When Leftists are winning the day, they’re just plain arrogant. When Leftists are losing, they’re a helluva lot of fun to watch. Case in point: Alec Baldwin’s latest incomprehensible attack on Republicans courtesy of HuffPo. Here are my favorite snips, but read the whole thing and count the number of times you say, ”huh? — whuh?” Don’t make it a drinking game, though. Suicide’s illegal:

The Pentagon wastes more money on more crap that you and I don’t need and gets it wrong, on a policy level, more often than not since 1960 (I’ll give them a pass on Korea, due to all the Cold War anxiety at the time).

How nice… Baldwin gives the Pentagon a pass on Korea… I’m sure a wave of relief swept through the Military Industrial Complex. “Hey, you can exhale now, the ‘30 Rock’ guy says it’s okay…” And don’t you just love when a Leftist decides to get all bent over government waste? It’s always the military, always the most successful — by a long shot — of our government agencies.

The health care industry wastes untold billions, then passes those costs on to insurance companies who then exploit your fear and pass them on to you. Fear of Al Qaeda. Fear of getting sick without insurance and, therefore, access to effective medical care.

“Fear of Al Qaeda”…?

Huh?

Oh yeah, that’s right… Yesterday a letter arrived from United Health: “Vote against ObamaCare or be beheaded by terrorists.”

Health care reform means less money for insurance companies. Thus less money for the GOP. We should pass this bill for that reason alone.

You have to appreciate the honesty of that statement. ObamaCare’s not something anyone can defend. It’s not as if Baldwin’s about to give up his Cadillac Health Coverage to join us in line for Chemo should Obama and Pelosi win the day. So all he can do is fling HuffPoo and hope some of his hateful nonsense sticks. At the end of the day, however, Baldwin’s personal policy decisions — like many of his brethren — really do come down to what will hurt the other side, not what’s best for America or the poor. It’s all about The Hate.

So why the crazy public rant?

Frustration.

Before their very eyes hopeandchange is going down in a big flaming ball of empty suit, and frustration levels on the Left are on the rise.  Even Baldwin’s online hostess, the True Believer Dennis Miller calls “The Smart Gabor,” is publicly thinking “uh,oh.”

As Obama’s public opinion polls plummet lower than a gaff-tastic presidential bow and everything the Left believes in fails to create jobs, make the world love us or convince Independents to climb aboard the Socialist Train to Ruin — as Obama limps his way towards Worst President Ever status and 2010 looms — we can only hope to see alot more of this.

Even though I have lived in the D.C. area for a little less than three years, I recently watched  “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” for the first time. The movie revolves around an appointed Senator who brings his hopefulness and his integrity to Washington D.C. James Stewart plays Mr. Smith, the head of a boy’s organization, who is surprisingly given a chance to serve his country in the United States Senate. He is a Governor’s political appointee who some believe will cave to political pressure and make his voting decisions on the advice of a corrupt but highly-respected Senate colleague. Mr. Smith refuses to accommodate that fellow Senator and the demands of the political machine in his state that fights against him and he eventually loses confidence in the entire political system.

When Smith recognizes how blatantly corrupt some politicians are, he heads to the Lincoln Memorial planning to leave the nation’s capital after the media and his fellow Senators have disgraced his name. His secretary, Clarissa Saunders, meets him there and she notes the following about Senator Paine and Jim Taylor, two of Smith’s high-profile critics:

Your friend Mr. Lincoln had his Taylors and Paines. So did every other man who ever tried to lift his thought up off the ground. Odds against them did not stop those men. They were fools that way. All the good that ever came into this world came from fools with faith like that. 

After that part of the movie, Mr. Smith is given a choice. He can return to his home state and try to repair the damage to his reputation that was caused by the accusations lobbed at him or he can return to the Senate and fight for his honor. Mr. Smith decides to return to the Senate, where he mounts a filibuster to get his message out to the people of his state.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Smith, an icon of idealism and integrity, has become a paradigm that politicians enjoy being compared to. Several months ago, Liza Mundy from the Washington Post, wrote a piece about the film and noted the importance of the movie. “Its influence,” she wrote, “is rooted in the idea that a virtuous innocent can take on a rotten political system — and win.” Mundy later wrote that  “perhaps at no time has the film been invoked as often as during the 2008 presidential election, a race in which everybody was trying to claim the outsider status that Smith embodies.” Bundy noted in her piece that depending on your political persuasion, both President Obama and former Governor Sarah Palin can and have been compared to Mr. Smith.

If you took a broader perspective today of Mr. Smith and viewed him as an advocate for the people over the forces of politics as usual, you would see how such “fools” are necessary in the nation’s capital these days and how critics often go after such “fools.” In Washington D.C., the amount of money given to a state or a district in earmarks can be seen as a major political plus while people who are fiscally conservative can be criticized for not soliciting or accepting more money from the federal government. Is it a “fool” who wants to fight for fiscal responsibility when our deficit is so high? On the matter of health care, is it foolish for our elected leaders to take their time and meticulously debate reform that will affect millions of Americans, like some elected leaders like Senator McConnell want to do. Is it a “fool” who wants health-care reform to be debated and discussed thoroughly while others want to push through the legislation quickly? On the same subject, is it “foolish” to ask our public officials to read this important piece of legislation before they push it through? Is it “foolish” to want to know what is actually in this massive health care bill before it becomes law?

With such questions about “foolishness,” some would likely ask the obvious question: do we have Mr. Smiths in Washington today? I believe that we do have such people in our capital. We have Mr. Smiths in Washington who fight for accountability and transparency and who fight for their ideals and their values over their party’s principles.

For one, I am reminded of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. In 2000, Democratic Senator Lieberman represented his party as nominee for vice president but six years later, he lost the primary in his own state. Believing that the voters of both parties and many independents would support him, Lieberman ran and won as an independent and he has deserved that title in the Senate. Although he still supports the Democrats on a lot of issues, Lieberman supported John McCain in last year’s election much to his own detriment, and he has recently opposed parts of liberal health care reform, once again facing critics from within his own party. Some may consider Lieberman a “fool” for standing with Republicans on issues like health care or national security issues but others, like myself, consider him a leader willing to stand up for his principles.

If you have not seen “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” I highly recommend it as a classic film about maintaining integrity in the midst of harsh criticism. We do have a couple Mr. Smiths in Washington today but this country could always use more such leaders in our nation’s capital today.

Nothing came to me but more questions.  Satisfied that no further gastric contributions could tell the tale, I rose from the bathroom floor, shrugged unconvincingly and hit the flusher.   What a perfect way to end unseemly encounters.  Flush them. 

I proceeded to weave an unsteady trail down the hallway in the general direction of a coffee pot.  My daughter had arisen before me and FOX News was already drifting in from the other room; Bill Hemmer recounting the latest on the decision to move the admitted 911 terrorists to NYC for trial. 

And then it struck me like a wet trout. 

Why – I hadn’t been drinking the night before at all!  This was no hangover!  This was Bizarro-World 2009 (or as some call it, the Barrack Obama Presidency) — in full flower!

Recovering from the jolt of reality that had knocked coffee grounds everywhere, slipping and sliding on them I staggered into the living room to stare at the TV screen.  Yes, it was coming back to me like a recurring bad rash – the Commies had taken over as America slept.  And we were all out of 2% cortisone cream. 

As the inebriative disorientation of an Obama reality continued to blur my vision, I recounted some of the more recent national realities. 

Emergency stimulus bills – $800 billion in spending, cash-for-clunkers, tax cheat cabinet, Marxist czars, quadrupling the national debt within 10 months…and as Communist China lectures us about deficit spending and fiscal responsibility…Obama pushes hard for a socialized medicine bill that will cost taxpayers at least two trillion dollars, nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy, and drive insurance companies, hospitals and doctors bankrupt, leading to rationed health care and a gross decline in research and overall quality of medicine.

But I don’t want to rush to judgment.  It’s only been ten months, give the guy a chance.

Huh!!????

And in the We-don’t-rush-to-judgment category… Major Hasan’s shooting spree at Ft. Hood that left 13 dead and 30 wounded seems to have the mainstream media baffled.  It seems he must’ve been a nut.  He must’ve been tormented by fellow soldiers for his religious views.  He must’ve been a victim of the system…who simply snapped.   And we don’t want to rush to judgment that he may have been a Muslim jihadist murderer terrorist, dead square in our midst, at the largest Army base in the country…that simply wanted to kill as many Americans as possible for his jihad, for his Allah.  Gee, sure didn’t send up any red flags…even with the bitter and angry Wahabbist rantings to his fellow soldiers, his communication with a noted Muslim radical cleric, and oh yeah, his phone calls, documented by the army, to Al Qaeda!

Hmmm…how could anyone possibly have seen anything bad coming….?

And now… The people that admitted to having masterminded the destruction of the Twin Towers and murdered three thousand Americans are to be put on trial a few blocks from where the towers fell in downtown Manhattan. 

As a “Star Trek” alumnus, I am bereaved that the phrase “Beam me up, Scotty!” has been so over-used…or I’d be tempted to use it now.

The ACLU will ensure that these self-admitted terrorists’ ‘rights’ will be guarded as they’re extended every legal privilege, the same as a law-abiding citizen of the U.S.  Upon discovery it will be revealed that they were not Miranda-ized and made fully aware of their ‘rights’ when they were apprehended.  Upon discovery it will be revealed that ‘proper’ search-and-seizure methods were not used when these miscreants were arrested.  Wire-tapping may have been used that the ACLU will have a problem with.  Three of these fellows were strapped to a board and had water poured over their faces, convincing them that they were in danger of drowning – all in a very successful attempt to procure valuable information that may have saved thousands of more lives of Americans.

And the CIA, the FBI, George W. Bush and the entire U.S. Military will be put on trial for the court of world opinion to evaluate – a years-long, hundred-million dollar dog-and-pony show of a trial for the America-hating Leftists to rally behind.  “You see?  You see how bad we were before?  You see what Bush/Cheney/Halliburton gave you?  Well…we’re not like that anymore.  And to show you how sorry we are…we’re gonna serve up America’s autonomy and exceptionalism on a silver platter.  Everybody come take a bite — who wants white meat?”

In Bizarro-World 2009…up is down.  The good guys get prosecuted and the bad guys walk.  So how many betting men do we have out there?  Has Vegas set the odds yet?  And what’s the line and spread on these five guys walking?

In a rush to re-establish to the world our supposed, and heretofore, absent humility and global cooperation – and in the name of a misguided allegiance to some missing ‘higher good’ for humanity, we have abruptly changed direction and now champion a new banner – ‘Peace through supplication…strength through softness’.

Future Al Jazeera news headline in Arabic:  “The Pussification of America is complete.”

I suppose some will merely deem it to be the natural countermanding of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George Bush’s ‘cowboy’ persona, in both personal style and foreign diplomacy.  Mr. Obama, in order to counterpoint Mr. Bush’s ‘cowboy swagger’ (Bush calls it “walking”), bows low to foreign heads of state – some would say grovels – and in every tone and rhetoric, apologizes to the world for our excellence and achievement. 

And, oh by the way, we’re sorry we’ve been such horrible racists – unlike you all.

But now that we’ve proven to the international community that we’re no longer racist and are suddenly all too aware that we’re the focal point and primary cause for everything bad, destructive and unstylish in the world — Europe cheers us.  How better to validate their own insistent bend into socialism?  Socialists everywhere just love us now.  Third-world despots embrace our epiphanic rush to change.  Hamas and Hezbollah smile their congratulations at our new enlightenment and willingness to abdicate our superiority of both strength and ideals — all in the name of tolerance and ‘balance’.

Enemies of America everywhere smile warmly at us…as they sharpen their daggers.

Our allies around the globe are getting nervous.  And who could blame them?  I read of Neville Chamberlain’s assurances to his countrymen in 1938 after meeting with Hitler in Munich.  He was certain he had engineered a path to peace in Europe — through appeasement.

Ronald Reagan used to speak of America as a “…shining city on a hill.”  A place of liberty and freedom and personal responsibility; a place people all over the world looked up to and emulated, and couldn’t wait to visit, and even emigrate to legally, to start a new life, a better life for themselves and their families.  He reminded us of our strengths, of our compassion, and of our unending ingenuity, drive and resourcefulness.

Ronald Reagan made us feel good about being an American.  He held us to the high standard of honesty and fiscal responsibility and individual initiative and personal accountability for our actions.  The ultimate result of these ideals was success – success, achievement and excellence, the likes of which the world had never before seen.  And something else we had: Pride in America.  There were no ‘apology tours’… no gestures of contrition… no tacit appeasement, to anyone, anywhere for any reason.  We believed in peace through strength.  And these were not empty words – they were backed by actions.  Reagan meant the words he spoke — and you could take them to the bank.  Reagan spoke of the success that we enjoyed by sticking to our ideals, American ideals.  He said it was ‘morning in America’. 

The image was of the sun coming up in the morning…and not of its setting.

Honest and ardent students of history are not just nervous – they’re alarmed.  This country we know and love, this America, is fast becoming unrecognizable to many of us.  It’s like we’ve had this big wham-jammer of a party…and now we awaken to a monstrous hangover. 

It’s the morning-after in America…only the aspirin bottle is three years away.

–

The ad was selected out of 1,000 entries, as part of Obama’s “Health Care Reform Video Challenge.”  Ironically, instead of showcasing real people who suffer under the current health-care structure, the judges hand picked an ad that is all showbiz and zero substance.  They chose to go with fake health-care horror stories read by adorable but soppy kid actors — pawns in a political high-stakes game of shocksploitation. These kids obviously don’t have dire health care problems;  they just have showbiz parents who hooked them up with a gig.

Don’t be too surprised — Hollywood has lent Obama an ever-willing hand.  The judges were comprised of a celebrity panel that reads like the Hollywood Squares: Rosario Dawson, musician Will.I.Am., Brandon Routh, Kate Walsh and Olivia Wilde, and raunchy “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane. When you think America’s health-care solutions — you want to call in Seth MacFarlane, right?!

In American politics there is a cardinal rule:  if you must use a personal story to advance an ideology or an issue, be sure it is true.  When a President stands before the public and uses names of real people with real problems to advance an agenda, he makes a point through presenting solid evidence — life lessons.  Reagan did it, Clinton did it, George W. Bush did it… and there’s nothing wrong with it if it is true.

Not only did the Obama team ignore the facts, they ignored any input by average Americans.  When you ask a glitzy Hollywood panel to come up with your health-care message, don’t be surprised if they enlist a reality TV has-been director of stoner movies.   What is surprising in all this is that ads that deal with highly sensitive political messages are normally carefully focus-grouped in front of an audience of regular Americans.  This is done so they have the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns about vitally important policy decisions.

Apparently, no one at the White House or the DNC were bothered much with grassroots concerns in this case (after all, DNC Chair Tim Kaine was on the judging panel). If they did, they would hear more about the economy — according to the latest Gallup poll 51% think the economy should be the President’s main focus, only 21% said health care. It all begs the question:  if you have to make it all up with actors, what are you really saying?  Perhaps a better question in this case: what are they smoking?

Check out the winner.

–

Look, there’s a bottomless pit of creepiness going on here – but none of it should surprise anyone familiar with leftist propaganda. But here`s a quick summary of the ad, anyway: if you don`t bend over for Obama, you`re going to kill these kids.

Which is yucky, I guess – but underneath this lie is an even more outlandish one: that these artists actually give a crap about kids. What they care about, really, is sucking up to Obama – and the adorable brats are just props to serve that end.

Even more, it takes a special kind of filmmaker to get a child to utter, “I`m going to die of leukemia in two years.” And it has to make parents of authentically sick kids feel great, watching a child play “let`s pretend!” with their suffering.

But these kids in the video are just acting, after all. Which means their biggest threat isn`t illness, but unscrupulous parents who rent them out as tools for pathetic videos.

I predict raging crystal meth habits for all of them, in ten years.

And if you disagree with me, you`re probably a racist.

Tonight we’ve got Rick Folbaum, actress Barrett Switak, Tucker Carlson, and JP Hasson!

The Health Reform Video Challenge, launched by Obama’s Organizing for America in September, is a contest “to make the best 30-second ad showing why the President’s plan for reform is so critical.” The winning video, selected by a list of Hollywood elites and Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe, will be the basis for a new television ad that will air across the country delivering a clear message to viewers – children will die if health care reform is not passed. The secondary message is only one Defcon level lower on the fear-o-meter – the parents of sick or injured children will go bankrupt or lose their houses for even the simplest of injuries.

–

Using children to pluck at the heartstrings of the electorate and further a political agenda is nothing new, but it shifts into the land of Disgustopia when our young are exploited to distort the truth or spread outright falsehoods. The winning video opens with a young boy stating, “A year from now I’ll break my leg and my parents will have to sell our house because we couldn’t afford health care.”

This statement is designed to instill broad fear and disseminate the idea that anyone, even a family faced with the common injury of a broken leg, is susceptible to being thrust from their homes as a consequence of being uninsured. The odds of needing to sell your home to pay for the cost of a broken leg are so remote that it borders on preposterous to use it as an example of why we need reform. House closing costs in almost every scenario would exceed the medical bill, yet this is the video that the President’s organization has selected to justify the need for reform. It’s much easier to sell health care reform if our system is so fractured that a broken leg can expel a family out from under the safety of their roof.

The power of fear to induce submission is one that few can avoid. In researching the twenty finalists for this piece I even found myself second-guessing my position on the health care reform debate. Such is the power of good propaganda.

We have an innate affinity towards altruism. It is a reality of the human condition that Big Government knows and exploits, without conscience, if the means justify its ends. Fear is Big Gov’s most useful tool for expansion. The mounting growth of entitlement programs provides clear evidence of our inability to tame this altruistic affinity.

The power of using children as propaganda tools can also be seen during the last “historic” health care reform debated in our country, a case study that also provides a clear example of the phenomenon of “mission creep” that the current reform bill will surely experience in the long run.

In the wake of their failed attempt to overhaul the health care system in 1993, the Clinton Administration looked for a smaller, targeted initiative that could get bipartisan support. After examining several options in separate efforts, both the First Lady Hillary Clinton and Senator Ted Kennedy came to the conclusion that expanding health care insurance to children of the “working poor” would be the most politically popular route. This insight gave rise to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, better known as SCHIP.

SCHIP was signed into law by President Clinton in August of 1997 with the goal of insuring up to 5 million kids whose parents made too much money for Medicaid but could still not afford health insurance. After the first year of the program nearly 1 million children were enrolled.

Flash forward to January of 2009. “Either you are for kids or not for kids,” was the rallying cry of Democratic Senator Max Baucus in the push to expand funding of SCHIP. Similar rhetoric brought 40 House and 9 Senate Republicans over to the majority, and the Democratic controlled Congress presented to President Obama a bill that increased SCHIP funding by over $30 billion – in essence doubling the budget of the program.

SCHIP, which was intended to provide health insurance to the 5 million children of the “working poor”, has the ring of a morally sound program. An argument using children as the beneficiaries is a powerful message that few politicians can counter. But here’s the kicker, the Obama Administration’s SCHIP funding expanded eligibility to children in families earning $84,800 – that’s almost 400% of the poverty income level for a family of four. In some states families with incomes over $100,000 become eligible due to “income disregards” that allow for deductions such as rent, mortgages, and heating bills among others.

The expansion also has the goal of insuring 11 million children by the year 2013. That is over double the goal of the initial bill. Its also been argued by Republican lawmakers that over half of the newly eligible children already have insurance, which means they will be driven away from private insurance into the government sponsored program, piling on more of a burden to our system. That is the textbook definition of mission creep, a program’s expanding well beyond its original intent.

Here’s the point that we must understand – we cannot let propaganda prey on man’s primitive altruistic instinct in such a way that we burden our system to the point of collapse. Our entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, already account for more than 40% of federal spending! If we keep on the path of endless entitlement expansion we will see a depression the likes of which we have never seen before. That is not a play on the emotion of fear – just an unavoidable law of nature.

Yes we need change to our health care system. The costs of private plans are growing and there are people falling through the cracks due to catastrophic ailments that are of no fault of their own. We need targeted reform that tackles these problems. But what we don’t need is President endorsed propaganda that exploits children and is designed to scare the electorate into submission with distorted information.

Hugo Chavez: Toast of the Venice Film Festival

When you and I picture life under Obama’s vision for America, we see a dreary existence spent in breadlines, drab apartments and small jail cells with rat cages strapped to our face conditioning us to say “Herstory” instead of “History.” These Castro-lovers and Polanski-defenders see something completely different.

Watch “The Lives of Others.” Not only is it one of the best films of the decade, it also answers the opening question. You’ll see how life under fascism is the complete fulfillment of every narcissistic desire Susan Sarandon, Barbra Streisand, Oliver Stone, Sean Penn and the rest of their sorry lot has ever had.

Leftist Hollywood is not driven by wealth or artistic freedom, they’re driven by status and the insatiable need to be unconditionally adored. Unfortunately for them, as actors in America, status and adoration is tied to awards and the size of the paycheck – in other words competition and a free market – which they hate. But that’s the least of their worries. All this messy American capitalism forces our favorite artistes into the undignified position of having to beg for money in order to have the millions necessary to watch themselves be all artistic on the big screen, and all this messy American free expression allows people like you and me to criticize and ridicule their hard self-serving work.

Not so under a dictatorship.

The way they see it, with the right dictator, the State would hand them money for film projects and jail anyone who criticized them in print or elsewhere. Hugo Chavez shutting television stations down doesn’t horrify Leftist Hollywood, it makes them giddy.

Certainly the days of the $20 million pay check and multiple homes would be over, but that would come as a relief because status wouldn’t be tied to uncontrollable market forces. There would be no more stressing all weekend hoping those idiot hicks in Middle America make it a box office hit. As long as the State was happy with the product, the State would hand out status like welfare checks in the form of dinner parties, awards, nice apartments and “important” projects.  

But what about artistic freedom, you might ask…

These Leftists enjoy complete artistic freedom now and what do they do with it? They flack for the state, undermine liberty and trash religion. All any fascist dictator would have to say is, “Carry on.”

Such is the case with liberal Democrats and their insistence that the moral laws of the universe – laws that have been with us since God breathed life into man (or as some would have it when we rose from the primordial soup) – command Government to supply every citizen (and many that aren’t) with health insurance.

But as is generally the case all we need do is scratch the surface and the truth reveals itself.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, John Cassidy of the New Yorker lets the cat out of the bag when he writes on The New Yorker website that we must be clear about what the reform amounts to. “The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment,” Cassidy writes. “The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.” And why are they doing it? Again the WSJ quotes Cassidy: Because “ObamaCare serves the twin goals of making the United States a more equitable country” and furthering the Democrats’ “political calculus.” In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.”

That might explain why this massive 2000 page bill uses the command “shall”- business “shall” do this, you “shall” do that — 3,345 times; creates 111 new government boards, commissions and bureaucracies all overseen by a healthcare czar and subjects every aspect of healthcare to government regulation; all this at a whopping cost to taxpayers of $1.5 trillion over 10 years, which will be paid for through a host of new taxes, penalties and fees. In spite of rumors to the contrary; there is no free lunch.

This bitter pill might be easier to swallow if the new left was at least honest in admitting that the cost of seeing this imperative through will be paid for in freedoms. These new Knights Templar have defended their cause with constant references to affordability and yet under their plan what is affordable ceases to be a subjective measure that each man can make for himself according to his individual needs and priorities. Rather it becomes an objective measure defined by the new “Commissioner of Health Choices.” Every American will be forced to purchase an insurance policy. The government will decide what benefits those policies must include. Even if you are happy with your current insurance plan you will have to switch to a policy that includes the government mandated benefits even if you don’t want them, will never use them and their inclusion will increase the price you pay for coverage. And suppose you decide for whatever reason that you are simply not going to pay? Well the house bill specifies “a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” Imprisonment.whereupon you will of course receive free government healthcare.

There is nothing quite like morality imposed at the point of a gun, or which benefits some at the expense of others.

The Pelosi bill narrowly won passage in the house after Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) offered an amendment prohibiting abortion coverage in the public option as well as any private plans accepting people receiving taxpayer subsidies. But be not dismayed; Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House of Representatives has promised that she and other pro abortion democrats will work overtime to ensure that the Stupak amendment is not included in the final version of the health care bill. During an appearance on MSNBC Wasserman Schultz declared, “I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won’t be there.” That’s right; those claiming a moral imperative to reform healthcare are the same folks that believe they also have a moral right to murder children in utero AND force others to pay for it.

It seems obvious why those claiming the mantle of righteousness chose to pass this monstrosity of awfulness under cover of darkness. Thankfully — to quote the pop star Jeffry Osborne — “I really don’t need no light to see through you.”

Old School Visitor

But alas, it wasn’t meant to be.  As my colleague Jeffrey Jena pointed out, the show’s writer is a devout leftist and Obama supporter.  The show was actually written in 2007, long before David Axelrod and his minions concocted the brilliant marketing campaign that elevated an inexperienced and naive community organizer to the most powerful position in the world.

So, is that it?  Case closed?  Is “V” not an indictment and slam at the “O-mania” that swept the nation?  Far from it.  In fact, the show contains two powerful messages that should warm the hearts of all conservatives and make leftists think twice.

All art and good storytelling contain subtext.  Sometimes, the creator of the work sets out to tell a story using the subtext as the motivator.  On other occasions, the writer or filmmaker lets the subtext develop as the characters move through their arcs and the plot unfolds.  James Cameron has stated in several interviews that the themes in “Terminator 2″ didn’t fully gel until after he completed the first draft of the screenplay.  He read through his own script and realized, “hey, now I get what it’s about.”

Scott Peters didn’t set out to make a show that exposed the dangers of hero worship and the insidiousness of fascist and statist societies.  He didn’t want to compare the Obama administration and the Democrats to flesh eating reptiles.

But he did.

Peters simply imagined how, in today’s society, one group could control the masses.  Replace religion with secular or scientific “hope.”  Promise things that are impossible like free universal health care.  Manipulate the media and force journalists to only portray the positives in order to protect their careers and their egos.  Utilize the Internet through social networking and slick websites.  Create a sense of “coolness” and “hipness” in order to woo the youth of the world.

All of these tactics are amoral, corrupt, shifty, and slimy.  It’s not Peters’ fault that they would actually be used by an American politician.

The artist, the creative force that is Scott Peters, subconsciously knows that these tactics are wrong.  He knows, deep down inside that the path of the Visitors, like all totalitarians, is similar to what Obama used to gain power.  Behind the slick marketing campaign lies something else.  Whether or not that “something else” in the real world is evil or just incompetent is yet to be seen.

It’s shocking that a major network would put out a high-profile show that seems to skewer this president and his lackeys.  What is even more shocking is that the writer of the show, who nailed Obama’s marketing campaign right down to the key slogans and key policies, would dedicate his time and money to support something that his own inner voice discerned was wrong.

It takes a healthy dose of cynicism, a dash of historical ignorance, and a lot of gullibility to fully embrace modern statist rhetoric.  Hollywood drinks the kool-aid by the gallon.  Yet, in their pursuit of good story telling and their aspirations towards art, they more often than not end up making really good conservative stories.

When you get right down to it, the reason there are so few “conservative” films out there is because most films are inherently conservative.  Any film that champions the rise and strength of the individual is conservative.  Any story that tells of the triumphs of good over evil is conservative.  The subtext of films that resonate, films that capture our imaginations, are based on the romantic ideals of conservative thought.

We all know the classic romantic comedy formula.  Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back.  The backbone of this formula is individual achievement.  Note that it isn’t boy meets girl, then boy gets government to force girl to be with him in the interest of “fairness.”

How many films end with the hero submitting to the collective?  Did the audience cheer at the end of the “Invasion of Body Snatchers” remake?  Were they happy that Donald Sutherland had given up that pesky individualism thing and joined the alien hive mind?  When Jean-Luc Picard temporarily became Locutus of Borg did we all breathe a sigh of relief because we could finally root for the lead character of the series?

I’m sure everyone who serves in Palpatine’s galactic empire gets free health care.  I don’t think Darth Vader had to pay an HMO for his suit.  Yet, didn’t we all cheer when the rebels destroyed the Death Star?

The very funny and underrated film “The House Bunny” features a bunch of ugly duckling girls who find inner confidence and give each other makeovers to better their situation.  They emerge from a snappy montage as a group of knock-outs.  Again, this is conservatism.  The girls rise to the occasion.  They elevate themselves through achievement.  Anna Faris’ character isn’t forced to make herself ugly in order to fit in with the awkward sorority.

This blog's subtext is to post photos of Anna Faris

Yet, in real life, Hollywood creative types advocate bashing all of us with an economic “ugly stick.”

Like many, I find it tedious and distracting when films and television shows delve into non sequiturs to bash Republicans, Christianity, and Conservatism in general.  It’s not because I am religious (I am a devout Agnostic) nor because I call myself a Republican (I do not).

I despise it because it’s bad storytelling.

Progressive ideology does not fit well with classic narrative structures.  The greatest stories are ones that champion things like individualism, freedom and faith.  Big governments, collective thought, and cold scientific secularism make better villains than heroes.

Instinctively, we all know this.

So we can take solace in the fact that “V” is a classic validation of our ideology.  We can also take away the fact that even the most die-hard, kool-aid drinking leftists know deep down inside that we are right.  They might not say it with their voices, but they say it with their hearts.

And that’s enough for me.

As an afterthought, let me say that while I enjoyed the new “V,” it failed to capture the magic of the 80s mini-series.  No Marc Singer, no Michael Ironside, and no yummy Jane Badler.  The cast was bland, the story a bit plodding and the visual effects looked like those that show up in my movies (that is not a compliment).

As a sci-fi junkie, I’ll keep watching…hoping the show will change for the better.