit is where this story gets interesting, and the organization’s grade school educational ambitions concerning.

VOICES’ function is to provide live performances of readings from the book Voices of a People’s History as well as educational materials to schoolteachers. The nonprofit’s site provides teachers with resources, including a teaching guide that explains how to get students excited about Zinn’s history books. Their educational materials also includes the Zinn Education Project, a resource for teaching Zinn’s perspective of American history to – drum roll please – pre-Kindergarten through high school students! Included in the curriculum for pre-K students (that’s three and four year-olds) is “Rethinking Columbus,” which counters “the myth of Columbus.” In Zinn’s view, our pre-K children “need to hear from those whose lands and rights were taken away by those who ‘discovered’ them.”

Another teaching lesson for our three-year-old students is “One Country! One Language! One Flag!” that includes teaching ideas for “examining the history of the Pledge of Allegiance and the political milieu in which it was written.” The teaching plan suggests introducing our pre-K-ers to the lynching of African-Americans in the 1880s, and introducing the history of violence and discrimination against minority groups. It also proposes a discussion on an old “One Language!” chant allegedly used in classrooms up until 1942, and poses teachers with the question, “Why not lead kids in the original Pledge to the Flag, including the ‘One Language!’ chant and the Nazi-like salute, and then lead a discussion about the politics of the Pledge?”

This discussion is proposed for kids age three to seven?

Zinn also includes a youngster version of his influential book entitled A Young People’s History of the United States as an introduction to his untold American History. The publisher of the book highlights a review by the magazine Socialist Review, who proclaimed “Howard Zinn has adapted his People’s History of the United States for younger readers, but in no way do these books pull their punches. Zinn feels the younger reader is entitled to look at US history honestly.”

The background of the board of directors and advisers of VOICES’ can only be described as jaw dropping and begins to show a clear motive behind teaching this predominantly anti-American history at such a young age.

Made up of several notables including Zinn, Kerry Washington, and Marisa Tomei, all of whom make appearances in the documentary, the VOICES board also includes radicals who play a role in our public schools. Brian Jones, a New York teacher and actor, is a board member of VOICES and has also played the lead in Zinn’s play Marx in SoHo. You can see Jones speaking about Zinn and the play below, recorded for a performance in Greece, where he extols the benefits of this one man play as a tool to introduce people to Marx’s ideas:

Jones is also a regular contributor to Socialist Worker, International Socialist Review, and speaks regularly on the beneficial principles of Marxism, including this year at the 2009 Socialism Conference. He recently gave a speech on the failure of capitalism, proclaiming that “Marx is back.”

Sarah Knopp, a Los Angeles high school teacher, is also on Zinn’s Teacher Advisory Board. Like Jones, Knopp is also a regular contributor to International Socialist Review, Socialist Worker, is an active member in The International Socialist Organization, and was also a speaker at the 2009 Socialist Conference. Here is Knopp speaking about the benefits of socialism, how capitalism destroys lives, and how she advocates workers taking over their factories:

Is it becoming clearer why this group might want to teach children to think poorly of the American system?

Then there is Jesse Sharkey, a schoolteacher in Chicago. Sharkey is another of Zinn’s Teacher Advisory Board Members and, completely uncharacteristic of this group, is a contributor to… Socialist Worker.

This is the group that the History Channel is working with “to develop enhanced, co-branded curriculums for a countrywide educational initiative.” If readers choose to watch The People Speak, which we at BigHollywood encourage, keep in mind the context of the documentary’s creator and the pre-K to high school curriculum that the History Channel and VOICES could possibly create given the makeup of the board members.

I am not advocating that we spare our kids the harsh truths of American history, but I am suggesting, given Zinn’s far-left political affiliation, this project is designed to breakdown our vulnerable children’s views of American principles so that they can be built back up in a socialist vision.

Zinn’s one-man play Marx in SoHo provides an example of his attempt to reestablish the socialist ideology. The play, created in 1999, places Marx in New York after bargaining with the authorities of the after-life for a chance to come back to earth to clear his name. At the end of the cold war, Zinn felt that Marxism was unfairly discredited through being anchored to the fall of the Soviet Union. Through the play, Zinn wanted “the audience to see Marx defending his ideas against attack.” Those associated with the play have described it as an attempt to reestablish Marx’s philosophic and economic outlook – a philosophy that views capitalism as corrosive to the human condition. It doesn’t take a great leap to surmise that instilling in children a pessimistic view of the American experience could make his ideas more palatable.

Zinn’s socialist philosophy has definitely made its way into the documentary, including a speech by prominent socialist Eugene Debs. In his speech, which is a prose to the ills of the capitalist system, he speaks to a court that convicted him of sedition:

“I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man, who does absolutely nothing…to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.”

The promotional videos can be viewed here:

It is not surprising to me that there are groups sympathetic to Marx’s ideas throughout our country. What is surprising is that the most powerful persuasion machine in the world (Hollywood) and the History Channel would provide Zinn such a prominent soapbox to stealthily build a case for a destructive ideology to our children, and as a result mainstream his ideas with the magic of cool music, graphics, and celebrity. Groups that push Marx’s philosophy are like a virtual organism that will not die off even when stung by the undeniable historical evidence showing human behavior makes such a system unsustainable. If we let this virtual organism into our grade schools, it will take decades for our kids to unlearn the ideology.

And if there are any doubts of the intentions of Howard Zinn’s movement, I provide a quote of his in closing. When a reporter asked Zinn, “In writing A People’s History, what were you calling for? A quiet revolution?” Zinn responded:  “A quiet revolution is a good way of putting it. From the bottom up. Not a revolution in the classical sense of a seizure of power, but rather from people beginning to take power from within the institutions. In the workplace, the workers would take power to control the conditions of their lives. It would be a democratic socialism.”

It appears that Zinn’s ilk have started the institutional phase of their agenda.

“Do I really want that face I see in the rushes  … the one that looks an awful lot like me … do I want it running around the movie houses of the world?”

By then, of course, it was too late. I’d already signed a contract.

Director Elia Kazan accepts an honorary Oscar (1999)

I’ve already said yes to Andrew Breitbart … and though I’ve been writing editorials on enterstageright.com for more than a few years … this actual return to Hollywood … uh … Big Hollywood, no less … is as disturbing as those memories of My Old Man’s Place.

What does Big Hollywood mean?

Is it a tribute or in-house sarcasm?

So far I only know Big Hollywood’s politics as counter-revolutionary conservative – and if I’m wrong, Andrew and John, please correct me … and that’s why I’m here … as a pro-life libertarian … a category I’ve been in long before I even heard of the name Glenn Beck.

I’m here to try stemming the Revolutionary Tide that has been rising in larger and larger waves from the shores of 18th Century France when the guillotine gave its deadly review to the court of Louis XVI; and subsequently the communes of Paris eventually threaded their legendary grand guignol through the minds of Karl Marx, Vladimir Ilytch Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung.

So here I am … in Big Hollywood … clutching my memories of the American Declaration of Independence and its words: “All men are created equal.”

No, my dear Progressives, Americans were not intended to be gestated as possible candidates for abortion … despite what Chris Matthews of MSNBC infers.

Recently, in the best French Revolutionary tradition, that enlightened despot rode roughshod over a rather royal member of the Catholic Church who was defending Rome’s decision to excommunicate a Kennedy for supporting abortion.

Hmmm … Mr. Matthews kept hammering the poor Roman Prince over what the penalties would be for abortion … should Roe v Wade be overturned … with the inferential reminders of Catholic Inquisitional sadism … and the “Robe” took the bait and folded.

I conclude that the penalties for abortion should be “probational,” periods of close observation on all three corners involved: the mother, the father and the doctor/abortionist. If abortions become chronic with these citizens under close observation … perhaps jail time would be the only effective deterrent.

If such clear messages regarding the blazing immorality of legalized murder are not imposed, then the worldwide, pro-abortion policies will descend into stricter and stricter “population-control policies” such as those in tyrannically Red China.

In the 1940’s, the possible jail penalties certainly didn’t keep my parents, a surgeon and his alcoholic wife, from having two illegal abortions, cardinal illegalities.

I was informed of those facts at the rather dumbfounded age of 10.

“My parents had two of my siblings murdered?!”

No one was arrested … because no one knew … except for my equally stunned sister and myself.

Divorces are a war zone, of course … but divorce after two abortions … for the surviving children … is a Holocaust zone.

With an actual lifetime of survivor’s guilt … ranking second only to the Irish predisposition for alcoholism … I’m surprised I’ve done as well as I have … thanks to Alcoholics Anonymous … and the words, “Let go, let God!”

Now here I am back in not just Hollywood but Big Hollywood!

What a journey!

My old dust-up with Attorney General Janet Reno and all my libertarian declarations for enterstageright.com seem to have been mere warm-ups for the Breitbart Taking Back of Hollywood.

I had a small taste of the “Grand Old Hollywood” when I worked with Arthur Kennedy in Glory Boy. By then, I must say, Mr. Kennedy had the despairing look of a man who knew the old Hollywood days, with sidekicks such as Jimmy Stewart, were over.

In Glory Boy (where did they ever come up with that title) we were doing an anti-war and, by comparison to Oliver Stone’s undeniably anti-American Platoon, a mildly anti-American film about Vietnam War veterans … perhaps the first of its kind.

Hmmm … I had one of the worst times of my life on that film … and vowed never to work in Hollywood again.

Yeah, right.

If my stay with Big Hollywood is half as long as my wonderfully enjoyable forays into conservative thought with enterstageright.com, we might have a decent President of the United States by then.

From the Bush years … of both father and son … bookending the Clinton years … capped by the virtual Obama Nation … the Progressive White House has been putting its bipartisan and Progressive “Changes” on display. They certainly headlined their bright idea of opening up the housing industry with looser and looser loan requirements. Now they are loading the North and South lawns of the White House with massively un-payable debt … and then trying to downplay predictable disasters like that of terrorism at Fort Hood. They sell it as simultaneous serial killings by a deranged loose cannon … who just happened to be a “soldier of Allah.”

Hmmm, indeed … about as convincing as the recent cover-ups for Climategate.

What are my plans with the coming articles?

To track my personal experience with the former Soviet Russia’s undeniable strategy, its unrelenting efforts to Communize all of theater and film in the United States. Let me –most briefly and in light of further, more detailed editorials – state my case.

According to the personal techniques outlined in the book Shostakovich and Stalin by Solomon Volkov, Joseph Stalin’s personal credo might have read something like this: “If a ruler could control and dominate the artists of his nation, then he could control and dominate all of that nation’s citizens, every one of them!”

Hmmm …

One of these Stalinist techniques ironically was mentioned by a White House Czar, that technique of “nudging” America into what is advertised as “Change” but will inevitably flower like poison ivy into a totalitarian state.

As an example, I have no doubt, unless New York’s Governor Paterson increases his recent show of independence from Washington, D.C., that New York will soon follow California into its present state of bankruptcy. President Obama obviously enjoys our growing dependence upon Red China. Let the United States’ growing dependence upon the federal government be increasingly complete with the bankruptcy of all the states; then the message of America’s shrinking importance within the New World Order will be written in universally painful granite.

My coming editorials will sit in the very agony displayed at the Academy Awards when Elia Kazan was handed a well deserved “Gold” for his lifetime achievement. Many in the audience were deliberately and rather boldly “sitting on their hands,” refusing to applaud the director of Streetcar Named Desire, On The Waterfront and East of Eden. That “agony” defines the very political divide that has now grown in Hollywood to oceanic proportions.

A majority of Hollywood is still sitting on its hands in raging resentment of those who refuse to toe the Leftist Line.

I will only depart from writing about Hollywood’s love affair with the Communist Revolution to pay tribute to the true heart of an American Hollywood … those artists deserving of our gratitude for not buckling under the fists and serpentine peer pressure of America’s enlightened despots.

As a precursor to the French Revolution, François-Marie Arouet, better known by the pen name Voltaire, dubbed the revolutionary know-it-alls “enlightened despots.”

When Hollywood’s artists will be revealed as still in touch with a passion we call love, but which self-proclaimed revolutionaries, such as Vanessa Redgrave, call “sentimental rubbish” (that’s what she had to say about a script based on Thomas Wolf’s novel Web and The Rock) … hmmm …  then the Golden Age of Hollywood will return.

From Communism’s seduction of American intellectuals to the beginning of the “nudges” coming out of the Group Theater and its legendary tribute to union unrest … hmmm … in Waiting For Lefty, this most fashionable revolt in American theater urged all young people in the performing arts to go to Hollywood and do the same.

Therefore this literally Stalinist plan to conquer America by conquering its artists has been working.

So, to further inflame my critics, I will add Elia Kazan’s genius to the undeniable brilliance of the occasionally teary-eyed Glenn Beck and watch the asphalt boil on the bankrupt, palm bedecked avenues of the confused and over-extended revolutionaries in California.

To welcome new friends to both my work in Big Hollywood and enterstageright.com, I offer a most heartfelt tribute to the growing Breitbart enterprises and trust that our combined efforts will indeed help to pull us all up … and out of the post-Reagan quicksands we are now drowning in.

Finally, we are actually choking in the debt-ridden quagmires placed under us so that Lenin and Stalin … and Castro and Chavez… and Mao and Pol Pot … and Osama bin Laden can all see their evil vindicated by history and Hollywood … highlighted to eternity by the fall of the United States to world Communism … our nation’s suicidal, deaf and dumbly naïve surrender to the Red/Islamic game plan now being heralded in Hollywood, Chicago, New York and Washington D. C. … yet smugly bandied about in White House dinner parties as the “Progressive World Government.”

I’d also appreciate it if Sean Hannity would wake up to the fact that a lot of us change the channel the second that Bob Beckel shows up on the Great American Panel.

On the other hand, I wish that merely as an experiment a dozen or so liberals could be forced to watch Glenn Beck for an entire week. I would be dying to know how they would react after watching videos of Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunn, Andy Stern and John Holdren spouting off when they think nobody outside the room will hear about their plans to transform America.  They would have made Dr. Frankenstein blanch but put a smile on Karl Marx’s ugly mug.

Back in 1990, the police raided Barney Frank’s home because his lover, Steve Gobie, was running a male prostitution ring out of his condo. In 2007, the police raided the home of James Ready and arrested him for possession of marijuana. Ready, who is Barney’s main squeeze these days, didn’t just smoke the weed, Farmer Ready was growing the stuff. The congressman was there at the time of the raid but denied he had any idea that those plants in the backyard weren’t rhododendrons. I believe he told the police that he was perfectly clueless when it came to plant life. I guess, like Clinton, he too never inhaled.

Because I am always prepared to grant a liberal politician the benefit of the doubt, I’m sure it’s only a coincidence that Barney has long led the fight to decriminalize the use and sale of the narcotic.

Finally, I understand why so many folks are eager to impeach the president, but that obviously isn’t going to happen. Unfortunately, being a Red and despising America isn’t an impeachable offense. However, there’s nothing to prevent people from gathering signatures in order to recall their arrogant representatives.

I suggest we begin with every single one of those ACORN-loving crumbs who voted for the stimulus bill, cash for clunkers, and ObamaCare.

If their voting against the best interests of present-day American taxpayers, not to mention future generations, isn’t reason enough to throw the bums out, I can’t imagine what would be.

As with the weather, or at least the way it used to be with the weather prior to Al Gore’s turning it into his personal ATM, everyone complains about incumbents, but nobody does anything about them.

And for the other bad guys…

Flash forward to the latest cacophony from “spoken word” Grammy winner President Obama and his Lefty Health Club Band’s radical “concept” album, A Health Dirge Night; examine a few select tracks; and, recognize the reprised promotional chicanery.

The album opens with the derivative 8-track era chestnut, With A Little Help from the Feds.  Here, President Obama’s Lefty Health Club Band warbles that a radical bill must pass – now! – because our broken health care system is in crisis.  Why?  Because they said so.  Yet, while concerned with rising costs, the vast majority of Americans believe our health care system is good or excellent, and they are satisfied with their current plans.  Why then did Obama’s band try to rush release a radical bill before the public could hear how it impacts their current health care plans?

Next, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Marx, features President Obama’s Lefty Hearts Club Band screeching that health care is a right.  Why?  Because they said so.  However, a cursory review of the U.S. Constitution finds no “right” to someone else’s hard-earned money and talents.  Because we are a compassionate country, America provides a social safety net to the less fortunate with the consent of the governed.  Thus, the government must not misuse this safety net to snare all Americans into the trap of socialized, government-run health care regardless of their situation and personal choice.

Seamlessly, the album segues into the “Great Society” homage, Lyndon in the Sky on Steroids, wherein President Obama’s Lefty Health Club Band bellow that only a government run health care schemes’ massive intrusion into the free-market can lower costs, increase quality and expand choices.  Why?  Because they said so.  (Stop laughing.  They’re serious.)  Nonetheless, much of the current crisis stems from government waste, fraud and abuse; and the costs of presently underfunded government health care programs are passed on to the bills of the privately insured.  Further, the outstanding liabilities of Medicare and Medicaid already stand in the trillions before Obama care’s nearly half a trillion dollar Medicare cut.  Does anyone in the sane center of American politics believe a third government-run health care program will fare better, let alone fix the other two programs?  No.  By focusing on “cost control” (i.e. rationing), the government will cut the supply of health care while inflating costs by pumping more public money into the system; thus, costs will increase, and quality and choices will decrease by government fiat and design.

Next up, Digging a Hole highlights President Obama’s Lefty Health Club Band crooning that only the radical intrusion of a government-run health care plan can fix our economy.  Why?  Because they said so.  This does not bear statistical scrutiny.  Over the years of rising health care costs, America’s economy has still grown.  Yes, everyone wants lower health care costs; however, this does not mean that absent government rationing of care the entire American economy will collapse.  In fact, we know government-run health care will add trillions in new spending to the federal deficit and debt; compel higher taxes on working families to “pay” for it; increase health care costs; reduce the quality of and choices within the health care system; and harm the American economy.

On the album’s closing medley, Good Moaning, Good Moaning/Getting Bitter/A Bray in the Strife, President Obama’s Lefty Health Club Band barks that all opposition to their radical health care bill is politically manufactured and motivated to preserve the status quo.  Why?  Because they said so.  Still, remembering that the Left ascribes its own sins to opponents, it is actually the White House and Congressional Democrats that support the status quo of big government – unless they deem making it even bigger and more intrusive as “hope” and “change.”  It is they who cut the deals with special interests to secure supportive media assaults for their radical health care scheme and, with the complicity of the Democratic National Committee, unleashed their own political astroturfers on elected officials and members of the public opposed to it.  Stunned by the spontaneous reaction of grassroots organizations that existed prior to this bill, the administration and its blank check Congress intensified their smear campaign against their opponents, perversely sinking to the gutter tactics of calling them “un-American” and accusing them of waving swastika covered flags. True, these grassroots opponents must more clearly, civilly and diversely make their voices heard; however, they are not the cause of disorder but a symptom.  The root of the moment’s madness is President Obama’s Lefty Health Club Band’s forcing their radical “concept” of health care reform on unwilling Americans.  Tone deaf to the times and public sentiment, the President is not above the fray.  He is directing it to foist a fossilized, 1970’s industrial-welfare state model governance on Americans’ health care, despite our globalized market place that empowers citizens and consumers.

Thus, unlike President Obama’s Lefty Health Club Band radical “concept” of health care reform, the issue is best addressed with prudent, targeted, multi-track reforms that use market forces to empower patients as consumers and increase the supply of health care to meet the rising demand and reduce costs.  Such initial, obvious measures include the reforming medical liability laws; expanding Health Savings Accounts; providing tax credits for purchasing private health insurance; allowing Association Health Plans; permitting health insurance purchases across state lines; encouraging individuals to insure against changes in health status; incentivizing preventative health care; applying information technology to enhance transparency and increase efficiencies.  All this can be achieved without trillions in new spending and taxes and government dictated, radical changes to Americans’ current health care plans.

For the less fortunate and most vulnerable amongst us, there must be an expansion of Federally Qualified Health Clinics, which will provide patients with preventive and routine treatment; end underserved people’s use of emergency rooms for primary health care treatments.  Doctors and other health care professionals can be incentivized to provide their services at these clinics for either immediate or future considerations; and a “Project Navigator” program attached to each FQHC can assist the underserved in accessing the health care system.  This approach is community based and will stand a greater chance of over time building true, community-based health care and empowering consumers, rather than continuing in perpetuity as dependents upon a government service.  Finally, people suffering from “orphan diseases” – rare afflictions requiring a lifetime of special care – should be compassionately assisted through our nation’s social safety net.

Of course, such ideas are muted beneath the present political circus’ din; however, one true note rings out:   on A Health Dirge Night, President Obama’s Lefty Hearts Club Band’s radical “concept” of health care reform “doesn’t go anywhere,” except down the tracks of higher costs, lower quality, fewer choices and lost jobs; its stale redistributionist tenets could fit on any nineteenth century socialist handbill; and, no matter how vehemently they says otherwise, it isn’t needed by and won’t work for Americans.

United States Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter (MI) is Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee and a Lester Bangs Wannabe

The unveiling of OCO capped-off a terror euphemism trifecta for the administration.  Previously, the Justice Department scrapped the ghastly “enemy combatant” to describe war prisoners in favor of the much more uplifting, “detainee.”  Additionally, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano─who may be the only member of the administration more intellectually troubled than Tim Geitner─rebranded terrorism as “man-caused disaster.” (To review:  mail carrier; police officer; business person; but man-caused disaster… maybe the errant sexism has something to do with Ms. Napolitano’s romantic leanings.)  

Ever sensitive to the plight of our illegally invading friends from the south, Ms. Napolitano also refuses to use the term “illegal immigrant.” In an administration where the Secretary of Treasury is a tax cheat, it’s only fitting that the Security of Homeland Security does not wish to tarnish the image of people who illegally raid our country and pillage our resources.

Words are very important to B. Hussein Obama─they don’t describe the narrative, they structure it.  In college, he transformed himself from Barry—a hackneyed disgrace of a name befitting lounge singers and kid actors—to Barack, instantly making him exotic and interesting (a Barry snorting coke is a hapless junkie, but a Barack snorting coke is a conflicted soul seeking to open his mind, especially if he’s wearing a kente kufi hat while snorting).  During the campaign, two little, but very important, bumper-sticker and t-shirt friendly words helped solidify his candidacy.  Thanks to Hope and Change, Barry didn’t have to leak anyone’s kinky, sealed divorce papers to the media to get elected this time.

When more than one word has to be produced, Barry defers to his teleprompter to ensure rigid semantic integrity and to minimize his brain’s default proclivity of generating “uhhhhhs” and “ummmms.” In a recent speech before a requisitely awed group of business leaders, the teleprompter displayed the following gem, which The Father of the $1.2 trillion stimulus package voiced with contemplative gravitas:  “I don’t like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government’s role.” The statement wasn’t followed by a “NOT!” or a “PSYCH!” or even a “FACE!” Just more contemplative gravitas.

In Barry’s bizzaro world, reality in and of itself doesn’t matter.  Words make the reality. Words matter. Teleprompters matter.  The biggest spending bill in American history never happened if Barry calls it a “stimulus.” But if it did happen, Barry never agreed to the bonuses.  But if he did agree to the bonuses, he did so unknowingly.

In the first half of the 20th century, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf cobbled together a theory of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity which would eventually become the unwitting foundation of the PC movement.  In a nutshell, Sapir-Whorf believed that language determines thought, not vice versa.  So call a prison a “correctional facility,” and the inmates should be so overcome by the warm fuzzies that they wouldn’t rape each other as much as when they thought they were stuck in a mere “prison.” Likewise, call welfare expansion a “tax cut” and more people will vote for you.  I doubt Barry read much Sapir/Whorf, but many of the same ideas are discussed in different terms by his favorite community organizer, Saul Alinsky, and his favorite unicorn wrangler, Karl Marx.

Marx believed words may be used to confuse and control the dolts, rubes and twits who constitute the governed.  An effective leader could introduce new words─or alternative definitions and combinations of old words─into the lexicon, and thereby induce the unlearning of old belief systems and the learning of new ones. Change the culture through words─one of the planks of the Cultural Marxist platform.  As Fred Barnes points out, BHO has already redefined “fleeting”: the quarter century of unprecedented economic growth which began in the first term of the Reagan presidency was “fleeting prosperity” according to our noble leader. “The Reagan Recovery is urban legend, my children, now don your purple Nikes and listen unto me…”

Moreover, the War on Terror was that dummy Bush.  General Secretary of the Central Committee President Obama doesn’t deal with wars or terror, he deals with contingencies and operations.  You say, “potato,” I say, “potato.” You say, “that sleeveless dress really shows off Michelle’s toned arms,” I say, “pre-menopausal hot flash relief.” You say, “sensitive language soothes the people,” I say, “social engineering through verbal eugenics.”

To distance the current administration from the words of the former administration is predictable, to do so from the words of the Founding Fathers is creepy.  Whether conscious or not, the end game of the current administration is to redefine the US Constitution in its own socialist, state-must-save-the-proles image. Now hopechange means abhorrent stimulus and bailout packages.  Soon it may mean government-run health care or restrictions on how much gas and electricity citizens can use.  The more Barry’s Obonics seep out of the teleprompter and into pop culture, the easier the administration’s task to remake America becomes.

Maybe Barry was stoned the day the English teacher pointed out that George Orwell was a warning, not a blueprint.

 Marx wasn’t stupid, though, and surely recognized that in order to get his magical notions widely embraced, people would have to give up their traditional ideas of religiosity, since it is difficult if not impossible to maintain a belief in two, utterly conflicting religious faiths at the same time. Tragically, the true believers who swallowed the toxic claptrap Marx advanced have brought far more misery and brutality into the world than all the fundamentalist religious faiths of history combined. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (to name a few of the most egregious examples), all held at their sociopolitical core the same pseudo-religious tenets that Marx proposed, and the staggering amount of death and torture those monsters precipitate dwarf, by several orders of magnitude, the suffering resultant from any religious beliefs. ( I know, some who are ignorant of history will object and say that Nazism and Fascism were Right-Wing movements. To them, I suggest they read Jonah Goldberg’s seminal book “Liberal Fascism” to learn the truth. The word Nazi was an acronym stemming from the German name for the National Socialist Party!)
 
Most people (with the exception of many Political Science professors that still inhabit our Universities) have finally come to regard Nazism, Fascism, and Communism as the evils they inherently are, but Socialism is still widely viewed by vast numbers of otherwise intelligent people as a societal good. “Just think,” they say, “how nice life could be if only more people would recognize that individuality and private property are contrary to the greater Socialist good? Let’s just spread the wealth around.” Indeed, throughout 20th Century history, one of the principal distinctions between Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Socialism has been how thuggishly the fanatical believers in a utopian vision of radical egalitarianism have tried to impose it.
 
Though implementing Socialism is a lot less vicious, its adherents are equally devoted to totalitarianism – witness just one of myriad examples: the recent rumblings about imposing the Fairness Doctrine on Talk Radio. Consequently, it may actually be more insidious, since over a long period of time people gradually get used to its spirit-crushing effects until, like the proverbial frog in the pot of gradually boiling water, all their freedoms are lost.
 
Recently, I found a marvelous quote from Margaret Thatcher who wryly observed, “The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” When I read that, it suddenly hit me that the pseudo-religion of Socialism is fast becoming the very real opiate of the masses. Big Government radicals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are obsessed with redistributing “other people’s money” and are among the principal “pushers”, addicting enormous swaths of American society to the public dole. The very phrase, “other people’s money,” when made into the acronym OPM and said fast becomes “opium.” In modern Socialist societies it isn’t religion that narcotizes people, but rather OPM that renders people weak, helpless, and dependent on the State for their every need.
 
Now, our duly elected President Obama, whose ideological roots are deeply watered by Socialist faith, is working to transform American society into one closely resembling the failed Socialist societies of Western Europe. Taking on a new role as Used Car Salesman-In-Chief, he has seized upon our financial mess (largely caused by disastrous Leftist policies – thank you Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al.) to ram through the costliest Big-Government giveaway/restructuring bill in human history, without anyone in Congress even having had time to read it. In his few short weeks in office, President Obama has injected far more OPM into the lifeblood of America than did Roosevelt’s awful, Depression-prolonging “New Deal” policies. Just to give it a little context, until just a few weeks ago, former President Bush was roundly excoriated for having raised the deficit under his watch. Now, less than a month into his term, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have quadrupled the deficit in one fell swoop – all with OPM.
 
The fact that the Socialist Western European countries are in moral and economic ruin makes no difference to the fanatics who concoct our policies. Sadly, thanks to them, the long era of American exceptionalism and personal freedom will come to an abrupt end unless large segments of the populace awaken to the danger posed by the Socialist OPM. Lest anyone doubt that we are headed that way, need I point out that when the McCain campaign had the temerity to gently suggest that perhaps Mr. Obama’s proposed policies might be vaguely Socialist, he was universally castigated for unethical mudslinging. Yet now, only a few weeks later, the cover story in Newsweek proudly proclaims “We Are All Socialists Now!”

A case in point is the ongoing budget crisis in California. Here we have the richest State in the Union, with an economy that ranks among the largest in the world. Yet, thanks to decades of Leftist mismanagement and redistribution of OPM into failing, Big Government / Socialist programs, it sports the worst credit rating of any state. Loopy from their OPM fix, the Leftist lawmakers who have a stranglehold on California politics have spent the past several decades running California into the ground. Are they held accountable for their fiscal irresponsibility? Of course not! They just demand more OPM. What is the solution proposed by the largely Leftist lawmakers to the budget shortfall? Burden the already crushed taxpayers with an unprecedented tax hike – a twelve cent per gallon gasoline tax (on top of an existing forty cent per gallon tax), a doubling of the car registration fee (already one of the highest in the nation), a one percent increase in sales tax (on top of one of the highest sales taxes in the country) and a huge surcharge on State Income Tax. The Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman demonstrated conclusively that beyond a certain point tax increases result in a decrease in revenue. So why does the Left continue to demand a tax increase? For two reasons: 1.) because they are not truly interested in the revenue but rather in the ideology of redistributing wealth and 2.) because they are addicted to OPM. As I write, a tiny handful of courageous Republican lawmakers are standing between these onerous tax increases and the utter destruction of what
is left of the California economy.

This final quote from the late Dr. Adrian Rogers sums up the problem of OPM best:

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

OPM is the real narcotic of those who fall for the ideas of Marx. If it becomes the drug of choice for the majority of Americans, we are all in big trouble.