Hooray For CHANGE!

The recent spin out of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the new Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairperson, is enough to make anyone get dizzy and vomit.

On June 15, POLITICO’s Chief White House Correspondent, Mike Allen, interviewed Schultz at Playbook Breakfast, an event series hosted by POLITICO. During this morning conversation about policy, politics and the news of the day, Schultz was posed a question, “At what point do Democrats take responsibility for the economy?”

The former Florida Congresswoman who, according to Project Vote Smart, has never held a private sector job said, “We are clearly responsible… the last year of the Bush presidency we lost 3.7 million jobs… we created a million jobs in the private sector in just the last six months, 2.1 million in the last 15 months… the manufacturing sector has had 15 straight month of growth, we rescued the American automobile industry and made sure Americans continued to have a choice about the kind of car they want to drive… If it were up to Republicans, particularly Republican candidates for President, they would’ve pushed the American car industry off a cliff and said good luck to you later… that’s 1.4 million jobs… Yeah, we own the economy.”

And then, of course, she had to throw in for good measure that we ought “not go back to the policies of the past, the Bush administration, that put us in this mess”

I found that the Democrats stating that they created 2.1 million jobs since Obama took office rather strange since the unemployment rate has dropped from 7.6 percent to 9.1 percent during that same period of time, so I had to look at this further.

Back in October 2010, Schultz stated that Obama was on pace to “have created more jobs in this year than in the entire Bush Presidency.” This was echoed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in January 2011 who stated adamantly that President Obama and the Democratic Congress have created “more jobs in 2010 than President Bush did over eight years.” When pressed, she clarified that she meant private-sector jobs only

The Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees, unless, of course, the DNC Chairperson and House Minority Leader are cherry picking their information and comparing apples to oranges. Here is an accurate accounting, or as Bill O’Reilly says, a “No Spin” look at the private sector job creation by Bush in his eight years as President and Obama in his first twenty-nine months as President:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed almost 4.2 million private-sector jobs during the first year of the Obama. Schultz and Pelosi omit this fact and want the naïve voter to only hear the sound bites, “the Bush presidency lost 3.7 million jobs” and “we created 2.1 million private sector jobs in the last 15 months,” and, of course the old favorite, “we can’t afford to go back to the policies of the Bush administration.”

Here are the cold hard facts:

The fact is that during the Obama administration’s first 28 months, there was a net loss of 2.5 million jobs because the workforce population grew by 4.8 million people.

The fact is that Bush only created 188,000 private sector jobs in eight years, but that he was saddled with a tech bubble bursting in 2000-2001 leading to a recession, the 9/11 attacks at the end of 2001, and the housing bubble bursting in 2007-2008, leading to the recession all through 2008.

The fact is that the Republican controlled Congress between 1994 and 2005 gained about 18.5 million private sector jobs.

The fact is that Democrats controlled Congress from 2006 through 2011, lost approximately 5 million private sector jobs.

The fact is that comparing Bush’s best job growth period with Obama’s best job growth period, Bush bests Obama by approximately 6 million private sector jobs.

The fact is that the average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.2 percent.

The fact is that the average unemployment rate under Obama is 9.4 percent.

These are the indisputable no spin facts… like them or not.

Aside from all the spin the DNC is giving to the Democrats use as ammo against the Republicans lately, the do have one fact correct. Democrats claim they own the current economy… they absolutely do.

Democrats own a 9.1 percent unemployment rate.

Democrats own a 16 percent unemployment rate for African Americans.

Democrats own the fact that the average unemployed person has been out of work for 39.7 weeks.

Democrats own inflation, which just hit a 2-1/2 year high

Democrats own the rising core inflation (up 1.5 percent versus the expected 1.4 percent in May)

Democrats own the weakening of the average hourly earnings (when adjusted for inflation earnings have dropped to 1.2 percent)

Democrats own the rising food costs

Democrats own rising gasoline and energy costs

Democrats own the weak dollar (dropping over 6.5 percent in value in 2011)

Democrats own the 32nd straight month the federal government has been in the red

Democrats own a housing crisis that is now worse than the Great Depression

Democrats own the $14 trillion in debt ($1 trillion in just the last 7 months)

Democrats own the possibility of a debt downgrade

Democrats own the misery index… now at a 28 year high.

Democrats own the stagflation that has just arrived

Yes, Debbie Schultz and Nancy Pelosi are right, the Democrats are clearly responsible and they own this economy. Please, let’s not forget that in 2012.

Between 2002 and 2008, the Left in America maintained a consistent assault against President George W. Bush which included a number of pejoratives, most notably calling him a “NeoCon.” Even my Democrat friends would look me straight in the eye and say, “Bush… that, that NeoCon!” And I would reply, “Wait! What exactly is a NeoCon?” And they didn’t know. All they knew was that it wasn’t good. But where are all those Democrats now that Barack Obama is in office? Because Obama is the greatest NeoCon of all.

So, what is a NeoCon anyway? It’s a term we’ve all heard from time to time, but what does it mean? And why did it become so prevalent during the Bush years? Is it really a word designed to demonize or does it have a valid and constructive meaning? And if Bush was such a terrible NeoCon, then why isn’t Obama receiving the same treatment?

The term, NeoCon saw tremendous growth in the American lexicon during the Bush years. Google showed an increase from 26,300 search results for the term in 2002 to 1,610,000 by 2008.

UrbanDictionary.com, a Web-based dictionary containing of over 10.5 million user-created definitions of slang words and phrases which are regulated by volunteer editors and rated by site visitors, has seven definitions of “NeoCon” created between 2004 through 2006:

In short, the term NeoCon became a derogatory term that described Bush, Conservatives, Right Wingers and Republicans as no good low life lying rotten inbred war-mongering blowhard lemmings who are criminally insane spenders and the lowest forms of life around… and, oh yes, Nazis in pinstripe suits.

By 2008, the Left had successfully demonized Bush as a war mongering nation building “NeoCon.” Whichever Republican won the nomination would simply need to be tied to Bush and victory would come easy for whoever the Democrat nominee was… even if it was a former community organizer with no executive experience whatsoever. And that is exactly what happened.

Since, Obama took office in 2009, the “NeoCon” chatter began to get quiet. After all, the Democrats had a Supermajority in Congress and a Democrat President… there was no Republicans to call a NeoCon anymore. Google search results for “NeoCon” dropped by 130,000 hits… almost ten percent (10%).

So, what is a NeoCon?

The term was created and used by the Left as a tool to verbally assault those moving from the Left to the Right. Its roots go as far back as 1883 when a periodical called Today, featured an excerpt of Karl Marx’s book Captial, that discussed “the principles of neo-Conservatism as expounded by the late Lord Beaconsfield…” Lord Beaconsfield was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1874 to 1880 and it was said that he started his career somewhat on the Left and ended it as a staunch Conservative.

The term remained somewhat dormant for the next century until socialist Michael Harrington wrote an article for Dissent Magazine in 1973 titled, “The Welfare State and Its Neoconservative Critics.” The term, neoconservative, maintained the same meaning during this time as a former Leftist who had moved Right; however, it was now being related to those Democrats who supported a “socially progressive” domestic policy (support for a welfare state and a mixed economy) as well as strong foreign policy that supported the Vietnam War in spite of the Democrat party’s growing opposition.

In other words, it referred to those Democrats moving away from the political party with an agenda that saw a strong domestic policy that included a large federal government playing a central role in the American economy as well as having an aggressive foreign policy that resulted in the spread of democracy all across the globe.

In 2002, Bush gave a State of the Union address which was a response to the 9/11 attacks and outlined what would later be coined the Bush Doctrine, “I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” Bush’s aim was simply to protect America and promote democracy around the world. And the term NeoCon was given new life once again.

Bush, with the full consent of Congress, sent Troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons were not to spread democracy. The U.S. went into Afghanistan as a reaction to 9/11 and went into Iraq because of a looming threat of another such attack. The democratization of these states was not the primary goal, rather a by product of the primary goals.

On the domestic front, President Bush’s policies grew the government and increased spending. From education to domestic security to space exploration to agricultural subsidies to Medicare, Bush expanded public spending by seventy percent (70%), more than double the increase under President Clinton; however, he opposed many a “socially progressive” ideas such as creating a welfare state or a mixed economy.

Bush’s domestic agenda didn’t matter. The Left in America focused on his foreign policy and suggested that Bush was not simply protecting America from those who have and would do us harm, but that he was nation building, using armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy. This was enough to begin the propaganda that Bush was an imperial president… a NeoCon.

If Bush was such a terrible NeoCon, then why isn’t Obama receiving the same treatment?

On the domestic front, the first twenty months of Obama’s presidency saw him add as much debt as Bush created during his entire presidency… and his spending plan calls for the doubling of the national debt in five years and tripling it in ten years. This spending increase doesn’t comes from defense spending, it comes from socially progressive plans that included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending ten percent (10%) for the last half of fiscal year 2009… not to mention increases of nondefense discretionary spending another twelve percent (12%) for fiscal year 2010. Add on Obamacare and the numbers are ridiculous.

And Obama’s foreign policy? He failed to bring home the Troops in Iraq as promised, he increased the number of Troops in Afghanistan, he did not close Gitmo as promised, and he – without Congressional approval – attacked Libya. Why did he attack Libya? Was it in our national interest? No. Was the United States under imminent threat? No. Obama unconstitutionally attacked Libya because Qaddafi did not step down when Libyan protesters were calling for a regime change, but rather began a military campaign against those Libyan protesters.

This wasn’t any different than any other countries holding major protests in the Middle East. At that time Algeria saw 8 deaths, Bahrain 22 deaths, Djibouti 2 deaths, Jordan 2 deaths, Oman 6 deaths, Syria 100 deaths (1,300 deaths and 10,000 arrests as of June 13, 2011) and Yemen 122 deaths, Iran 3 deaths (1,500 arrested), Morocco 6 deaths, Saudi Arabia 2 deaths (100 arrested), Sudan 1 death and Western Sahara 1 death.

Yet, Obama attacked and continues an assault on Libya. Why? According to his March 28, 2011 speech, he stated that “For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom… Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean…. America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.” So, it was clearly a humanitarian effort. But why Libya and not the other dozen Middle Eastern countries that were doing the same thing to its people?

Obama is clearly working with the protestors to bring democracy to Libya. He is nation building. Obama is acting as an imperial president.

But where is the Left protesting Obama? Where are the new UrbanDictionary definitions of NeoCon? Where is Cindy Sheehan camping out these days? Where is Code Pink? Where is MoveOn? Where is the Mainstream Media on this issue?

So, in the end, for all the heat Bush took for being a “NeoCon” between 2002 and 2008, Obama has actually lived up to the title. His domestic policy has stayed solidly Left wing with the greatest increases in socially progressive spending of any President ever and his foreign policy has moved more to the right and become increasingly hawkish. Attacking the Libyan government in an effort to help the protesters democratize the nation is the true essence of a NeoCon.

Quite objectively, Obama just might be the greatest NeoCon this country has ever seen.

Memorial Day, formerly known as Decoration Day, is a federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May and commemorates U.S. Service Members who gave their lives while in military service.

Many cities and small towns lay claim to being the birthplace of the holiday, but there are a few locations that stand out in particular.

In 1835, a southern plantation located in Charleston, South Carolina was bought by the South Carolina Jockey Club where they established an annual horse race called the Washington Race Course. At the end of the Civil War, this location was used to as a prisoner-of-war camp where over 200 Union soldiers died and were buried. By April 1865, a white picket fence was erected and inscribed with words, “The Martyrs of the Race Course.” It wasn’t until May 1, 1865 that thousands of people, mainly newly freed blacks, visited the site where the members of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry marched around the site and graves were decorated, speeches were made, and picnics were enjoyed.

Another location claiming to be the birthplace of the holiday is Columbus, Mississippi. On April 25, 1866 a group of women visited a local cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers who died during the battle at Shiloh. Uneasy about neglecting nearby graves of Union soldiers, the women placed flowers on their graves as well.

Although similar such observances took place all over the country from Boalsburg, Pennsylvania to Carbondale, Illinois, it wasn’t until two years later, on May 5, 1868, the head of the Grand Army of the Republican (a Union veterans organization) established “Decoration Day” as a day for the nation to decorate the graves of those who had fallen during the Civil War with flowers. Major General John Logan declared that Decoration Day should be observed on May 30 because it was believed on that date flowers would be in bloom all over the country.

The first large observance was held in 1868 at Arlington National Cemetery, across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. The ceremonies centered around the mourning-draped veranda of the Arlington mansion, once the home of General Robert E. Lee. Various Washington officials, including General and Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Orphan Home and members of the Grand Army of the Republican made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers and singing hymns.

In May 1966, President Lyndon Johnson formally declared Waterloo, New York as the official birthday place of Memorial Day. Perhaps this location was chosen because on May 5, 1866, the local veterans who had fought in the Civil War were more formally honored by the local citizens as businesses closed and residents flew flags at half-staff.

In 1882, “Memorial Day” was first used in lieu of “Decoration Day,” but wouldn’t become more common until after World War II.

By the end of the 19th century, Memorial Day ceremonies were being held on May 30 throughout the nation. State legislatures passed proclamations designating the day the holiday and the Army and Navy adopted regulations for proper observance at their facilities.

It wasn’t until the end of World War I that Memorial Day was expanded to honor those who have died in all American wars.

By the second half of the 20th Century, “Decoration Day” was no longer the commonly known name of the day of observance and a Federal law was passed in 1967 declaring “Memorial Day” as its official day. One year later, Congress passed the Uniform Holidays Bill, which moved three holidays from their traditional dates to a specified Monday in order to create a convenient three-day weekend. The holidays included Washington’s Birthday, Veterans Day and Memorial Day. The change, which would take effect at the federal level in 1971, moved Memorial Day from its traditional May 30 date to the last Monday in May.

Today, Memorial Day is traditionally observed through local parades, visiting cemeteries and memorials, placing American flags on each graces site at National Cemeteries, flying the American flag, family gatherings, the Indianapolis 500, golf tournaments, and, of course, barbeques.

Regardless of how you spend your Memorial Day, be sure to take a moment and remember those who died while serving our country. Remember those who gave the greatest sacrifice so that you can live in the greatest country this world has ever known.

I’ve written several articles skewering HBO for producing political projects destined to air immediately prior to the 2012 election, where the vast majority of the cast and crew are passionate Barack Obama supporters, and where the content is aimed at the Democrat’s two favorite Republican villains… Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney. So, when I sat down to watch HBO’s Too Big to Fail, I prepared myself for the worst. What I didn’t expect was the big surprise awaiting me.

Too Big to Fail, which premieres on HBO on May 23, 2011, features a star studded cast recounting the events that led to the financial crisis and bailouts by the U.S. government in 2008. It is a mini-series packed into a 98-minute made-for-television movie where several essential characters are quickly introduced and where finance and economics are casually discussed. It may help if one has a baseline of knowledge about the crisis before watching the movie. If one doesn’t know who Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner are or what Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and AIG are, it may prove slightly difficult to follow.

Although the Director, Curtis Hanson (L.A. Confidential, 8 Mile), was limited to telling a very long and complicated story in a very short amount of time, he was able to skillfully pull it off. Perhaps this is because the screenwriter, Peter Gould (Breaking Bad), deftly adapted Andrew Ross Sorkin’s 2009 prize winning New York Times Bestseller, Too Big to Fail.

The cast was right out of a Robert Altman film, there was a large number of well known actors including William Hurt (Paulson – Sec. Treasury), James Woods (Fuld – Lehman Bros), Paul Giamatti (Bernanke – Chair, Federal Reserve), Bill Pullman (Dimon – JPMorgan Chase), Ed Asner (Buffet – Berkshire Hathaway), Billy Crudup (Geithner – President, Federal Reserve), Matthew Modine (Thain – CIT Group), Tony Shalhoub (Mack – Morgan Stanley), Topher Grace (Wilkinson), Cynthia Nixon (Davis) and many others. They all looked and played their parts very well with the exception that there seemed to be no effort made toward sounding like the people they played. It was difficult to get past the notable voices of the actors. Paul Giamatti sounds like Paul Giamatti and nothing like Ben Bernanke. Hurt sounded nothing like Paulson. Crudup nothing like Geithner. Perfection wasn’t necessary, but it seemed as though there was little to no effort made at all by the actors to at least sound a little more like the real people they were portraying and less like themselves.

The story opens on a head shot of Ronald Reagan. It is news footage of a speech he gives on deregulation. Credits play as we see an image of Clinton signing a piece of legislation as the audio of newsmakers make mention that this is Congress’ bill being singed. Alan Greenspan is seen and states, “Don’t regulate for regulation’s sake,” which is followed by Bush proclaiming everyone should live out the American dream and own their own home. Miscellaneous clips talks of high profits and subprime loans, and then mortgage meltdown and government bailout.

At this point, I am thinking this film is going to be about blame… and that blame is going to be deregulation ushered in by Reagan, the Republican Congress during the Clinton years, Bush 43, and Reagan through Bush’s Federal Reserve Alan appointee, Alan Greenspan.

This prompts me to check the cast and crew to see who they support and if they are bringing their agenda to this story in their hopes to rewrite history and put Republicans in a negative light and Democrats in a positive light before the election in 2012. And, of course, the Director and the Writer are both ardent Obama supporters. All those at HBO support Obama like Co-President Eric Kessler, Co-President Richard Plepler, President of HBO entertainment Sue Naegle, President of HBO Films Len Amato and Executive Producers Paula Weinstein, Carol Fenelon and Ezra Swerdlow. Even the Cinematographer Kramer Morgenthau and Casting Director Alexa Fogel have contributed to Obama’s 2008 campaign. And the Obama supporting list of actors is long too: Topher Grace, William Hurt, Matthew Modine, Cynthia Nixon and Amy Carlson. As if that’s not enough, there are many other ardent Democrats like Paul Giamatti, Bill Pullman, Tony Shalhoub and Ed Asner.

Then the story opens on James Woods playing Dick Fuld, Chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers… an ardent Democrat and Obama supporter. James Woods stands out as the political maverick in the cast. In a recent interview with New York Magazine, Woods is quoted as saying, “I’ve always said that the next Obama slogan should be, ‘Barack Obama: Putting America Out of Business,’ because that’s what he’s doing.” So I decided to turn off my bias filter and give this story a chance.

As the story unfolded, I saw that the villains in this film weren’t the Republicans, rather it was a single villain… the total and complete financial collapse of our nation, or as Bernanke puts it, “[replaying] the depression of the 1930s. Only this time… far, far worse.” So, regardless of any one American’s political affiliation watching this film, total and complete financial collapse is an enemy we can all collectively desire to defeat.

The heroes, however, that’s a little more complicated. The actual heroes of the story are Republicans Henry Paulson (Secretary of the Treasury), Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve) and Independent Timothy Geithner (President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York). They artfully maneuver their way through the minefield of economic collapse. Bear Stearns has already collapsed, Lehman Brothers is on the brink, Merrill Lynch next and with all this going on, AIG – the safety net for all these creditors – was in the process of imploding from its own lack of liquidity and inability to meet its obligations. If AIG falls, all the banks fall. People would pull their money out of their banks and there would be no George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) trying to stop the “run on the bank” by convincing his depositors to take only what they need from his honeymoon stash. America, as we know it, would be in ruins.

Every maneuver in their quest to stabilize the markets is met with unpredictable reactions. Once they believe they’ve averted disaster, the pundits, investors and citizens react differently than expected. It’s a reminder of Nobel winning economist F.A. Hayek’s precept that “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

But in the end, as we all know, it was capital injections in the form of a Troubled Asset Relied Plan (TARP) that would “save the day.” In short, the plan would see the U.S. government purchase assets and equity from all financial institutions, even if they didn’t need it, in order to stabilize and strengthen the financial sector. As Bernanke put it, the upside would stabilize banks faster, the downside it was nationalizing a few banks. Their plan to soften the blow was that they would force private banks to participate in this plan under law, but that the government would not have a voting interest or the ability to tell the banks how they use the money injected into their coffers… leaving the question to the viewer, “They will lend it out, won’t they?”

But, was TARP the right solution? If one believes it was, then the heroes of this story are without a doubt Republicans Paulson and Bernanke. But, if one believes it wasn’t the right solution, then the Republicans are just kicking the can down the road. Regardless, the story is a quest for a private solution, according to Paulson.

As Republican public relations guru Jim Wilkson (Topher Grace) says at one point, “You just can’t hand the banks massive piles of cash. Nobody’s going to go for it. To the Republicans, it’s nationalization. To the Democrats it’s a bailout. And the banks are going to go ballistic.”

The story is well crafted and builds suspense out of the unexciting topics of finance and economics. There were parts that bothered me, like making the Republican Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Christopher Cox, look like an immature boob, or Republican presidential candidate Senator McCain look like he is clueless on economic matters contrasted by Senator Obama’s grip on the subject, or simplistically blaming deregulation while omitting the fault of Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or that derivatives and subprime loans were born during Clinton’s presidency, or more importantly that in 2006 Republicans pleaded with the Democratically-controlled Congress to begin taking measures by pulling the reigns back on Fannie and Freddie to mitigate the impending economic disaster.

Those criticisms, however, were offset by so many of the lines delivered by Topher Grace’s character, Jim Wilkson, who best resembled the attitudes and feelings of most Americans during this time. At one point, it is suggested that the government purchases up the toxic assets of the banks, to which he responds, “Ohhh, call it cash for trash,” he also calls nationalization the N word and that it is un-American, and he suggests that the government running the banks would be like the government running the Post Office because they “run like a dream.” Another character addresses the issue that the government having the ability to dictate compensation would be the biggest “brain drain this country has ever seen.” And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is characterized as something like the Pope, or better yet, the head of the Mafia. Her character comes across as an elitist snob, which I particularly enjoyed.

The movie was a surprise. Although it wasn’t 100 percent balanced, it was enough for this right winger to actually enjoy it. And the filmmakers did a pretty decent job packing in a lot of characters and a lot of story into a short amount of time. If Obama-loving HBO can pull off the upcoming Sarah Palin story, Game Change, and the Dick Cheney movie, Angler, with the same deftness and fairness, I will be pleasantly surprised, better yet… I will be astonished.

Trailer:

I recently received a barrage of Facebook posts from my Leftist friends regarding Jon Stewart of the “The Daily Show” and his rant on the so-called hypocrisy of Sean Hannity and Fox News over the rapper Common’s invitation to the White House. Democrats accusing Republicans of hypocrisy… how ironic.

My first reaction to the story was that my friends don’t understand the definition of hypocrisy. Quite simply, hypocrisy is the act of stating beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not actually personally hold or possess. In other words, it is saying one thing and doing the opposite.

So, when Hannity and Fox News was critical of the White House for inviting a rapper whose contribution to American culture include rap lyrics that support cop killers, call for the killing of cops, call for the killing of a U.S. President, and are otherwise racist and sexist, what did Hannity and Fox News do in contradiction to make themselves hypocrites? Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Zip.

Jon Stewart mentioned many things he felt were hypocritical, but they weren’t…. they were more ironic. For example, Fox News ran a series of interviews with its pundits highlighting Common’s cop killer lyrics in his music, followed by a happy birthday message to Ice-T, who also had cop killer lyrics in his music. That is not saying one thing and doing the other… that’s just ironic.

Stewart’s closest and best example is some footage he shows of President George W. Bush honoring Johnny Cash at the National Arts & Humanities Awards in 2002. But this missed rising to the level of hypocrisy as well because it wasn’t comparable. First, the footage Stewart showed was from CSPAN and not Fox News. Second, the event took place at the Constitution Hall, not the White House. Third, Common’s controversial lyrics are a call to action (I got the black strap to make the cops run, when we roll together with a strapped gun, we’re going to be rocking them to sleep”), whereas Johnny Cash’s controversial lyrics were of a fictional story (I shot a man in Reno, just to see him die). And lastly, there was no commentary from Fox News or Sean Hannity regarding the 2002 event to use as a comparison. File this one in the false analogy section.

To borrow from George Orwell, “It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors.”

Hypocrisy is not irony. Hypocrisy is not a false analogy. People are free to espouse their opinions. It’s when their opinions are contradictory to their actions that hypocrisy is born. Here are some real life examples:

• Democrats give passionate speeches on raising and paying taxes because it is America’s “patriotic duty;” however, so many Democrats fail to pay their own taxes or find ways to reduce their taxes:
  A. Timothy Geithner failed to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes he owed
  B. Tom Daschle failed to pay more than $100,000 in back taxes
  C. Charles Rangel failed to report $75,000 in rental income
  D. John Kerry purchased a $7 million yacht and moored it in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts so that he could avoid paying $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000

• Obama promised to use public funding in the general election if the Republican candidate would do the same. McCain used public funding, but when Obama realized that he could raise more than triple the public stipend, he reneged on the deal.

• Defending his Libya policy, President Obama declared, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.” Yet, he has turned a blind eye to all the atrocities happening in Ivory Coast, Syria and North Korea.

• The Left spoke of the immorality of waterboarding the “principal architect of the 9/11 attacks,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, yet champion the morality of murdering head of al-Queda, Osama bin Laden.

• The Left often compared President Bush or Governor Walker to Hitler, but comparing Obama to Hitler is “controversial” and deserves harsh criticism.

• The Left lambasted “war monger” President Bush for invading Iraq even with Congressional authority, they then cheered on Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama as he fired over 100 missiles into Libya without Congressional authority and is complicit in the active pursuit to assassinate it’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi.

• Obama voted with several other Democrats against raising the debt ceiling when he was a Senator during Bush’s presidency, but now as President himself facing the same issue, he is asking Republicans to vote to raise the debt ceiling.

• Obamacare mandates that everyone in the country have health insurance or be subject to a fine and even imprisonment. Health insurers and companies that provide health insurance to its employees must meet certain federal mandates, yet Obama has provided over 1,300 different waivers (including several unions and at least four different states) that would exclude the entities from the requirements.

• In 2007, Obama said that the U.S. should begin pulling out one to two combat brigades each month, with all troops out by the end of 2008. After being elected, he said he would have all troops out of Iraq by August 31, 2010. After two and a half years as Commander in Chief, there are still approximately 50,000 American soldiers in Iraq with yet a new promise to bring them home by the end of 2011.

• Obama singed an executive order barring officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues “for as long as I am president.” He also barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years; however, within two weeks of signing his own executive order, he appointed more than 17 lobbyists to his administration.

• In 2008, Obama stated, “I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all… The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House.” And even after becoming President, he continued the same rhetoric that he would “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts.” And that “In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition… And that’s completely unacceptable.” Shortly thereafter, it was revealed that KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded a no-bid contract worth $568 million and that Checchi & Company Consulting, a Washington-based firmed owned by Democratic donor Vincent Checchi, was awarded a no-bid contract of more than $24 million to train lawyers and judges in Afghanistan.

• The Left feigned “outrage” when energy executives met in secret with Vice President Dick Cheney and the public questioned their influence on the President’s energy plan. The Bush administration claimed “Presidential Communication Privilege,” and never released the names. However, where are all the Leftists now that President Obama has done the exact same thing with Obamacare. Fourteen different executives involved with the drug, medical, and hospital industries, went to the White House to advise Obama on the health care reform bill. When asked for the names, the Secret Service cited “Presidential Communication Privilege” for their decision not to disclose this list.

• Obama claims that this is the most transparent administration in history; however, his administration has censored nearly 200 pages of internal emails about their efforts to make government more transparent.

• In 2005 Obama criticized Bush for making recess appointments, particularly when Bush bypassed the Senate when he appointed John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; however, Obama appointed a controversial pro-labor radical, Craig Becker, to the National Labor Relations Board as a recess appointment.

• Those on the Left have pushed for major bans on smoking, yet work tirelessly to pass smoking illegal drugs.

• Democrats are critical of abortion-seeking women from getting mandatory ultrasounds prior to their procedure, yet endorse bills that would force every single person to be an organ donor. Is it your body or not?!

• Those in the Democrat Party, a political party with a long sad racist history voted year after year for candidates like Robert “KKK” Byrd and even have major KKK leaders running as Democrat candidates in current elections, like John Paul Rogers running for Mayor in Wales, Florida, call Republicans racists.

• Former Democrat Rep. Paul Kanjorski wrote an op-ed in the NYT, “We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.” Kinda hypocritical for a guy who said just a couple months prior, “That [Rick] Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”

• Democrats promote and force “green initiatives” on the People, however, they fly in large private jets all across the country (Pelosi), live in mansions that require the same amount of electricity to power an entire city block (Kerry), and enjoy keeping their gas guzzling limos running while they give speeches because they don’t like the weather outside and want to be comfortable when they get back in their luxury mobiles (Gore).

• Obama went to El Paso, TX last week and gave a speech on immigration that complained about “politicians” blocking comprehensive immigration bills; however, his own administration has used the legal system to block Arizona’s immigration bills and in 2007 he voted for amendments that killed a bipartisan Kyl-Kennedy immigration bill.

One last bit about the real hypocrisy surrounding the White House poet slam.

Obama, in the past, has lamented those U.S. states that banned interracial marriage at the time of his birth. Also, when he was asked in 2007 about the difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage, he said, “…we’ve got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law.” Clearly, he is an advocate of interracial marriage.

And not to be left out of the conversation, Jon Stewart was critical of Bob Jones University on his show in 2000 because it banned interracial dating and he recently aired a skit in which an interracial couple began to “make a baby” on his desk as the segment ended and they went to commercial. Seemingly, he approves of interracial relationships.

However, absent from Stewart’s hypocritical piece was the fact that Common and Jill Scott, another poet invited to the same White House event, are both openly against interracial relationships. Jill Scott has said, “These harsh truths lead to what we really feel when we see a seemingly together brother with a Caucasian woman and their children. That feeling is betrayed.” And Common has said, “I disagree with [mixed race relationships]. It’s a lack of self-love. It’s a problem.” Yet, all this is overlooked. Talk about hypocrisy.

So where’s their outrage? Why is Stewart feigning outrage at his notion that Hannity and Fox News are hypocritical when he clearly – and hypocritically – omits the elephant in the room… the blatant hypocrisy of Barack Obama, the product of an interracial relationship, inviting those opposed to interracial relationships to the White House?

I don’t know either. I just know it’s ironic.

In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Party members of Orwell’s futuristic society are forced to watch daily the government’s Two Minutes’ Hate… a film projected on telescreens depicting The Party’s enemies. The purpose was to brainwash its own skeptical citizens and reinforce the rest using emotionally based sound and images.  Today, we just call it television.

The marriage between the Democrat Party and Hollywood is the new Big Brother.  And Big Brother is tasked with indoctrinating a large society into a left wing perspective.  The most efficient way is to present a single message to a massive audience and this is done organically, yet methodically, through your television using story, character, dialogue, comedy and/or drama.

Just as Sergey Eisenstein realized in 1925 he could manipulate the audience emotions through editing and contrasting images in Battleship Potemkin, Socialist Joseph Stalin realized that film was a propaganda tool that could rewrite history and control a nation.  And almost 100 years later, Hollywood has perfected this art into subtly promoting their political agenda and demonizing their political enemies.

This past week the White House delayed the announcement of the death of Osama bin Laden by an hour, clearly harming the viewership numbers and success NBC’s Celebrity Apprentice, a show produced and hosted by potential Republican nominee and President Obama’s political enemy Donald Trump.

While the announcement of the death of Osama bin Laden was good news that all Americans could rejoice in hearing (with the exception of Michael Moore), many of the celebrities in Hollywood, those same celebrities who demonized the previous Republican administration for its “War on Terror,” took the opportunity to Tweet and give all the credit to Obama.

NeNe Leakes, a competitor on this season’s Celebrity Apprentice who also stars on Bravo’s Real Housewives of Atlanta, tweeted: “Mr Trump, Barack Obama is kicking yo ass! Now what?”

Comedian Jimmy Fallon tweeted, “Got Bin Laden AND interrupted Celebrity Apprentice? Win for Obama all around.”

Actor Neil Patrick Harris tweeted: “Everyone is sitting around my living room, mouths agape. Wow, what a night. Thank you, Mr. President, for such an eloquent speech.”

Director Spike Lee tweeted: “President Obama ‘May God Bless you and May God Bless The United States of America.”

The news of Osama bin Laden’s death bumped Barack Obama’s approval ratings by approximately 5 points.  Nevermind rising gas prices, rising inflation, a weakening of the dollar, an over-inflated stock market, the unemployment rate getting worse, a horrible housing market, the public debt getting out of control, the broken campaign promise after broken campaign promise as well as all the utter hypocrisy… No, Hollywood celebrities are hell bent on singing the praises of the President with whom they share a left wing agenda.

But singing the praises of those in their own party is not enough.

Just like every good story that comes out of Hollywood, there must be an evil villain.  Vilifying President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney worked for Democrats in 2006 and 2008.  Bush was often presented as a red neck idiot and Cheney as Mr. Burns from The Simpsons, or Mr. Potter from It’s A Wonderful Life, or Darth Vader from Star Wars. Take your pick.

This past week, there seemed to be an uptick in hateful rhetoric coming out of Hollywood and hitting our television screens.

On Wednesday night, ABC’s Happy Endings aired an episode where a gay character tells a black character (who previously stated he voted for Hillary Clinton) the following line:

“So, in [the video game] Penalty of Death, you can create your own character. So, I made myself Glenn Beck.  So, if I die, I don’t feel bad.”

Really?  The writers and Network Executive could’ve chosen Adolf Hitler, or Genghis Khan, or Attila the Hun, or Vlad the Impaler, or even a dozen other notoriously horrible people in world history that all individuals wouldn’t feel bad about dying, but instead chose to go with an individual that represents a right wing agenda and whom is supported mainly by Republicans.

On Saturday night, NBC’s Saturday Night Live hosted by Tina Fey lived up to their usual left wing agenda.

In a skit titled, GOP Debate, Fox News’ Shepard Smith was said to have an “unsettling voice.”  Gov. Mitt Romney was characterized as “rich, disconnected, dead fish, and looks like a villain in a Lifetime movie.”  Rep. Michelle Bachmann was portrayed as a psychotic woman straight out of Fatal Attraction who “comes across as intense and a little sexy” before becoming totally crazy.  And then there was favorite SNL target Gov. Sarah Palin.  Tina Fey portrayed the governor and stated that she was happy to be back on Fox, a network that not only pays her, but gives her the questions ahead of time and that “I hope the lame-stream media won’t twist my words by repeating them verbatim.”  She finished up her role as Palin suggesting that aside from reality television and Twitter, she offers the American people an increase in her knowledge of policy matters because she recently filmed Hangover 3 in the Middle East and that she recently purchased Rosetta Stone English.

They end the skit with this line, “In Conclusion, we would like to congratulate Barack Obama on his re-election.”  Really?

Seth Meyers, head writer of SNL and anchor of Weekend Update, suggested that Obama should currently be at a 100% approval rating following the death of Osama bin Laden, yet his approval rating was only up to 56%… his highest in two years (one of Obama’s highest ratings from one selected poll several days prior).  And as Seth concluded, “Which means there is absolutely nothing he can do to please the other 44%.”

Had this current administration been a Republican administration, there is no doubt that Obama would’ve been lampooned for playing golf that day and being the most underdressed man in the Situation Room… and Hillary would’ve been made fun of for holding her hand over her mouth in what appears to be a gasp, yet trying to explain it away as her covering her mouth due to an allergy-induced cough.

But wait, our modern day Big Brother wasn’t finished.

On Sunday Night, A&E’s “Breakout Kings,” a show that has been absent of politics up to this point, finally took a side.  One felon says to Special Deputy U.S. Marshal, “Why do heart transplant recipients prefer hearts from Republicans?” To which the Marshal says, “Because they’ve never been used.”  Why does such a stereotype exist?  Nobody can really say, yet the Left in this nation continues to utter such clichés in the face of contradictory evidence.

In 2007, Syracuse Professor Arthur C. Brooks, published a book titled, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.”   Quite frankly, those on the right have much bigger hearts than those on the left.  For example:

1. Although left wing families’ incomes average 6% higher than those of right wing families, right wing-headed households give 30% more to charity than the average left wing-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

2. Right wingers also donate more time and give more blood.

3. Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

4. Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

5. In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60% majorities, the average personal income donated to charity was 3.5%. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40%, donated just 1.9%.

6. People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Hollywood finds a way to subvert the prevailing truth using sinister platitudes cleverly disguised as a funny line whose main purpose is to make the audience laugh, but sole purpose is to indoctrinate.  And that was just a few shows caught out of hundreds on television and in a short period of time.

But there is more currently being produced.  HBO is currently working on Game Change, presumably an anti-Palin movie produced almost exclusively by Barack Obama supporters.  HBO has also green lit a mini-series project on Dick Cheney based on Barton Gellman’s book “Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency” and the Frontline documentary The Dark Side (insert Darth Vader joke here), which is also almost exclusively produced by Obama supporters. TNT is currently producing an episode of Rizzoli & Isles in which Bill O’Reilly, another favorite of Republicans, will play himself… a murder suspect.

So, there you have this week’s Hollywood’s version of Two Minutes’ Hate.  Hopefully, your emotions, thoughts and political perspectives weren’t as manipulated as the Party members in Nineteen Eighty-Four. And hopefully, the marriage between the Democrat Party and Hollywood will soon end in a divorce.

In the meantime, everyone has to remain vigilant as we watch television… no matter how innocuous it seems.