Hat Tip: BB
By: James Simpson
DC Independent Examiner
Perhaps we should give Howard Dean a break. He is a serial liar and goes off on unhinged rants based on “facts” with no more connection to reality than Disneyland. His behavior can often only be described as lunatic. So perhaps we should just pity the obviously deranged man, say a prayer for him to be restored to sanity, or at least the proper balance of meds.
Anyway, feeling it necessary to weigh in on the great American film, “American Sniper,” Dean said, “There’s a lot of anger in this country, and the people who go see this movie are people who are very angry.” He added, “I bet you if you looked at the cross-section of the tea party and people who see this movie there’s a lot of intersection…”
Now before we react, let’s remember that “American Sniper” is a movie about the heroic acts and hardships faced by Chris Kyle, our nation’s top-rated sniper. It accurately portrays his anguish about duty to country vs duty to his family. I can guarantee you Howard Dean never suffered such conflicts. Dean, like most Democrats, is only anguished when not getting his way – and collapses in episodes of screaming and temper tantrums when this happens. He’s a spoiled, selfish yuppie without the charm.
Actor Gary Sinise, who has done a lot for America’s veterans, had a quick response to Dean that was priceless:
To Howard Dean, I saw American Sniper and would not consider myself to be an angry person. You certainly have a right to make stupid blanket statements, suggesting that all people who see this film are angry, but how is that helpful sir? Do you also suggest that everyone at Warner Brothers is angry because they released the film? That Clint Eastwood, Jason Hall, Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller and the rest of the cast and crew are angry because they made the film? Chris Kyle’s story deserved to be told. It tells a story of the stress that multiple deployments have on one military family, a family representative of thousands of military families. It helps to communicate the toll that the war on terror has taken on our defenders. Defenders and families who need our support. I will admit that perhaps somewhere among the masses of people who are going to see the film there may be a few that might have some anger or have been angry at some point in their lives, but, with all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?
Yes Howard, what the Hell are you talking about? But there is truth to what Dean says. I am angry right now. I become so every time I hear a phony, fraud, corrupt, self-serving, slime ball like Howard Dean disgracing our country, its heroes and its people with spiteful, dishonest invective. It is a reminder – and we get more than enough every single day with the Zero-in-Chief – that Dean, Obama and people like them are literally destroying our country before our eyes, while shoving our tax dollars in their pockets as fast as they can. So in that sense, I guess maybe Dean has a point after all. I rarely take time to listen to these idiots, but when I do, I guess I understand Dean better, because I feel in need of meds myself.
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
A Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism
With the war on Islamic terrorism being portrayed as a righteous cause in “American Sniper,” the Clint Eastwood film breaking box office records, a book which documents the days when Hollywood was a mouthpiece for communist propaganda might seem out of date. But Allan H. Ryskind’s book, Hollywood Traitors, is a reminder that Hollywood can’t always be counted on to take America’s side in a war, even a World War when the United States faced dictators by the names of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
The Ryskind book, published by Regnery, documents how the much-maligned House Committee on Un-American Activities, known as HUAC, uncovered dramatic communist infiltration of Hollywood and forced the studios to clean house.
Ryskind calls HUAC’s investigation of Hollywood in 1947 and 1950 “one of the most effective, albeit controversial, probes ever carried out by any committee of Congress.” He adds, “HUAC had revealed that Hollywood was packed with Communists and fellow travelers, that the guilds and the unions had been heavily penetrated, and that wartime films, at least, had been saturated with Stalinist propaganda. Red writers were an elite and powerful group in Hollywood—many of them working for major studios.”
He writes that, “HUAC, though bruised by elite opinion, had won the support of the American people and a victory over Hollywood Communists, fellow travelers, and the important liberals who supported them.” Members of Congress involved in HUAC did their jobs, in the face of opposition from “the East coast establishment newspapers” like The New York Times and The Washington Post.
The book reminds us that the Hollywood agents of Stalin had also been “Allies of Hitler,” a threat symbolized on the book cover by a Hollywood director’s chair featuring a Nazi swastika. The Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939-1941 had paved the way for World War II.
As a result of the purging of communists from Hollywood, the so-called “blacklist,” we entered a time, from about 1947 to 1960, when the communists lost control of the major Hollywood unions and “the studios were actually creating anti-Communist pictures,” Ryskind writes. It was a remarkable turnaround.
But while Hollywood did turn anti-communist, at least for a while, the communists scored their own ultimate victory, succeeding in forcing Congress to abolish HUAC. The committee, which had been renamed as the House Internal Security Committee, was the target of what HUAC called the Communist Party’s “Cold War against congressional investigation of subversion.”
For many years, there was a comparable body in the Senate, which went by different names but tackled such matters as “Castro’s Network in the United States,” a 1963 investigation into the “Fair Play for Cuba Committee” that we later learned included JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
To those insisting it was somehow inappropriate to ask Hollywood figures about their “political beliefs,” Ryskind counters that “Few questions could have been more important for a congressional committee to ask than whether American citizens were actually serving as agents of a hostile foreign government.” He said HUAC was engaging in hearings designed to accurately disclose membership in the Communist Party, “a subversive organization controlled by an enemy nation and designed to turn America into a Communist country…”
In its battle against communism, HUAC had subpoena power and was not afraid to use it. HUAC also issued contempt citations against those who refused to testify completely and truthfully. All of the members of the so-called “Hollywood Ten,” who refused to testify about their involvement in the Communist Party, eventually went to prison.
Ryskind cites estimates that over 200 Hollywood Communists were named in this process. His book provides the Communist Party card numbers of the Hollywood Ten as well as the names of other “well-known radicals,” many of them overt Communists, who were active in the movie industry.
Bring Back HUAC?
Today, with dozens of leading conservatives now clamoring for congressional action to “Stop the Fundamental Transformation of America,” the Ryskind book may add to the impetus for Congress to reestablish a HUAC-style panel. The George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP) acted frightened and alarmed in 2010 when Rep. Steve King (R-IA) expressed agreement with my suggestion at that time that re-establishment of such a committee would be a good idea. “I think that is a good process and I would support it,” he said.
The oath of office for members of Congress requires that they support and defend the Constitution of the United States “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” HUAC is a model for how such a problem can be identified and confronted.
Donald I. Sweany, Jr., a research analyst for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and its successor, the House Committee on Internal Security, sees the need for such a committee. He has issued this statement:
“The re-creation of the House Committee on Internal Security will provide the Congress of the United States, Executive Branch agencies and the public with essential and actionable information concerning the dangerous and sovereignty-threatening subversive activities currently plaguing America. This subversion emulates from a host of old and new entities of Marxist/Communist revolutionary organizations and allied militant and radical groups, some of which have foreign connections. A new mandated House Committee on Internal Security is of great importance because it would once again recommend to Congress remedial legislative action to crack down on any un-American forces whose goals are to weaken and destroy the freedoms which America enjoys under the Constitution. In addition, this legislative process will provide public exposure of such subversives.”
Ryskind’s father, Marx Brothers screenwriter Morrie Ryskind, testified before HUAC about communist penetration of Hollywood that he had learned about first-hand through his involvement with the Screen Writers Guild. Morrie Ryskind had attended the Columbia School of Journalism in New York and written for Joseph Pulitzer’s newspaper World. But he underwent a political transformation, from an anti-war socialist who became disillusioned with FDR to a Republican determined to stop the communist advance. He wrote for conservative publications such as Human Events and National Review, which he helped William F. Buckley Jr. launch.
Morrie Ryskind helped found the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals to counteract the work of the communists and educate the American people about what was at stake. The Ryskind book also notes how the American Legion and various Catholic organizations were focusing attention on Hollywood’s far-left elements and making the public aware of this problem.
The book includes Allan Ryskind’s memories of his Hollywood upbringing, including meeting famous people such as top Communist Party leader Benjamin Gitlow. He spent decades as editor of Human Events, which was President Ronald Reagan’s favorite paper. It also became known for its aggressive reporting on the communist and socialist threats. Reagan so appreciated the weekly paper that he had arranged for copies to be sent to him personally at the White House residence.
Ryskind, who still serves as Human Events editor-at-large, documents the development of Reagan’s anti-communism in Hollywood Traitors. Reagan began his acting career as a liberal who got involved in Communist-front activities, later realizing that the “nice-sounding” groups he was supporting were secretly controlled by members of the Communist Party. He carried this understanding and analysis of the communist threat into his presidency and talked openly about the growing Marxist influence in Congress as he battled with congressional liberals and tried to stop the Soviet advance in Latin America.
In fact, as President, he told journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave in a 1987 interview that “I’ve been a student of the communist movement for a long time, having been a victim of it some years ago in Hollywood.” He said that he regarded some two dozen Marxists in Congress as “a problem we have to face.”
The problem is far worse today. Analyst Trevor Loudon now counts the number of Marxists in Congress at more than 60, a fact that would seem to make it more of a controversy to re-establish HUAC, but even more of a reason to do so. All it would take is more courageous members like Rep. King, backed by the House Leadership. Such a committee would be able to seriously analyze an area that remains off-limits to the House Homeland Security Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the Select Committee on Benghazi—subversive infiltration of the highest levels of the U.S. government, including the White House and Congress.
One key to HUAC’s success was finding those in Hollywood, including in the unions, willing to name names and identify the subversives. Reagan testified before HUAC and took a leadership role in defeating communist influence in the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), later becoming the union’s president. Labor leader Roy Brewer was another effective anti-communist in Hollywood highlighted in Ryskind’s book.
Although the 506-page book is based on HUAC hearings, Ryskind conducted independent research that adds to his case against the Hollywood traitors. For example, he combed through the historical papers of one major Hollywood-Ten figure, the Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, who refused to cooperate with HUAC and expose his comrades. Ryskind reports on an unpublished script Trumbo wrote that treated the invasion of South Korea as a “fight for independence” for the communist north.
Trumbo wrote many excellent film scripts, including Roman Holiday, but was “a hard-core Party member, a fervent supporter of Stalinist Russia and Kim Il-sung’s North Korea, and an apologist for Nazi Germany until Hitler double-crossed Stalin and invaded the Soviet union,” Ryskind notes. “Yet to this day he is regarded as a hero in Hollywood.”
Almost on cue, as Ryskind’s book was being published, it was reported that Hollywood is planning a new film which glorifies Trumbo, starring Bryan Cranston of “Breaking Bad” fame as the screenwriter. The battle over communist influence is slated to return for another act.
Love for Cuban Communism
The book’s chapter, “Hollywood Today,” tries to bring the communism problem up to date by examining Hollywood’s love affair with the longtime Stalinist ruler of Cuba, Fidel Castro. He writes that much of Hollywood “is still lured by the romance of Marxism, and its films are still filled with heavy doses of anti-American propaganda.”
More details are provided in Humberto Fontova’s excellent books, Fidel: Hollywood ‘s Favorite Tyrant and The Longest Romance: The Mainstream Media and Fidel Castro.
I recently asked Fontova why a Stalinist like Castro gets fawning treatment, while the Stalinist North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, is ridiculed in the movie The Interview. “My best guess is that it’s a generational thing, nostalgia mostly,” he told this writer. The Castros and Che Guevara, he said, are perceived as “the first hippies” or beatniks.
Indeed, The Longest Romance quotes The New York Times reporter who helped bring Castro to power, Herbert Matthews, as saying, “Castro’s is a revolution of youth.” Fontova adds, “The notion of Castro’s Cuba as a stiflingly Stalinist nation never quite caught on among the enlightened. Instead the island often inspires hazy visions of a vast commune, rock-fest or Occupy encampment, studded with free health care clinics and with [the hippie icon] Wavy Gravy handing out love-beads at the entrance.”
Perhaps the pro-Castro influence in Hollywood is something that a new HUAC might want to tackle.
Another issue worth investigating is how Hollywood has also come under the influence of radical Islam. For example, the 2002 film, “The Sum of All Fears,” which was the movie version of the Tom Clancy book of the same name, replaced the Arab terrorist villains with neo-Nazis so as not to offend the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate. The Fox network responded to complaints about its popular series “24” depicting Muslims in America secretly plotting terrorism by running public service announcements from CAIR portraying American Muslims as moderate and peaceful.
The book, Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation, has an entire chapter on how CAIR attempts to silence its critics in radio, television, and the film industry.
There will be those in Congress and the media who will argue against the return of anything resembling the old HUAC, contending that “McCarthyism,” or the anti-communist “witchhunt,” is the greater danger. The truth about McCarthy’s investigations is provided in the M. Stanton Evans book, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight against America’s Enemies.
It bears repeating that Senator McCarthy never had anything to do with the House committee or its investigation of Hollywood.
This book is a valuable contribution to understanding a dangerous time in American history when America’s elected representatives and the people themselves rallied to the defense of their homeland against these foreign and domestic enemies.
While it is worth noting that the veteran Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood has bypassed the censors at CAIR with “American Sniper,” this kind of film is the exception and not the rule. The film portrays the great sacrifices being made by U.S. military personnel in the Middle East as they combat an enemy that is depicted as savage and barbaric. It is based on the life of Chris Kyle, an Iraq War veteran and Navy SEAL who joined the Armed Forces to defend his country from Islamic terrorism.
Zaid Jilani, a “progressive” writer who left the Center for American Progress after being charged with anti-Semitism, has emerged as one of the film’s most vocal critics. A regular on the Kremlin channel Russia Today (RT) and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Al Jazeera, he insists the film about the “remorseless” sharpshooter has sparked “anti-Muslim bigotry,” and he complains about it becoming “a rallying point for the political right.”
However, he admits that Eastwood’s skill as a filmmaker could result in a “Best Picture” award for “American Sniper” and “Best Actor in a Leading Role” award for Bradley Cooper, who plays Kyle. He just can’t bring himself to admit that the pro-military and anti-terrorist message is also a major factor in its success. The Academy Awards take place on February 22.
Indeed, this is the fear from the modern-day “progressives”—that Hollywood will rediscover the box office appeal of American patriotism.
But according to the annual Reuters/Ipsos Oscars poll, if ordinary Americans voted for the Academy Awards, “American Sniper” would be the Best Picture winner. Those who wonder why we don’t get more pro-military and pro-American movies out of Hollywood should read Ryskind’s new book.
Every American should see American Sniper and it should win Best Picture at the Oscars!!
In a liberal town that often gets it wrong the amazing film ‘American Sniper’ got the Oscar nod for Best Picture, Best Actor and 4 others. Hollywood does have a history of liking a good war movie, at times, and in recent times this is the 3rd war movie (Flags of Our Fathers / Letters From Iwo Jima) directed by Clint Eastwood that has gotten the nod. Eastwood is one of the few in the Hollywood crowd that is forgiven for being a conservative.
By Marion Algier – Ask Marion
Actor Bradley Cooper just received two of the most important reviews for his portrayal of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle in ‘American Sniper’ — the ones from Kyle’s parents and widow.
Wayne Kyle told Sean Hannity on Friday that Cooper did an “outstanding job” portraying his late son in the film and it was clear he “put his heart and soul” into the role. Kyle also said Cooper spent about four months studying the legendary Navy SEAL sniper.
“I called [Cooper] right after we saw the movie and told him how we felt about it and thanked him for what he had done,” Kyle added. “We feel like Bradley did an outstanding job.”
He added, “It’s bittersweet because we are happy and glad that people still are aware of Chris and see the man that he was and still is to us, but yet it hurts that, you know, there’s always that constant reminder. … That pain will probably never go away.”
Kyle’s father previously met with both Eastwood and Cooper and warned them he would “unleash hell” if they did anything to dishonor his son.
The movie has opened to rave reviews and Chris Cooper has said that he hopes this movie and his portrayal of Chris Kyle will open Americans’ eyes to make them realize that we have to take care of our vets. Both Kyle’s parents and widow Teya, whose opinions matter most, gave the film a thumbs up.
In an industry that slants left and often omits films made by or that are about so-called right leaning subjects involving Christians, Jews, religion or patriotism… like Unbroken or Lone Survivor, the insanity of the week was when White House supported race baiter Al Sharpton called a special diversity meeting to complain that the movie Selma didn’t get enough nods (Selma received two nominations including Best Picture) and that no African Americans were nominated this year, implying that the academy was too white, too male and too old. Hello? Silly me, I thought that the Oscars and the arts were about best performances not quotas and I guess a Best Picture nomination was insulting? And what about recent nominations for movies like and actors in 12 Years a Slave, Django UnChained and The Help? Sharpton should get the Oscar for being the greatest opportunist. His move and approach this week would be exactly opposite of what MLK would have wanted or done!
EIB: Redistribute Meryl Streep’s Oscars to Black Actresses!
Liberals want everything else redistributed, so why not this?
Major, major controversy in Hollywood. No black nominees. Al Sharpton on the protest prowl. I have a solution. Meryl Streep has a bunch of ‘em, probably some she doesn’t even deserve to have won. Maybe she could give some of hers away to some black actresses.
Well, why not? It’s what liberalism does. It takes from the people that don’t deserve and gives it to everybody else who does. Whether you earn it or not is irrelevant. Redistribute the Oscars. If we’re gonna redistribute income, if we’re gonna redistribute health care, why not redistribute the Academy Awards?
Al Sharpton, an emergency meeting to discuss the appalling all white Oscar nominees. And the media is all behind this. What has happened to us? Here we have a literal buffoon of a human being, Al Sharpton, a hoaxer, a fraud, a tax cheat, a tax evader, a man who has inspired riots in Harlem. And this man holds positions of prominence in our culture today.
What’s wrong with this picture? Al Sharpton? Talk about a nation of wusses and cowards. I mean, the Sony hack happens and the first thing they do is bend over, grab the ankles, call Al Sharpton. And now Sharpton is raising holy hell about Academy Awards nominees, and they’re listening?
Al Sharpton? I mean, despicable human — forget, you know, making jokes and stuff of usual political commentary, just Al Sharpton, Tawana Brawley hoax, the Freddie’s Fashion Mart deaths and riots, the tax cheats stuff, this buffoonery, and yet he has a position of prominence because he sits at the right hand of Barack Hussein O. He sits at the right hand of Obama, not an accident there, either… Read more HERE
And the Oscar for biggest hypocrite goes to Liam Neeson who complained of there being too many guns In America while starring in a film with guns and having made millions in his career in films with guns. The Irish born actor might also want to listen to what others in the Commonwealth are saying about allowing themselves to be disarmed. The fact that hypocrites and fools like the liberals in Hollywood and Washington think they are smarter than our Founding Fathers who lived under oppression in Britain and paid for our freedoms and liberties with their freedom, their lives and their fortunes should make us dig in and defend our Constitution, especially our second amendment, with our freedom, lives and fortunes. I bet you Marcus Luttrell and Chris Kyle are (were) guns owners and I’m glad!!