Today’s Hollywood: He’s Spartacus!
Posted by Dirty Harry on Saturday, November 15th, 2008
At least once a year we get a new narrative or documentary about the infamous Hollywood blacklist that forced a number of screenwriters out of the business or underground with the use of a pseudonym.
Most of these movies hit me as wish fulfillment fantasies with the filmmakers and their stars (George Clooney, Frank Darabont, Irwin Winkler, and on and on and on…) puffing out their chests to stridently declare that if they had been alive then that! never would’ve happened. Oh, no, they would have put their careers and livelihoods on the line to fight the good fight for the right to hold unpopular political beliefs without fear of retribution.
And where are you?
Any small children unlucky enough to have found themselves between George Clooney and a television camera would’ve been flattened before Princess Diana’s body was even cold in order for Mr. Good Night, And Good Luck to denounce the paparazzi.
Anyone heard from this brave soul?
And, gee where’s Mr. Chill Wind now?
The only moral difference between the witch hunt then and now?
The group bullied and harassed and threatened today believes in preserving a tradition that dates back thousands of years.
The group bullied and harassed and threatened fifty years ago believed in spreading an ideology that resulted in the murder of tens of millions of innocent people.
Here’s your chance, Hollywood. Here’s your chance to be the hero of the dozens of self-aggrandizing films made over the decades to express moral outrage at the very idea of lives and reputations destroyed over personal and political differences.
Step up and being counted.
But all I’m hearing right now from your thundering silence, is…
“Him, over there, He’s Spartacus!”
Filed in General |
RufusTon 15 Nov 2008 at 10:07 am 1Harry,
I know your readership is extensive in Hollywood. You are doing a great job of hammering home the cold, ugly truths of this issue and I know your message is being heard. Even by many who would prefer not to hear it.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Jack Marinoon 15 Nov 2008 at 10:12 am 2Well we all know how Hollywood liberals like to project the image that they are victims of this American Krystalnacht of the 1950s by the evil republicans. The horror of it all, how unfair that these white jewish republican conservatives who ran the studios would not ALLOW these Hollywood ten victims to make films promoting Stalinist propaganda. How unfair, how unreasonable to think that these Jewish moguls had no right to spend their hard earn money on other films and not their great works of art and philosophy. Who are these men of eastern Jewish culture who started an industry that provided jobs for millions, provided security and pensions for all their workers and not realize the real purpose was for them to fund films to make Joe Stalin get an erection. Jack Warner, LB Mayer, Harry Cohn, Jesse Lasky, all these selfish greedy republicans conservatives they should apologize for creating an inddustry for ingrates to piss on the very thing that feeds them, the should apologize to the TEN for not allowing them to become even richer by giving them all the money they needed to promote their utopian agenda. Now, 50 years later a new crop of brain dead idiots want to never make us forget just how selfish and how evil these old Jewish republican conservatives who ran the business from the 1920 until 1970 when that last mogul Jack Warner sold Warner Bros to Seven Arts TV. The humanity of it all, to think of all the great Stalinist films we have never seen because of a few wascal wepubwicans who ran the studios.
San Diego Bobon 15 Nov 2008 at 10:15 am 3“…to express moral outrage at the very idea of lives and reputations destroyed over personal and political differences.”
A recent example of the above from the far left is Valerie Plame? Remember her? She was “outed,” one lackey removed, for a political difference by Colin-”He’s-Spartacus”-Powell. This was just four years ago, and she and her husband were still making political hay out of this just last year, if not this year.
This protest is making me extremely mad.
MovieMan0283on 15 Nov 2008 at 10:38 am 4Jack, Jewish, Jewish, Jewish. Yes, and the majority of the Hollywood Ten were Jewish too. So please don’t try to make this an anti-Semitic thing.
Jack Marinoon 15 Nov 2008 at 10:52 am 5Who is making an anti-semitic thing, i happen to admire those moguls who started this business and I don’t care about the commies ten who were jewish or not jewish, The fact that Jack warner was a solid conservative republican who happen to be jewish is the reason these liberals are attacking that era. These were great men, the fact that you read my post from a skewed perspective you might have a problem. I am far from anti-semitic. I was making a point about that entire era and who is perceived as the bad guys in all of this. Those genius showmen are the ones blamed by the left. The fact that the hollywood ten might have been born jewish, but the time they became commies or stalinist that was their new religion. Where as the moguls were religious conservative jewish republicans speaks volumes of how they develop and protected this industry from evil. No one is making this anti-Semitic, I was making a point about conservatives who happen to be Jewish fighting commies and thank god they were and fought these so called victims.
MovieMan0283on 15 Nov 2008 at 10:58 am 6Jack, I do not believe nor did I have any intention of implying you were anti-semitic. On the contrary, it sounded like you were trying to accuse anti-blacklisters of being anti-semitic. I don’t think the fact that the moguls were Jewish has anything to do with why Hollywood liberals, now and then, opposed their actions. Do you?
v.on 15 Nov 2008 at 11:37 am 7“At least once a year we get a new narrative or documentary about the infamous Hollywood blacklist that forced a number of screenwriters out of the business or underground with the use of a pseudonym.”
I believe this is hyperbole.
RufusTon 15 Nov 2008 at 11:58 am 8“it sounded like you were trying to accuse anti-blacklisters of being anti-semitic”
It did? Not to me. Not even close. MovieMan0283, forgive me for an assumption, but it sounds to me like you are looking for subtext where none is to be found. Simply referencing a person’s religion is neither pro-semitic, nor anti-semitic. It’s a fact, and an important part of the point Jack Marino was making. That’s all. Please don’t bring this down to a PC level where we can’t openly discuss facts and their relevance to history without being concerned that some overly sensitive reader will misconstrue our words. Nobody is going to learn anything if we can’t talk openly here.
You write, “I don’t think the fact that the moguls were Jewish has anything to do with why Hollywood liberals, now and then, opposed their actions”
Well re-read Jack’s post. Neither does he. If you truly don’t believe that how can you find that sentiment in other’s words, when it’s clearly not there. Jack’s point is those men knew what it was like to be prosecuted and have family killed by Communist idealogues. They understood what ideological pogroms were all about.
In the words of the immortal, Sergeant Hulka, “Lighten up, Francis.”
MovieMan0283on 15 Nov 2008 at 12:21 pm 9RufusT,
What is the relevance of their religion unless Jack Marino feels that it played a role in the anti-blacklisters’ opinion? Otherwise he might as well have said “brown-eyed Republican conservatives”? Unless he’s saying their Judaism has something to do with liberals opposing their views, then what’s the point of bringing it up? The post wasn’t about why the moguls believed the things they did, but about why the liberals opposed them.
Carolynon 15 Nov 2008 at 12:47 pm 10Damned right, Rufus! And Jack? You’re damned right too.
And Hollywood? It’s damning itself with its silence. What a bunch of hypocrites. What a bunch of cowards.
Jack Marinoon 15 Nov 2008 at 12:58 pm 11Movie i was being sarcastic in my post about how the liberals portray the TEN as victims when in fact the Hollywood liberals have blackballed more conservatives today then what Joe did in the 50s.
My reference to their religion is that I feel the most patriotic Americans I know are conservative Jewish republicans and their ideals protected our industry from people who were atheist in their ideals in supporting communism and they hope to destroy this country through changing peoples minds in films.
Movie you misread the meaning of my post. Howard Huges was a movie mogul and he was Protestant and he went to congress and in front of the media, he said no one can force him to hire a communist in his studio and he would fire anyone that had commie leanings. They all did this and to our benefit, I have no sympathy for commies.
Using the word Jewish over and over again to be scacstic towards the liberals and their tyranny is for me sticking it to the liberals commie lovers. But to get this reaction over this is proof we are way too anal over names and we need to get over this nonsense.
I just read Rufus’s post….thank you rufus, you explained it better then me.
Dr. Zaiuson 15 Nov 2008 at 1:01 pm 12Keep at it, Harry.
It is especially grating to read that transcript of Tim “Chill Wind” Robbins from a speech to the National Press Club in 2003 (why would they invite that know-nothing non-journalist to give a speech anyway? Wait, don’t bother answering …)
It’s hilarious that the justification for his speech was him being dis-invited from a personal appearance in Cooperstown, NY, because of his loopy, loud, vicious and very public anti-war views.
ROBBINS: “While the journalists’ outrage at the cancellation of our appearance in Cooperstown is not about my views, it is about my right to express these views. I am extremely grateful that there are those of you out there still with a fierce belief in constitutionally guaranteed rights. We need you, the press, now more than ever. This is a crucial moment for all of us.”
So, a single cancellation of a backwater personal promotional appearance sparked “journalists’ outrage” for which Robbins in grateful because it is a blow for his “constitutionally guaranteed rights.” But Robbins, and crusading journalists, are silent when an elderly businesswoman is harassed and boycotted for making a quite, private donation to a political cause. Got it.
Bush created a “climate of fear,” Robbins said. But an elderly woman no-doubt scared out of her wits (in such a way that could very well threaten her health) … she’s just gotta suck it up because she had it coming.
ROBBINS: “And the most frightening thing about the weekend was the amount of times we were thanked for speaking out against the war because that individual speaking thought it unsafe to do so in their own community, in their own life. Keep talking, they said; I haven’t been able to open my mouth.”
Is that little story really more frightening than what the targets of these protests are enduring? Then, of course, the money quote:
ROBBINS: “A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.
“Every day, the air waves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent. And the public, like so many relatives and friends that I saw this weekend, sit in mute opposition and fear.”
Well, Tim. What say you now? Does the owner of El Coyote have to just live with the “ramifications” for opposing gay marriage? What of the very real threats and vile invective hurled against supporters of Prop. 8 — who did not make a Big Show of their support, but were ferreted out and thrown unwillingly into the public for the crime of incorrect thought?
Stay on it Harry. You’re doing God’s work.
whiskeyon 15 Nov 2008 at 2:40 pm 13Gays are about 5% of the population, yet by the GLAAD report I cite in my most recent post at my blog, are over-represented in sitcoms and TV writing gigs.
For this season, there are 35 openly gay characters in 22 shows on the broadcast five networks: CW, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC. That’s excluding cable.
It’s a sign of their over-representation and demographic concentration in Hollywood that they can pull this off. Ovitz was right about a “Gay Mafia” running Hollywood at least — here is the proof.
Moreover, the Gayer Hollywood gets, the less able it is to reach anyone other than Single Women in Urban areas. Straight Men are already abandoning “Gay” TV and increasingly, movies.
Gays may stage a “purge” but be left with a shattered hulk of the Entertainment industry, one that appeals to only a small subset of the Single Women Urbanites, themselves likely to be decimated by the lasting recession and need to curb consumerism and a consumerist approach to sex.
IMHO Gays and all other minorities fare best under the melting pot — the primary Identity is AMERICAN and an absolute fidelity to traditional American values and promotion of the same. This Gay Purge will only leave Hollywood close to 100% Gay and as relevant to most people as “fabulous” Broadway Shows, without being able to charge $500 a ticket.
The Ugly Americanon 15 Nov 2008 at 2:46 pm 14I’m wondering if the L.A. City Hall Prop 8 protests will go on tonight as planned….as if we need more stress on our police and fire crews right now.
But of course they will march.
After all, they’re the real victims here.
MovieMan0283on 15 Nov 2008 at 3:10 pm 15So Jack, you are saying that you don’t feel the Hollywood liberals criticize the moguls because they’re Jewish as well as Repulican, and conservative (and anticommunist), but that you were using it to display the irony that they’re aggreived about slights of a minority, when in fact the people doing the slighting were also members of a minority?
I don’t think that was clear from your post, but I buy your explanation so I guess that’s settled.
Thomas Talionison 15 Nov 2008 at 3:19 pm 16I’m the biggest Kirk Douglas fan ever. It breaks my heart to hear him defend Trumbo and write off the red threat as a myth.
Why can’t great actors just act. And bad actors stop making movies. (cough) - Clooney
Jack Marinoon 15 Nov 2008 at 3:22 pm 17Movieman, I am so confused now, I have no idea what i said….. forget I even post
the405on 15 Nov 2008 at 3:30 pm 18For this boycott to work they are going to have to really put pressure on the Sundance Film Festvial. Cinemark gave 9K and has press screenings at one of thier theatres in park city. Is Sundance going not to use that theatre? Will they build a new one? Utah has a large Mormon population (just going there will put money into the the people these facists hate.) with many business in Park City and salt lake giving money to Yes on 8.
As many of you know Sundance has long been a launching pad for gay themed films, films by openly gay writers and directors. If you Gay and/or are agianst Prop 8 and you or your company work on something that will screen at the Cinemark in Park City do you go?
It’s easy to protest/boycot/blacklist a restraunt that gave 100 bucks to yes on 8. But would sacrifce your carrer or the carrer of other film makers for your cause? If they still went to sundance and showed thier film at the Cinemark would you boycott/blacklist them as tratiors to the cause?
Right now its easy…as these protests are desgined to make the courts overturn prop 8.When it starts kitting thier allies then you will see if the rubber hits the road.
Matt Helmon 15 Nov 2008 at 3:46 pm 19The great, and I think the first, Italian-American author, John Fante, was also a screenwriter in the 40s to 60s. There’s a book of his letters, and in one of them he complained to his lefty friend Carey McWilliams, who was editor of The Nation for 20 years, about the trouble of getting work as a screenwriter in 1940s Hollywood, because they were only giving work to card-carrying members of the CPUSA. This was a private letter before the HCUA hearings. This shows how the commies acted as thugs in the film industry.
I’ll bet at least Jack Marino has heard of and read Fante’s work, here.
Jack Marinoon 15 Nov 2008 at 4:13 pm 20Matt, I heard of him, never read it but I have been living it for 20 years. Today the just ignore you as if you don’t exist.
Thomas Talionison 15 Nov 2008 at 4:27 pm 21The concern during this time period wasn’t the fact that people believed in the concept of Communism.
The concern was over actual agents of the Soviet Union. And, of course, their use of Hollywood as a launching pad for subversion and propaganda.
The questioning always started with, ‘are you a Communist,’ but ultimately the hearings were about determining if there was a foreign entity behind their ‘unAmerican activities.’
It is a fact that the Soviet Union put out a contract on John Wayne and tried to organize S.A.G. (a labor union) to strike and shut down all those evil pro-American movies.
Opuson 15 Nov 2008 at 4:40 pm 22On my local newscast they are reporting that over 100 million people attended anti-prop8 rallies today….lol I just finished emailing the anchor asking for his source for the number and proceeded to inform him that the population of the U.S. is 300 million. So he’s claiming 1/3 of the entire country was protesting…lol
The answer should be interesting, if I recieve one.
Tommy Von 15 Nov 2008 at 4:40 pm 23Hollywood Party by Lloyd Billingsley is an excellent history of Hollywood in the 30s-50s. It was actually recommended to me by someone on this site.
One of the things that really surprised me was the story that Matt Helm just shared. The Communist were trying their best, and often succeeding, to blacklist non-Communist writers in the 30s before the tide turned against them.
They were a very powerful group. What turned the tide against them was their support for Hitler after the Sovet-mazi pact. These guys were railing against Hitler for years but they changed their tune overnight after the non-aggression pact and revealed themselves to be taking orders from Moscow.
They soon turned against Hitler again of course, but they never had the same wide-spread legitimacy again. But there was a time when many joined the party because it boosted their career significantly and could get them work when not being a member would keep them out.
It is a very strange, largely untold history of the industry. (For example, in the movie Chaplin they show Chaplin quite bravely and honorably standing up to a Nazi in Los Angeles. What they don’t show in that movie was Chaplin’s devotion to Stalin and his affection for Hitler after the Soviet-Nazi Pact!)
MovieMan0283on 15 Nov 2008 at 4:47 pm 24Thomas, do you have a link on that Wayne thing? I’ve never heard that before - kind of incredible. (I’d like such a thing in my obituary…assuming of course that the obituary was not written as a result of that contract being fulfilled!)
I think my main problem with the blacklist era is the scarlet “C”…the idea that anyone presently or previously affiliated with the Party, as a member, associate, or otherwise, was somehow tainted, having to name names as to escape their professional death sentence.
There is no doubt that a lot of the Communists and probably even some fellow travelers were rotten people. You are right about subversion of unions, and that didn’t just happen in SAG. But to prevent people from working, to force them to inform, to basically destroy careers on the basis of associations, regardless of personal details, I find unseamly to say the least. Particularly given that the USSR had been an American ally a few short years earlier (even Jack Warner, an avowed anticommunist, submitted to FDR’s request and made the cringeworthy Mission to Moscow).
Persued on an individual basis, I think it’s totally legitimate to expose and even marginalize those who were engaged in actual subversion (of labor organizations or otherwise). But not all Communists, and certainly not ex-Communists or fellow travelers, were guilty of such. I don’t think membership in an organization, sans any other actions, should have been enough to destroy their careers. And this goes for the left or for the right.
thudon 15 Nov 2008 at 4:48 pm 25I am out of Ca untill feb…the prop 8 stuff just hasn’t made the news here in England and I feel as if I am missing an important battle…at least here I can live it second hand.
MovieMan0283on 15 Nov 2008 at 4:53 pm 26Tommy,
“What they don’t show in that movie was Chaplin’s devotion to Stalin and his affection for Hitler after the Soviet-Nazi Pact!”
But The Great Dictator was released after the Soviet-Nazi Pact. I know he was a leftist, and even a fellow traveler, but why would he make a controversial movie slamming Hitler at the height of the German-Soviet alliance if what you say is true? Given that he once burned one of his films, wouldn’t he have at least suppressed Great Dictator?
Opuson 15 Nov 2008 at 4:55 pm 27Got my answer, quicker than I expected.
“After checking our information, there actually a mistake. It was actually one million as opposed to one hundred million. The number did seem high when I read it. I apologize about the error. We will clarify the mistake tonight at 10/9 mt/pacific. Thanks for watching and we appreciate the feedback.”
Good for him…..still didn’t give me his source though.
Tommy Von 15 Nov 2008 at 5:07 pm 28MovieMan,
That’s a good point, and I was being too cute by saying his “affection” for Hitler. In truthfullness it was more of a “we don’t hate him like we used to” sort of thing with the Hollywood Communists. They suddenly became isolationist when before the pact they wanted intervention in Europe to a likely German expansion. That being said, if my memory serves, the film was made before the Nazi-Soviet Pact (’39), but released later.
Still, I was hoping the fact that he was a devout Stalinist was the more shocking part.
MovieMan0283on 15 Nov 2008 at 5:16 pm 29No, you’re definitely right in general about Hollywood Communists (at least those who didn’t leave the Party at this point) but it didn’t seem to make sense in regards to Chaplin. You are correct in that the film was in production in ‘39, but I wasn’t released until 1940, well after World War II began (as you point out).
Was he a devout Stalinist? If so why didn’t he join the Party (I know they sometimes felt certain individuals could work better on the outside, so of course that’s a possibility)? Can’t say I’m shocked though; look at Picasso - he painted a loving portrait of the guy (and he conveniently became a commie only after sitting quietly through German occupation, if I’m not mistaken). Some great artists were complete idiots politically, to say the bare minimum. Make that “are”…
Tommy Von 15 Nov 2008 at 5:32 pm 30Keep in mind my knowledge is largely limited to Billingsley’s book which I read recently, but according to him, the most high profile Communists were deliberately kept from joining the party. They actually anticipated a time when being a Communist might not be too popular and they wanted to protect their greatest assets.
The book is also a good history on the union battles in the streets between the Communist front unions and the non-Communists unions. I actually had no idea about that stuff myself.
Djangoon 15 Nov 2008 at 6:26 pm 31Woody Allen “The Front” (1976)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074554/
trzupron 15 Nov 2008 at 7:08 pm 32Too much of this thread seems to be about who was right and who was wrong, at what point in time. (At least for my taste). That’s not the point, because it’s almost impossible to reach a consensus on right or wrong at hte moment of action, or of inaction, as is apropos. Do we allow a free exchange of ideas, or not? And if - within the context of a free enterprise system - are people allowed to exercise their free will, with regard to whom they do or do not do business with, or not?
Boycott away, should that be your choice Hollywood, but don’t hide behind a veil of righteousness in order to do so. Make it clear what you’re doing and why. That principle applies to Hollywood in the era of Tailgunner Joe every bit as much as it does today.
whiskeyon 15 Nov 2008 at 9:14 pm 33FWIW Obama is again talking up his civilian security force that will be as well funded as the Military, with the same powers.
So, perhaps the Gays will have plenty of arms, and instead of simply boycotting people can set up William Ayers death camps for real.
OT: the “One” has proposed Israel essentially cease to exist, give up Jerusalem, go to Pre-1967 borders with unlimited right of return to any Arabs.
Disaster. Say good-bye to Israel.
Jack Marinoon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:16 am 34Whiskey, Obama can’t start up any force by executive order I was told by a constitutional lawyer. We were talking about this and the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine is against the first amendment and a company like NEWS CORP can tie it up in court long after these fascist democratic dogs are voted out of office in two years. The congress have to pass the funding to create a new military branch and the constitution calls for an army and navy this new civilian security armed security have to fall either under the army of the navy. That means it under the pentagon and all troops swear an oath to the constitution not to the Divine Messiah Lord Obamus Augustus I. He can’t ‘armed’ anyone and he doesn’t have the authority to make these idiot kids who want to join the thug brigade to swear an oath to the Divine one. He himself has to swear an oath in front of us to the constitution and the first three words are WE THE PEOPLE.
So this is all a leftist Bill Aryers wet orgasmic dream of his. Besides there are over 90 million Americans with guns and last few weeks guns sales went up 10,000% all over the country. Now what Army and police dept. are going to collect these guns? Is Obama going to get the Chinese army of 5 million to come here and collect them? He would do this favor of us???? He has two years to screw up this country, at which time if he goes mental with these Pelosi wet dreams, they will be voted out of office. Then the Divine Tiberius is all alone and the next two years he will be a lame duck and fired like Jimma Cartah was.
The the republicans wipe out all the dog shit these mad dog democrats left all over Washington. Now, on the other hand, if he gets an erection for power pushed on by Aryers for total control this means he has to cross that constitutional line and then we have no constitution. Which means the US military will side with the people and who the hell is going to protect this clown and his marx bros in congress? As I said before this is all great stuff for a movie. We american are the largest armed civilian population in this worthless damn world and no can disarmed us. They can’t get rid of the 2nd amendment by activist judges. It takes a constitutional process and the congress even thought its own by the dems don’t have the balls to pass that bill. Just like they never had the balls to pass abortion in congress or the fairness doctrine. Congressmen love their perks more then their ideals.
Obama is s joke, he will raise taxes and shut the country down, he has to pay off all the big city mayors for bringing him the votes, he has to pay off the unions for the votes and organizations like Acorns and the Democrats have a shit-load of people to grease for the votes. So he will raise taxes on the so called super rich and they in turn will pull out all their money from the stock market, investments, muni funds, 40ks and move it all to swiss banks and offshore accounts and this economy will crash dive like a kamikaze pilot into a battleship. The engine of this country will stop and they won’t be able to blame Bush for this one. This will be the death of the moocher freeloading party of baby killers.
Pelosi now wants to give GM a bailout for 250 billion when all they need is 2 billion. Let them declare bankruptcy like the rest of us have to. She wants to retool Gm to make green electric cars and what makes her think we are going to but them? They going to pass a law, then we vote them out. They make a crazy law, we fire them. This is how it works. These democratic mad dogs don’t have the balls to take it to the next level. Democrats are nothing but barking dogs and barking dogs never bite. Any dog that attacks you can be beaten with a baseball bat to the side of its head an that dog will run faster then lighting. Or you can just garb its paw and squeeze the hell out of it and it will pass out in pain. So rabid dogs can be controlled you just have to show them you are not afraid and you are going to hurt them more they then can hurt you. Again, this is all great stuff for a screenplay, it won’t happen here in real life because the great Lord Messiah Obamus Augustus I will be limited to the boundaries of the constitution and the biggest bullet in the world , its called ……. THE VOTE
I am expecting the whackiest things to happen in the next four years as if the Marx bros are running the show and they are on acid.
He is thinking of making Hillary Sec of State. He is doing this so she won’t run against him in the primaries as Reagan did against Ford and Fat Ted ran against Carter. He wants a clear shot for reelection in 2012 and he will only get it if he cuts all taxes for everyone. The fact that he is going to put her in that job is funny. This is going to be funnier then the Clinton years.
Opuson 16 Nov 2008 at 7:09 am 35Jack Marino
Should Obama try to create some type of civilian security force I doubt he’s stupid enough to do it so obiviously.
If I was going to attempt it, I’d create a ton of other civilian organizations that were designed to help in schools, hospitals, with the poor…etc….etc…all of them very nice and benign, spread across every large city and college campus in the country.
The people who drooled on my shoes to begin with would love me even more and not object when I explained how inefficient the groups are and would work so much better if we put them all under the control of one newly created government department.
People in the groups, would become even more selfrightious and arrogant than they are now and become even more devoted to their fearless leader. It wouldn’t take much from me to innocently push them into believing everyone else is the enemy and they’d willingly become my own Gestapo, justifying it to themselves by saying they’re doing it for the poor and down trodden, at which point whether it was constitutional or not would be irrelevent to them. They’ll do it to themselves.
The fairness doctrine and gun control I suspect won’t be enacted directly either. It seems that they’ve purposely wound people up about the possible reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. I predict they’ll switch and say, well the doctrine does go too far so we’re going to enact some “common sense” measures instead, just like they want to do with guns. Then bit by bit they’ll enact more and more “common sense” measures until they have the fairness doctrine.
Jack Marinoon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:15 am 36Opus, hopefully but that time, the republicans will take back the congress and two years later we get back the White House and end this leftist madness of wanting to control every aspect of our daily lives. I mean who are these people we PAY to do this to us. They act like they are some self supporting noble class and they can pass anything over us and just sit here and agree to it. Its time to set up term limits and fired these bums so they can’t create these life long fiefdoms over us who pays for everything they have. Are we NUTS as a nation or what??