Think About It

Air Force Major General Speaks on Terrorism

Once in awhile something comes in my e-mail that is profound.   I will warn you; this piece is long, but take a few minutes and read it carefully.  It’s important.

This is a powerful essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism.  Dr.Vernon Chong is, without a doubt,the most articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq . If you have any doubts, please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues, such as Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc. I had no idea who Dr.Chong is, or the source of these thoughts, so when I received them, I almost deleted them, as well-written as they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio ."

If you would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force website and look him up: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000"

Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A.   A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL

Dr.. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1 When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001.  The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)

2 Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks
happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush 2.  We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.

3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4 What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.

5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?

6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid
verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:

1 Can we lose this war?
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.  However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that
there are more mosques in England than churches.

2 What does losing really mean?

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life
will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal
with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the
Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?

The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.
Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort.
If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.  Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our
Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict
and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq . And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.  Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of
some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can they be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the
Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of
comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this
prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned-- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.

These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses. What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"

I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the
election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the
critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is
your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.

After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves,
but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal .. and that
includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that
anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue,is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and it's citizens.
Best we support them.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

The Origins of the New Morality

"Ernie" has some thoughts on today's morality.

"I don't consider myself a conspiracy nut (though I am convinced a devious group is constantly at work keeping the Cubs out of a world series), so I'm totally confused about the downward plunge of American culture and values.  Is there a conspiracy afoot to destroy us from within, or is this just the normal outcome of a free society?  If it's a conspiracy, who's the architect and who's keeping it going?  Is it mush brained liberals?  Islamic terrorists?  Communists?  Rosie O'Donnell?  Reverend Wright?  Liberal media?  I don't know the answer, but I think we need to take whatever time is necessary to study this deterioration and get it reversed.  It's truly destroying us.

Look at today's immorality and the country's seeming lack of concern about it.  Whether it's drugs, porn, homosexuality, greed, corruption, rampant promiscuity, filth driven entertainment, supporting a Muslim for president, or any of the other deadly sins, it's obvious that the "problem" is growing and shows no signs of lessening.  It's sadly becoming the norm.  Even TV commercials are so full of sexual content they should be rated X.  I went into the bank the other day and the 2 young female tellers were wearing blouses that were barely keeping their un-bra'd boobs from falling out on the counter.  That kind of attire may be fine for hookers walking Sunset Boulevard, but not in a bank.  You have to ask why they think dressing that way is acceptable, and why bank managers allow it.  I guess when they see their Hollywood idols dressing that way and changing sex partners on a weekly basis, it's got to be OK.  Right?

In all this immorality I have to ask, "what is the purpose of it all?"  Why is it so important to those in influential industries to force this indecency upon us?  Is it just to see how far they can push the envelope, or is it part of a conspiratorial left wing agenda?  Why wouldn't it be more appropriate to force higher moral values on us?  Filth makes more money?  Probably as good an explanation as any.

And lastly, how do we stop it and start moving back to the moral values and Christian principles that formed this once magnificent country?  You can't look at the GOP for help.  They've not shown one inkling of willingness to buck the liberal agenda.  After all, what's more important?  Standing up for decency or getting reelected?  They've almost totally abandoned the conservative base of the party.  Think about it.  They had 8 years to prepare potential candidates for the presidential race and what did we get?   A 70+ year old democrat in Republican clothing named John McCain.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.  I'd like to hear yours.  Thanks.

Ernie"

Charlton Heston on Political Correctness

   Please forgive me for making this blog entry so long, but this speech that NRA  President Charlton Heston gave to the Harvard Law School Forum on February 16, 1999, should be required reading for every American.  I doubt, in view of today’s political correctness, that Heston would even be allowed onto the campus of Harvard. 

“Dedicating the memorial at a Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you...the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association...I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured senile, crazy old man."

I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that.  I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.

I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys - subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction.

Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it."

Let me read a few examples.

• At Antioch College in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation...all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.

• In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDS, the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not...need not...tell their patients that they are infected.

• At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.

• In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.

• In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.

• At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students.

Yeah, I know...that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it's a no-no now.

Finally, just last month...David Howard, head of the Washington, D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.

As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of niggardly, (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance."

What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind.

Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?

Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe?

It scares me to death and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.

You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that...and abide it...you are - by your grandfathers' standards - cowards.

Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs.  Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me."

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.

But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation?

The answer's been here all along.

You simply...disobey.  Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely.

Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea in to Boston Harbor... In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom.

But be careful...it hurts.
You must be willing to be humiliated...You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me. Let me tell you a story.

A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world.

Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so - at least one had been murdered. But Time/warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black.

I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time and decided to attend.

What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer" - every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.

"I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF

I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF

I'M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF

I'M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..."

It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.

Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore.

"SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY..."

Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that." "I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner's selling it."

Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warner, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk.

When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself...jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office.

When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors...choke the halls of the board of regents.

When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment...march on that school and block its doorways.

When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you...petition them, oust them, banish them.

When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month...boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.”

CHARLTON HESTON

Dems Release New Propaganda Movie

HBO has started running their promos for their upcoming movie, Recount, which is supposedly an “unbiased” look at the 2000 voting debacle in Florida.  If you are a Democrat, you will love this movie.  If you are a Republican, you will hate this movie.  If you are a fair minded person, you will hate this movie.  This blatant piece of liberal propaganda will be released in May, just in time to hopefully swing a few more votes toward the Democrats.

Unbiased they say.  Surprise, surprise, the director, executive producer, and the person who wrote the script are -- dare I say it -- Democrats.  Colin Callender, the president of HBO Films is -- yes -- a Democrat.

Callender has contributed to many Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.  Director Sydney Pollack has reportedly contributed thousands of dollars to Democrats over the years.

Len Amato, a senior vice president of HBO Films said he can understand the concerns of bias, but noted that his company has a long track record of thoroughly researching its historical topics before filming them.  “Our main intention is getting the story right,” Amato said.

Yeah, right.  Pardon my cynicism.  How many more of these will we see before November?

Hollywood's Liberal Bias

People reading this blog might think I’m obsessed with movies that claim to be based on true stories, but in fact turn out to be fabrications.  I apologize; please bear with me.  I just finished watching the movie The Hoax, which purportedly is the true story about the con-man Clifford Irving’s forgery of the infamous Howard Hughes autobiography.  The Hollywood political propaganda machine has turned out their own twisted hoax. 

To digress, Clifford Irving was a little known novelist who hit upon the idea of fabricating a book about the billionaire recluse Howard Hughes.
Hughes had disappeared from public view and hadn’t made any public statements for many years, so Irving figured he could proceed with his hoax.  With the aid of several forged letters and notes, supposedly written by Howard Hughes, Irving conned publishers into paying him and “Howard Hughes” over a million dollars for the manuscript.  The scam fell apart when the real Howard Hughes held a telephonic press conference to expose the hoax.  Irving, his wife Edith, and Irving’s coconspirator Richard Suskind all pleaded guilty and went to prison.

Hollywood producers Betsy Beers, Mark Gordon, Leslie Holleran, Joseph Maurer, and Bob Yari couldn’t resist taking the story of a second rate con man and turning it into a left-wing political diatribe against Richard Nixon and George Bush.  They did this by inserting a wholly fabricated portion that shows Irving (played by Richard Gere) receiving a box full of secret files from Hughes that implicated Nixon in a host of crimes.  The scene continues with Nixon and Hughes entering into an agreement whereby Hughes will disavow Irving and his book in exchange for Nixon exerting his influence to get an airline merger approved for Hughes. 

Even Irving was disgusted with the movie:  “I was hired by the producers as technical adviser to the movie, but after reading the final script I asked that my name be removed from the movie credits. I didn't want anyone to believe that I had contributed to such a historically cockeyed story where the main character, almost by coincidence, happens to bear my name,” said Irving.  “The Hughes people mailing the package of files to me is also made up... The movie is best thought of as a hoax.”

The end result?  If anyone has any doubts about whether Hollywood is controlled by the left wing, they should regard this movie as exhibit “A”.

Treason or Free Speech

Hollywood in the 1940s pitched in a did their bit for the war effort.  They not only made training films for the military, but they cranked out a steady stream of morale building movies for the troops and the folks at home.   There was no doubt whether Hollywood supported the American and allied armed forces.  Somewhere along the line, things changed and Hollywood has become a willing ally of our enemies.

One can expect an antiwar or antigovernment movie now and then, but recently there has been a spate of antiwar and antigovernment movies. In the past year, Hollywood has released the movies Redacted, Stop-Loss, In the Valley of Elah, and Rendition just to name a few.  There is also a noticeable absence of movies where the man wearing the white hat is a soldier or anyone from the government.

Fifty years ago, two things would have happened.  1) The American people would have been incensed by these movies, which would have led to boycotts, picketing and Congressional hearings.  2) The  word treason would be used, freely. 

The interesting thing is that none of these movies has made a lot of money.  Some are alleging these films are being made knowing they won’t do well financially  in the U.S., but there is a large secondary market for them in the foreign anti-American market.

The question is this: Who is putting up the money for these marginal movies?  Are they making them for the secondary foreign and DVD market or are they simply misjudging the mood of the American public?  These movies certainly don’t do anything for our troops’ morale.  At what point does this become “giving comfort and aid to the enemy”?  Is it treason or just free speech in a democracy?

The Hollywood Drug Connection

I have a love/hate relationship with Hollywood.  Much of what Hollywood produces is pure crap that caters  to the simple-minded, but I remind myself that it is, after all, fiction.  Each year, before the Academy Awards, I try to see the top movies that are up for awards.  The movie American Gangster picked up a couple of Oscar nominations, including a nomination for Ruby Dee for her portrayal of the mother of drug lord Frank Lucas.  The movie opens with a full screen comment that the movie is "Based on a True Story."   Frank Lucas was probably the biggest drug lord in American history; he cut out the middle-man and established a direct connection to heroin manufacturers in Asia.  Lucas and his underlings mainlined misery and death into the U.S. for two decades before the Feds put him in the slammer. 

The problem with American Gangster is this:  The Hollywood schlock merchants mitigated Lucas's evil by riddling the film with numerous scenes of payoffs to crooked drug agents, leaving viewers with the feeling that poor old Frank was just trying to make a living in this hard-knock world.  The movie climaxes with Lucas cheerfully fingering all the crooked drug agents for the federal prosecutor.  The screen fades to black with big white lettering that announced that three-fourths of the drug agents were convicted with the help of Frank Lucas.  Only one problem:  It didn't happen.   

In January, Federal and state drug agents filed a class action defamation lawsuit against the film makers.  The lawsuit cites the fact that no drug agents were ever arrested and/or convicted in connection with the Lucas case.  Even Lucas acknowledges that only 10% of the movie is true.  The federal prosecutor stated, "I don't know where that came from," referring to the way the film makers portrayed the drug agents.

So what's going on here?  How many gape-mouthed youth will watch this blockbuster and walk from the theater confident that society and the police weren't any better than Lucas?  Was the film deliberately designed not to paint Lucas as too evil so young African-American audiences wouldn't be turned off by the film?