01/22/16
Ted Cruz Defends2

VIDEO: Steve Deace calls out ‘conservative apologists’ for Donald Trump

By: Renee Nal
New Zeal

Palin Trump

Popular talk show host Steve Deace wrote an eye-opening piece at the Conservative Review on Donald Trump’s not-so-conservative positions from the not-so-distant past.

Deace charges:

“Trump was a typical New York City liberal back in 1999, and he’s still a typical New York City liberal now. That’s why Trump’s campaign has empty platitudes instead of substance, and has to resort to the same smear tactics as the Left – because Trump can’t win a real debate on the issues.”

Calling out the “conservative apologists” for Trump, Deace explains that the famous 1999 interview (see below) with the late Tim Russert is not the only example of Trump’s (recent) progressive positions on issues such as abortion, religious liberty, the Iran Deal, Israel, amnesty, Supreme Court appointees, and more.

Deace sources every claim and presents a compelling case that Trump is willing to play both sides of the fence.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE.

01/21/16
Thirteen Hours

13 Hours of Heroism

By Michael Johns

“By the rude bridge that arched the floor, their flag to April’s breeze unfurled. Here once the embattled farmers stood, and fired the shot heard round the world.”

The words are from the introduction to The Concord Hymn by Ralph Waldo Emerson, and they capture the heroism that was at the heart of the American Revolutionary War launched by American patriots at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775.The “shot heard around the world” was an act of heroism. Without it, there may never have been a United States. Without hundreds of individual and collective acts of American heroism since, our nation likely would never have persevered.

Several years ago, our national Tea Party movement began referring to themselves as “the three percent.” It referred to the fact that, among the American colonists of the 1770s, the battle for liberty was not waged by all, or even most. A mere three percent of the population participated in the Revolution, even though many more (roughly 40 to 45 percent supported it).This has largely been our nation’s experience with heroic acts since. While the nation embraces these acts in theory (especially once they prove successful), they are acts of heroism precisely because not everyone has done, or could do, them. After they unfold, we typically look back with a largely revisionist sense that all Americans embraced these causes and selfless acts at the time. In fact, it’s seldom the case.

Roughly fifteen months after Lexington and Concord, heroism again manifested with the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. It was signed by a mere 56 Americans and written almost exclusively by one, Thomas Jefferson. In retrospect, the 56 founders who signed the Declaration actually had every reason not to sign it. Most lived lives of relative tranquility and luxury for the time and were not ultimately the primary beneficiaries of the liberty and independence the Revolution achieved. Yet, they acted—as did the unknown patriot who fired the “shot heard round the world”—out of principle over practicality, and this also made them heroes who pledged their lives to a cause that they likely knew at the time could have failed miserably and (in the case of the American Revolution) was not even embraced by a solid majority of citizens.

Every generation of American history to date has had its heroes. The iconic ones, of course, are etched in stone: Washington and his soldiers at Valley Forge in the brutal winter of 1777-78, Lincoln and his perseverance as the nation threatened to fracture, and the political and military commitment to victory over fascism and later communism by a series of American leaders and patriots.Throughout what ultimately proved to be the final days of the Cold War, I saw firsthand the depth of commitment of American-led rebellions against Soviet hegemony in Africa, Asia and Latin America that comprised the foundation of the so-called “Reagan Doctrine.”

As was the case with the American Revolution itself, these efforts were both supported and opposed by many but carried out by only a few. Sadly, many of those few never lived to see the post-Cold War world they helped create. They were killed in action, as was the case with Angola’s Jonas Savimbi, or they were assassinated, as was the case with Afghanistan’s Ahmad Shah Massoud and Nicaragua’s Enrique Bermudez. But had the Soviet Union not encountered the brave resistance of these leaders in places like Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua, former Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev likely never would have reached the conclusion that retreatment and reconciliation, not continued investment in Cold War conflict, was in his nation’s best interest. Had that proven the case, what world might exist today?

In very recent months, of course, ths tradition of American heroism has continued. When an Islamic terrorist from Morocco entered their train car with an AK-47 machine gun and 300 rounds of ammunition in France last summer, it was three brave Americans (Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone) who jumped immediately to the passengers’ defense, likely saving the lives of many. “Your heroism must be an example for many and a source of inspiration,” French President Francois Hollande later said of their efforts.

And this past week, in Philadelphia, police officer Jesse Hartnett, who sustained multiple gun shots from an ISIS-inspired terrorist, heroically persevered against the terrorist, even in his bloodied and bullet-ridden state. “Shots still…shots fired. I’m shot. I’m bleeding heavily. Get us another unit out here. 6-0 and Spruce,” Hartnett can be heard saying in a chilling Philadelphia police radio call as he stumbled from his car to pursue the terrorist, who was apprehended.

This Thursday (January 14) evening, the ongoing story of American heroism continues with the national release of 13 Hours, an exceptional and historically accurate film that compellingly tells the story of six brave Americans who navigated the Obama administration’s political trepidation and intervened in defense of American personnel under attack by al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

Release of the film is prompting broad Twitter use of the hashtag #AHeroIs, as Americans reflect on the many other acts of heroism they have witnessed in their own lives or interpreted in their assessment of America’s bold history.

While four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, were killed in the Benghazi attack, the efforts of these five American heroes over the 13-hour conflict in Benghazi likely saved the lives of many others.

13 hours tells this compelling story of Benghazi, a continuation of the long-standing tradition of American heroism. It’s an important story, and one all Americans should make a point to see.

01/21/16
Ted Cruz

TED CRUZ, HOLLYWOOD AND FAITH

By Sharon Sebastian

Like clockwork, political campaigns degrade to low-rung rhetoric for some candidates. They also bring old acquaintances out of the woodwork who didn’t like you then and don’t like you now.

Such is the reported case for Conservative Presidential candidate Ted Cruz and a film writer in Hollywood. Conflicts in principles and ideas appear immediately apparent in any sentence that mentions Conservative and Hollywood. The Senator and the writer, Craig Mazin, have a very brief history. They were reportedly on the same dorm at Princeton during Freshman year. Mazin has been dogging Ted Cruz with attacks that surfaced nationally during the Conservative’s 2012 run for the Senate.

A skilled trash-talker, who weaponizes Twitter, screenwriter Mazin resorts to schoolyard taunts and name-calling worthy of a bully who enjoys attacking someone who rises above the ugly fray and chooses to walk away. Say, a Christian, perhaps. In a less profanity tinged missive about Cruz, Mazin recently tweeted: “Getting emails blaming me for not smothering Ted Cruz in his sleep in 1988. What kind of monster do you think I am? A really prescient one?”

What is really going on here? What would possess an adult film writer to resort to the pettiness and mean-spirited jargon of a pubescent adolescent? What could a Hollywood screenwriter have against a Senator who runs for office in the defense of faith, freedom and patriotism? The question likely answers itself.

Assuming that Mazin is for freedom and patriotism, possibly it is the issue of faith that so sticks in his craw. It is well reported that the young Ted Cruz was principled in prayer in his college days. Senator Ted Cruz hides his Christianity from no one. It is safe to say that his faith is an irritant at best for a writer of scripts that the Motion Picture Rating (MPAA) assigns an R-Rating for “graphic nudity, violent images and drug use.” It can be said for Mr. Mazin that he stands by his “graphic nudity, violent images and drug use” in his films and his juvenile, low-grade tweets.

There are others with differing opinions. Famed Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz (a renowned Liberal) calls Ted Cruz “off-the-chart brilliant”. Now, that’s got to hurt a guy like Mazin whose tweeted claim to fame is: “In 1988, I puked all over Ted Cruz’s textbooks.”

A closer look at Senator Ted Cruz and his support of the faith may only give Mazin fuel for his Twitter fire. Possibly, however, there may be a lesson in it for who Ted Cruz is today as opposed to how Mr. Mazin chooses to conjure him up during the college years. Assuming that it is the Christian faith that has Mazin all rankled, he may find the following highly disturbing. That Cruz put his years of law school to work and prevented a “takeover” of churches by the Obama administration could create a full-on, tweet blast from Mr. Mazin.

While Mr. Mazin was writing Hollywood films which can have great cultural impact, both good and bad, Ted Cruz was already protecting faith and freedom of religion before ever announcing a run for the Presidency.

In 2013, Senator Ted Cruz (TX-R) exposed unprecedented power grabs by the Obama administration in multiple cases before the Supreme Court. Cruz stood firm against Obama’s Justice Department in these cases and successfully helped block an attack on the faith and its pastors:

“If the Department of Justice had won these cases, the federal government would be able to… “dictate who churches choose as ministers…” — Ted Cruz (The Legal Limit: The Obama Administration’s Attempts To Expand Federal Power)

On the Obama Justice Department’s hit list was freedom of religion with Christianity as the primary target.  Long a bane to the Progressive Left (that rejected God from it 2012 Presidential convention) is that the Ten Commandments – that are foundational to the Judeo-Christian faith – served as the biblical inspiration for both the U.S. Constitution and Capitalism. True Christians stand with Israel much to the disdain of Democrat Presidents from FDR, to Jimmy Carter, to Barack Obama. True Christianity is a blockade to bigotry and tyrannical aspirations.

In an outrageous attempt to increase its power, the Obama administration attempted to usurp the right of a church to choose its own pastors. In the case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the Justice Department reportedly argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that it “had the right to oversee a church’s choosing of ministers.” The Supreme Court foiled Obama’s egregious attempt to curtail a fundamental right of churches. In a 9-0 opinion, the justices sided in favor of the Lutheran Church.

The day Barack Obama swore on the Bible to uphold the U.S. Constitution – which includes the freedoms of speech and religion – the assault began. Obama’s gibes at Judeo-Christian belief and scripture are well documented. Gaining control of who preaches in Christian churches would have given the Obama administration control of the message. Obama acolytes in the pulpit would be in position to convolute the scripture to serve their political ideologies.

Socialist-Progressives in the Democrat Party are going to great lengths to escape the authority of God, preferring to live by their own countenance and self-devised morality while attempting to subjugate or eliminate God out of society. In a head-fake to voters, many assume the role as pretenders of faith. Those who outsmart themselves in matters eternal, including those in Washington and Hollywood, go so far as to cherry-pick the Bible and mismatch or purposely convolute scriptural intent to serve their political agenda.

That Ted Cruz professes the Christian faith may cause any number of Hollywood screenwriters angst. If so, that explains it. Though just being conservative, or simply independent in thought, has always been enough to tee-off any Hollywood liberal worthy of their far-Left credentials.   Third-grade name calling or vitriolic rhetoric, whether from the Left or from the Right, that does not promote serious discussions — does the country no service. The message to Mr. Mazin is that the pillars of faith on which Ted Cruz professes to firmly stand cannot be knocked down. Whether a bitter sounding, former acquaintance can cheapen the national dialogue, that is a whole other matter entirely.

Sharon Sebastian, author of the book, “AGING: WARNING Navigating Life’s Medical, Mental & Financial Minefields,” is a columnist, commentator, and contributor in print and on nationwide broadcasts on topics ranging from healthcare, culture, religion, and politics to domestic and global policy. Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. Website:   www.AgingWarning.com

01/20/16
Palin Trump

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – The Revolution Starts Here Edition

The Watcher’s Council

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

We note with regret the departure of our dear friend Maggie of Maggie’s Notebook, who resigned her seat on the Council to concentrate on other matters. We all wish her well and will miss her, even though she will continues to be a valued part of the Council community.

But we do have some good news. Replacing Maggie in our stellar line up is The Daley Gator, who makes his debut this week. And if you haven’t previously had the pleasure of reading him, you’re in for a real treat.

This week, The Pirate’s Cove, Blazing Cat Fur and Life News earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6 PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning.

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have for you this week…

Council Submissions:

Honorable Mentions:

Non-Council Submissions:

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that! And don’t forget to tune in Friday for the results!

01/20/16
Thirteen Hours

Real-life heroes tell all about the Benghazi attack

Hat Tip: BB

01/19/16
Trumbo

Hollywood’s Despicable Hero Dalton Trumbo

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Trumbo

Special Report

From the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism

Cliff Kincaid, director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, interviewed Allan H. Ryskind, author of the book,Hollywood Traitors, and long-time editor of the newspaper Human Events, about the life and beliefs of Dalton Trumbo, a major Hollywood screenwriter and the subject of the film “Trumbo.” Trumbo supported Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and North Korea’s Kim Il-Sung. He condemned Martin Luther King, Jr., for not being a true revolutionary. Yet, he is depicted in the film as just a family-friendly socialist and defender of the First Amendment in the film.

Ryskind’s father, the famous Hollywood screenwriter Morrie Ryskind, worked with Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Walt Disney and others against communist domination of Hollywood. Reagan considered Human Events as his favorite newspaper when he was president.

In addition to being honored by Hollywood, Trumbo’s star, Bryan Cranston, and director Jay Roach, were given an “exclusive private tour” of the Newseum, the privately-funded museum in Washington, D.C. dedicated to the First Amendment.

Q: Much of Hollywood has given a major send-off to the movie, “Trumbo,” which celebrates the famous Communist screenwriter Dalton Trumbo.  Bryan Cranston, who plays Trumbo in the movie, has just been nominated “best actor in a leading role” by the Screen Actors Guild. SAG had even pushed for the entire cast to get an Oscar.  Many Hollywood organizations, like the Broadcast Film Critics Association and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, have wholeheartedly embraced the movie’s message of Dalton as a First Amendment hero and Cranston as a best actor nominee. And this is only part of the story. The Hollywood Reporter, the industry’s well-known trade publication, and the SAG’s influential magazine, Written By, have devoted loads of publicity to the supposed importance of the film and the wonders of Dalton himself. You’ve seen the film, so what do you make of it as an accurate picture of the times?

A: Look, if you didn’t know anything about the effort by serious Communists—and Dalton was a very serious Communist—to capture the movie industry for the purpose of serving our deadly enemy, the Soviet Union, you’d think this was a pleasant movie and that Dalton was an avuncular idealist whose guiding political philosophy was not communism but helping the underdog and preserving the First Amendment. He is portrayed as something of a saintly socialist who not only defied the Hollywood blacklist, but defeated it and struck a major blow for freedom and patriotic progressives. To the extent it is conceded that he had some theoretical beliefs that could be considered Marxist, he is depicted as more Pope Francis than Vladimir Lenin.

Q: In what way does the movie hide or gloss over Trumbo’s Red record?

A: All of his heavy-duty propaganda and activities on behalf of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin and the Communist Party are omitted. So is his vigorous support of Lenin, Adolph Hitler (during the Hitler-Stalin pact) and North Korea’s Kim Il-sung after his aggressive attack against South Korea in 1950. Even his membership in the American CP, which he eventually bragged about, is ignored. Dalton was on Stalin’s side virtually all of his adult life—in important ways—but those unfamiliar with the titanic battle between the Sovieteers and the anti-Communists in Hollywood wouldn’t have a clue as to what that fight in the movie colony was all about and Trumbo’s deep involvement on the Soviet side.

The villains in the movie, incidentally, are not the party members who worked covertly—and relentlessly—to turn Hollywood over to Moscow but the anti-Communist community who fought the Red conspiracy in the film industry—and won, at least for a time. Columnist Hedda Hopper, John Wayne, labor leader Roy Brewer, the House Un-American Activities Committee, the Motion Picture Alliance and other opponents of the Communists come in for a severe beating. And while the picture blasts the blacklist, which banned Communist Party members from the industry, the average viewer would have virtually no idea as to what it meant to be a party member and why the blacklist was imposed.

Q: How did this movie come about?

A: The film’s screenwriter, John McNamara, who has done a number of TV shows, was inspired by Bruce Cook’s 1977 friendly biography of Trumbo. McNamara, who worked on the script for years, is plainly a big admirer of the screenwriter who wrote a number of excellent movies, including “Spartacus” and “Roman Holiday.” Director Jay Roach, who directed the “Austin Powers” movies, is another Trumbo fan. The star who plays Dalton, Bryan Cranston, the meth dealer in the hit TV show, “Breaking Bad,” has been touring the nation singing the praises of Dalton as a fighter for freedom.

Q: You say he was a “Stalinist” and a member of the Communist Party, facts that you argue are fundamentally ignored by the movie. But how do we know he was a party member?

A: There is no question about his CP membership. In those famous 1947 hearings, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) submitted material proving beyond a doubt that he was a party member, though Trumbo and nine other screenwriters and directors refused to respond to questions about party membership, accusing HUAC of violating their First Amendment rights. Trumbo and the other nine, soon to be dubbed The Hollywood Ten, served time in prison for contempt of Congress and were blacklisted because the Hollywood studios laid down the rule that no one could work in Hollywood if he or she belonged to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party or refused to tell Congress they were party members. (Each of the Ten, by the way, was a party member and their Communist cards were produced at the ’47 hearings.)

Years later, however, Trumbo finally admitted to his biographer, Bruce Cook, that he joined the party in 1943, and that “I might as well have been a Communist ten years earlier. But I’ve never regretted it. As a matter of fact, it’s possible to say I would have regretted not having done it.”  (Bruce Cook’s Dalton Trumbo, pp. 146-148) No regrets about being a tool of a party controlled by the Caligula in the Kremlin? Apparently not.

In an unpublished memo among his papers at the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison (a copy of which is in my possession), Trumbo writes, after his prison term and a lengthy sojourn to Mexico, that he “re-affiliated with the party in 1954” and that “in the spring of 1956, I left the party for good.” His papers in Madison also revealed he remained a Stalin apologist until Trumbo’s death in 1976, insisting that whatever his defects, the Kremlin dictator’s most important historical contribution was to have advanced the cause of socialism worldwide.

Q: But is it really fair to call him a Stalinistrather than a man who frequently followed the party line?

A: Though he says he joined the party in 1943, Trumbo never publicly deviated from the Stalinist line since the late 1930s and never publicly displayed a bit of remorse for that evil man’s malevolent rule. In a sympathetic portrayal of the Hollywood Communists in their classic [book], The Inquisition in Hollywood, authors Larry Ceplair and Steven Englund ask: “Were the Hollywood Communists ‘Stalinist?’ The initial answer must be ‘yes.’ Communist screenwriters defended the Stalinist regime, accepted the Comintern’s policies and about-faces, and criticized enemies and allies alike with an infuriating self-righteousness, superiority and selective memory, which eventually alienated all but the staunchest fellow travelers.” (p. 239)

“As defenders of the Soviet regime,” they added, “the screen artists Reds became known apologists for crimes of monstrous dimensions, though they claimed to have known nothing about such crimes, and, indeed, shouted down, or ignored those who did.” Ceplair and Englund also stress that they “defended that regime unflinchingly, uncritically, inflexibly—and therefore left themselves open to the justifiable suspicion that they not only approved of everything they were defending, but would themselves act in the same way if they were in the same position.”  (emphasis added) (p. 241)

Trumbo fits that description to a tee.

Q: Both the liberals and the Left continue to say that there never was a genuine Red “threat” in Hollywood to begin with. Yes, there were some folks who might have mouthed the Soviet line once in a while or “flirted with Communist ideas,” as industry representative Jack Valenti put it, but they weren’t really subversive and had no real influence over the movie colony to begin with. So why did HUAC feel compelled to hold those 1947 hearings on the Communist influence in the movie industry?

A: By 1944, a number of important Hollywood writers, directors, labor union officials and studio executives, alarmed by the Red infiltration of the industry, formed the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (the MPA). Among the founders and members were Morrie Ryskind (my dad), Walt Disney, Russian émigré Ayn Rand, labor union officials and executives from various studios. Actors Robert Taylor and John Wayne were leaders in the group, (which, incidentally, is walloped by the Trumbo movie). They were of various political persuasions, but they all despised the Communists, whom they viewed as enemies of America.

The group was formed because in 1944 it looked as if committed Stalinists had taken control of Hollywood. Hard-core party members had major influence in the powerful guilds and unions, with the very influential Screen Writers Guild picking party members Dalton Trumbo and Gordon Kahn in June 1945 to run the guild’s flagship publication, The Screen Writer. Under Trumbo and Kahn, the publication became a tool of the CP, celebrating important screenwriter Reds and advertising lectures on history, economics and foreign policy from a Marxist and Soviet point of view. Trumbo also used it as a platform to attack the Hollywood anti-Communist community. Communist screenwriters, moreover, had major influence on Hollywood scripts and were turning out films hailing the Soviet economic and political system and even the murderous Joseph Stalin himself.

By 1947, you also have to remember, the Cold War, which Stalin had initiated by seizing Eastern Europe and a portion of Central Europe through force and threats of force, was already under way. And the overwhelming majority of Americans had come to realize that Stalin was a deadly enemy. Even the cream of the liberal community, such as FDR’s widow, Eleanor Roosevelt, liberal lawyer Joseph Rauh and union leaders Walter Reuther and David Dubinsky had deliberately split with the Communists, forming in January of 1947 the Americans for Democratic Action which banned, or should I say blacklisted, anyone who was a Communist. But Hollywood Communists, through party fronts, books, essays, movies, political activities and pots full of money, deliberately allied themselves with Moscow against America and the rest of the Free World.

Q:  You say that Trumbo sided with Hitler at one point, but didn’t the Communists in Hollywood lead the fight against fascism and Naziism?

A: Early on, they opposed Hitler, whom they rightly viewed as a major threat to the Soviet Union, the country they had embraced as their own. They formed the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League, called on the country to boycott German goods and urged the U.S. to aid the “anti-fascist forces” in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. John Howard Lawson, who became the chief enforcer of the Stalinist line in Hollywood, even wrote a movie, “Blockade, to help persuade FDR to assist the Soviet side.

What is customarily omitted in so much of the “history” is that the Soviet Union and the Communist parties around the globe switched sides on August 23, 1939, when Hitler and Stalin formed the Hitler-Stalin pact. The Hollywood Reds now supported Hitler when he invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939—the immediate cause of World War II—and backed him the next year when he conquered Norway, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg and then put down the Nazi flag in France. Stalin’s key aide, V. Molotov, even sent Hitler a congratulatory note when France fell to German forces. And the Red screenwriters, Trumbo especially, backed Hitler when he began raining death and destruction on London.

Trumbo, in fact, led the fight to ease Hitler’s burden of conquest. He did this by demonizing all of Hitler’s enemies and accusing Great Britain of being deceptive, dishonorable and unworthy of American assistance. England, he noted, was a monarchy, not a democracy, and had declared war against Hitler, not the other way around. He also accused FDR, previously a Communist Party favorite, of being guilty of “treason” and “black treason” for giving weapons to the British in their hour of peril. Trumbo enthusiastically presented his views in speeches and in writing and laid out the case most explicitly in his 1941 novel, The Remarkable Andrew.

The Hollywood Communists, including Trumbo, quickly turned against Hitler after the Fuehrer double-crossed Stalin and launched a massive invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941. Then, and only then, did the radical screenwriters switch sides again, now demanding America give major military and economic assistance to Moscow to help it survive the Nazi onslaught. Only after Hitler invaded the USSR did the Red screenwriters become “patriotic,” since they believed U.S. assistance was crucial to the Soviet Union’s survival. Their patriotic feelings were for Stalin’s Russia, not their country of birth.

Q: But was Trumbo a faithful follower of the party line after World War II?

A: Trumbo, as even Larry Ceplair and Dalton’s late son, Christopher, note in their new book on the screenwriter, also called, Dalton Trumbo, accepts that Dalton embraced the Stalinist line for many years after World War II. A number of Soviet experts maintain that Stalin initiated the Cold War in April 1945 when Jacque Duclos, a prominent French Communist, assailed the American party boss, Earl Browder, for saying there could be a peaceful transition to socialism in America and that the United States and the Soviet Union could work together peacefully in the post-World War II period. The American CP, thinking this was a signal from Stalin himself to renew the class warfare rhetoric and paint America as an enemy that needed to be defeated, then booted Browder out of his job and then out of the party. Trumbo was on board, saying: “It comes down to this, if Lenin was right, then Browder was wrong—and vice versa. I prefer to believe Lenin was right.” (Bruce Cook, Dalton Trumbo, p. 163.)

Trumbo then lined up with Stalin against America on all important foreign policy issues: supporting the Soviet seizure of Eastern Europe, backing Stalin’s effort to conquer Western Europe, declaring America “the main enemy,” embracing serious Communist efforts in the United States to penetrate crucial elements in American society, including Hollywood, the unions, the military, the State Department, our atomic energy installations and the White House.

Nothing so underscores his love for Leninism, Stalinism and communism in general than his post-WWII unpublished manuscript discovered in his papers at the Wisconsin Historical Society. “This is not by me,” Trumbo lightheartedly scribbles onto a piece of paper covering the 145-page screen treatment dealing with the Korean War. Then he boyishly confesses: “Ah yes it is! For $2,000 I dramatized a local child-custody case for a group composed of Paul Jarrico, Adrian Scott, Herbert Biberman, et al. [Scott and Biberman were two of the Hollywood Ten. Jarrico headed the CP in the 1950s.]  It was naturally never made [into a movie]. Dalton Trumbo.”

Trumbo titled his script An American Story and the heroine, Catherine Bonham, is said by her ex-husband to be an unfit mother because she favors Communist North Korea’s swift and brutal invasion of South Korea in June 1950. She insists the invasion was completely justifiable, for this is “Korea’s fight for independence, just as we had to fight for our own independence in 1776.” She is hopeful, nay predicts, that “people all over the world” will rise up and create other North Koreas. “Many will suffer and die fighting for this goal,” she tells her children, “but we will win. Never doubt it.”

Q: The Trumbo film also suggests that he was a champion of blacks and the civil rights movement. Is that true?

A: In their new Trumbo biography, Larry Ceplair and the late Christopher Trumbo, Dalton’s son, write that Dalton did not care much for the non-violent civil rights forces. They noted that Dalton was a champion of the Black Panthers and “had come to believe that non-violent resistance had its limitations. When David L. Wolper contacted Trumbo about adapting William Styron’s novel, The Confessions of Nat Turner, (about the leader of a bloody slave revolt in Virginia in 1831), Trumbo expressed interest and described Turner as ‘a far more contemporary figure than Martin Luther King…In his resort to violence, Nat Turner is truly a man of the Twentieth Century, which Martin Luther King, unhappily, is not.’” (page 473. Wolper had contacted Trumbo in 1968 after King’s non-violent tactics had proved key to the passage of the sweeping 1964 and 1965 civil rights laws.)

Q: Is Trumbo the first Stalinist screenwriter who has been celebrated by Hollywood since Dalton broke the blacklist in 1960?

A: No. Trumbo is just the latest. Hollywood screenwriters, authors and essayists have been hailing devoted Hollywood Reds for years, especially The Hollywood Ten. In 1997, the 50thanniversary of the blacklist, I attended a gathering of celebrities at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills, where Hollywood was honoring several long-time Stalinists, including Hollywood Ten member Ring Lardner, Jr., and the former head of the Communist Party in Hollywood, Paul Jarrico. The Writers Guild of America, West, a successor organization to the powerful Screen Writers Guild, bestowed on them First Amendment awards, no less, for refusing to tell HUAC whether they were party members who were conspiring with the Kremlin leader to impose a Soviet style government in America. Each of the Ten was a committed Red and only one, Edward Dmytryk, broke with the party. Whatever one might think of the blacklist, why in the world would Hollywood award a First Amendment award to anyone who was a Communist, since Communists the world over have never believed in free speech?

The film “The Majestic,” starring Jim Carrey, runs regularly on TV and the authors name a wonderful patriotic town, filled with Middle-American virtues, after John Howard Lawson, an excellent screenwriter, but Hollywood’s veteran CP boss, who died yearning for a Stalinist America. Lawson was the chief enforcer of the party line in the movie colony. Trumbo himself has been honored before in a 2008 documentary by his late son, Christopher, which received a ton of praise from Hollywood actors and reviewers. And the new movie, Trumbo, pays tribute to the Hollywood Ten. The truth is the rewriting of history never quits in Tinseltown.

Note: Director of the AIM Center for investigative Journalism Cliff Kincaid sent a February 6, 2015 letter to Bryan Cranston, informing him that “playing the role of Stalinist Communist and Hitler apologist Dalton Trumbo” in the film, “Trumbo,” then in production, could be damaging to his career. Kincaid said, “Since the facts about Trumbo’s service to the Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany are not widely known, this information may be new to you…We hope you issue a statement clearing up the controversy surrounding your involvement in the ‘Trumbo’ film and your knowledge, or lack thereof, regarding Trumbo’s service to Stalin and Hitler.”

Cranston never responded to the letter.

This is a Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism

01/18/16
Ted Cruz Black Listed

“A Movement is Coming” TED CRUZ

Hat Tip: BB

01/18/16
Clare Lopez

CLARE LOPEZ EXPOSES BENGHAZI, CLINTON & BLUMENTHALS!

01/17/16
Obama Marxist

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results – 01/17/16

Obama Marxist

Obama Marx

Condensed version of Obama’s SOTU

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match-up.

When you ask people, “What’s America’s longest war?” they usually answer “Vietnam” or amend that to “Afghanistan,” but it’s neither. America’s longest war is the war on drugs. – Don Winslow, The Cartel

Poor Mexico. So far from G-d, so close to the United States. – Former Mexican Presidente Porfirio Diaz

El que impuesto está a perder, hasta lástima es que gane” (If someone has decided to lose, it would be a pity if he wins) – Mexican proverb

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz's profile photo

This week’s winning essay comes from Fausta’s blog, Mexico: El Chapo’s notes from underground, VIDEO. By now, Sean Penn’s infamous sojurn in Mexico to interview cartel boss El Chapo is common knowledge, but Fausta takes us behind the headlines with an fascinating in-depth look at how it happened and the aftermath that saw El Chapo recaptured… at least for now. Here’s a slice:

Penn first met in person with El Chapo’s son under Chavista Cartel de los Soles protection in Venezuela’s Margarita Island.

El Chapo snuck out of the house during the Mexican Marines’ raid through a tunnel, bring us today’s Capt. Louis Renault moment:

‘El Chapo’ Nearly Foiled Capture With Another Tunnel. Mexican Marines took nearly 90 minutes to find the drug lord’s tunnel

“Video published Monday by Mexican broadcaster Televisa revealed details of the secret tunnel used by Mr. Guzmán to slip away from marines as they stormed a house he was using in the coastal city of Los Mochis. He was arrested hours later trying to leave the city in a stolen car.

The tunnel was hidden behind a closet mirror, featured a secret switch hidden in the ceiling, and had electricity and wooden planks covering the walls, the images showed. Marines took nearly 90 minutes to find the tunnel and open the access, giving him a big head start.

Mr. Guzmán, the world’s most notorious drug lord and leader of the Sinaloa cartel, has a long history with tunnels. He is widely credited with pioneering the use of tunnels to ferry drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border, and used tunnels in recent years to elude capture as Mexico’s most-wanted criminal. He then famously used a mile-long tunnel to escape from prison last July.”

Were he living, Dosto may have something to say on Chapo’s underground tendencies.

By now, shouldn’t Chapo (Shorty) be named El Topo (Mole)?

But I digress.

Here’s Televisa‘s coverage (in Spanish). Here’s the video from the Marines’ unit commander’s go-pro camera.

Anonymous Mexico released an embeddable version,

While the house was raided.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Sultan KnishThe Tribal War With Islam submitted by The Independent Sentinel.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners:

Non-Council Winners:

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

01/17/16
Hostages

Will the Farsi Island incident turn out to be a Cover-up like Benghazi?

By: Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo
Dr. Rich Swier

Hostages

Since Tuesday’s capture of U.S. Navy sailors by the Iranians, many questions have emerged that call into question the official story of events.  Knowing the history of the Obama administration, including the Arab Spring and the infamous attack and cover-up Benghazi “incident,” is it fair to assume that the White House is again deceiving the American public?

arab spring graphic

After five years. This graphic details the results of the Arab Spring. An increase in failed states and autocracies.

In light of yet another disgraceful situation that humiliated our country and military, below are some vital and important questions to ponder (forget political correctness!):

  • Was this event coordinated to coincide with Obama’s final State of the Union, which conspicuously did not mention the sailors in Iranian custody?
  • Did John Kerry foresee that when the Iranians released the sailors it would provide good publicity for the Iranian nuclear deal that he negotiated with his Iranian family-related “buddy,” Javad Zarif? Wasn’t it, like John Kerry said, “a good story for both of us”?
  • Did, as Rep. Louis Gohmert mentioned, the White House indicate to the Iranianswhere to find the two boats and apprehend (“help”) the sailors? Did they have “mechanical problems,” or was it sophisticated jamming of their GPS?
  • Were the boats truly navigating in Iranian-controlled waters? If so, how did all of their various navigational systems fail simultaneously?
  • Is the entire chain-of-command, leading up to Defense Secretary Carter’sinsistence that the sailors were faced with a “navigational error” and/or mechanical failure, part of a Machiavellian cover-up?
  • Could those ten sailors have been regarded as hostages and collateral for the frozen Iranian funds?
  • Was the subsequent strangely-timed prisoner swap between the Obama administration and Iran a further diversion designed to change the attention and conversation away from the highly suspicious related facts of the Farsi Island incident?

At first, on the surface, this sordid affair is not unlike another major scandal of the Obama administration: Benghazi.  Again, consider some important questions:

  • Isn’t one leading theory of what the terrorists were hoping to achieve in Benghazi the kidnapping of Ambassador Chris Stevens, so that he could later be swapped for the so-called Blind Sheikh, a well-known Egyptian terrorist?
  • Wasn’t the terrorist mob in Benghazi recorded screaming “Don’t shoot! Morsi sent us!” as they approached the compound?
  • Didn’t Ansar al-Sharia, an Iranian-backed terror group, claim responsibility for the Benghazi attack?
  • Wasn’t then U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, trumpeting that a video caused of the attack?
  • Didn’t all these facts point to the manipulation performed by the genius puppet master, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett?

Now that the Farsi Island incident is over and with the focus shifting to the latest prisoner swap, who will be the “schmuck” that throws their hands up and screams “What difference, at this point, does it make?”