LL/Chris....I'm stilll waiting to hear from you to see if it was an error or deliberate.Oracle
Somne of you may have noticed in some of my postings, that my personal target for shame is directed at those so called movie "stars".So from time to time I see someone's column which I like to share with the people on AMG. This is a column that I agree wholeheartedly with. Please take the time to read it all. I'm sure you'll find it most interesting.Oracle
Bring back Hollywwood Black listÂ© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
By Joseph FarahThe United States is a "dumb puppy that has big teeth," according to American actor Johnny Depp. I say we should make certain this scumbucket never works in America again. That's right. I mean it's time to bring back the Hollywood blacklist. In fact, I'd very much like to start compiling the blacklist right now â€“ and I welcome your suggestions for additions. I'm sure I'm missing some real anti-American zealots. Depp may be the latest offender, but he's such a lightweight on the intellectual scale that he hardly deserves to be first. So, let's reserve that position for Michael Moore. Harrison Ford may not be the biggest offender in terms of statements he's made and actions he has taken, however, because of his star status, he is more than worthy of being on the list. Then there are Martin Sheen, Mike Farrell, Sheryl Crow, Janeane Garofalo and the Dixie Chicks. There's Richard Gere and Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover. George Looney â€“ I mean, Clooney. Jane Fonda's been quiet lately, but throw her on to the list for past offenses. She belongs in the Hollywood Blacklist Hall of Shame. Who am I forgetting? Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, of course. Ed Asner, even though he's a has-been. Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand probably belong in the Hall of Shame as well. There are many more, and I'm sure you will help jog my memory. But it's time to do something. It's time to silence these people. It's time to force them to get real jobs and perform real work and learn the unusual and undeserved blessings America has bestowed upon them. I know. I know. You've heard the Hollywood blacklist of the 1940s and 1950s was a horrible thing â€“ a great injustice. Nonsense. It was a good thing. It was the right thing to do at the right time in history. And, as America finds itself beleaguered in the world against â€“ literally surrounded by â€“ enemies who seek to destroy it, we cannot allow traitors privileged status in the entertainment industry. Some of the brightest and most well-educated people in America today don't grasp the truth of what has become romantically known in the industry as "the Hollywood blacklist era." That truth begins with this fact: Every single member of the "Hollywood 10" had indeed been members, or past members, of the Communist Party. They never denied it â€“ not under oath. Instead, they refused to answer the straightforward question from the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1947: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" Many in Hollywood today cling to the belief that their collective refusal to answer was based on a bold, principled stand against an inquisition into artists' personal political convictions. Almost no one understands that the refusal had nothing to do with principles and everything to do with Communist Party politics and self-preservation for the Hollywood 10. As each member of the Hollywood 10 â€“ Ring Lardner, Adrian Scott, Edward Dmytryk, Lester Cole, Dalton Trumbo, John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Alvah Bessie, Samuel Ornitz and Herbert Biberman â€“ refused to answer the key question, committee investigator Louis J. Russell, a former FBI agent, was called to the stand to produce the number of that person's Communist Party registration card for the year 1944. And, yes, each and every one had been a card-carrying member of the party. Remember, this was during Josef Stalin's bloodthirstiest days in the Kremlin. Why not tell the truth and defend your beliefs and associations? Why didn't they avoid contempt of Congress charges and jail terms by simply admitting they were party members? What were they ashamed of? What were they hiding? Well, as it turns out, the refusal to answer was merely a tactical ploy, a matter of political expediency. You see, unlike today, when most in Hollywood and even many average Americans don't see communism or totalitarianism as particularly threatening to our national security or way of life, the situation was much different in 1947. Americans had just fought a world war with one brand of evil totalitarianism represented by Adolf Hitler and were prepared to fight another one with the evil represented by Josef Stalin. Everyone understood the Communist Party in the United States was an active agent of Soviet policy. So, why did the 10 refuse to talk? Listen to what Ring Lardner himself said in an interview with Film Comment magazine in 1988: "We decided it was not a good idea to deny membership in the Communist Party, although some of our colleagues had done that before the California State Un-American Activities Committee. We just felt that there were too many stool pigeons and various other ways to find out, and you could get yourself in a much worse situation for perjury; it would be very hard to organize any sympathy around that." Notice there was no discussion of simply telling the truth. The Communist Party was a secret subversive organization. Revealing yourself was not an option. The purpose of membership was to advance the cause of international socialist revolution in America by whatever means necessary. Hollywood, because of its wealth and influence, was a prime target. While many in Hollywood today decry the effort to root out the communists as "censorship" and the unfairness of the blacklisting that followed, they conveniently overlook the fact that the communists instituted those practices in the movie industry. The challenge to the party arose principally because anti-communist writers, actors and directors of the late 1940s were infuriated by the highly secretive clique of communists systematically discriminating against their work. Lardner, for instance, was among those who circulated a petition at MGM to halt production on a film he didn't like for political reasons. Trumbo, for example, boasted in a bylined article in the Communist Worker that, while Hollywood produced few "provocative" or "progressive" films, agents within the industry were able to spike "reactionary" and anti-Soviet scripts. Ronald Reagan, Adolphe Menjou, Roy Brewer, Morrie Ryskind and others charged that the communists conspired to create opportunities in the industry for their political allies and to destroy them for their enemies. Screenwriter John C. Moffit, for instance, commended the House committee for "taking steps to end the most dangerous censorship that has ever occurred in the history of the motion-picture industry and in the history of American thought." But the tactics of the Hollywood 10 paid off in the long run. Yes, it's true they served brief jail terms for contempt, and those with studio contracts were fired. Most, however, managed to continue writing for the silver screen under pseudonyms. And just over a decade later, the forgetful and forgiving nature of the American people had allowed them to receive screen credits again. Now they are heroes. All except for Dymtryk, who was sincere in his denunciation of communism. He served the longest prison term of the bunch even though he had left the party before the committee hearing. Real communists may be few and far between in Hollywood today. But there's a new breed of anti-Americanism deserving of punishment. A price needs to be paid for biting the hand that feeds Hollywood so well. I don't think people should go to jail for their anti-American views. I just think they should never work in the entertainment industry again. If they like it better somewhere else, let them make films and television shows and records in that country. I don't expect the Hollywood studios and the multinational entertainment conglomerates to stop hiring these reprobates. So, this time, America, the blacklisting is up to you. Make your list â€“ and stop supporting movies, TV shows, TV sponsors, record companies, etc. which hire these louts. Personally, I'm starting with "Pirates of the Caribbean."
If you guys cared half as much about the 1st amendment as you do for the 2nd amendment I might have some respect for you...
How is refusing to see movies with actors you do not like a violation of the First Amendment?How is not hiring someone for a part a viiolation of the first Amendment?When did the writer of this article raise to the level of Congress passing a law?Do you even know what you are talking about?
I can't believe people actually think like this.
I am in complete agreement with the article.George, regarding your comments: Communism is not a belief. It is not even a lifestyle. It is subversive force to Americanism. Those who were (and are) party members are guilty of subversion. They are enemies of the state and people.The Congress was well within its right to call these people to testify and serve time if warranted. Especially during the fifties. The entire CPUSA was founded and funded by the kremlin. Whether they knew what they were getting into or not, party members were agents of the Soviets, our enemy, and should have been held accountable.If we had a taliban party now, would it not be wise to question and detain its members? Or would you say they have a right to their beliefs and to organize others? Of course not, because they our enemies of our country.
Those who subscribe to this article are complete morons.Period.Discussion is pointless because the crancial capacity of the idiot who wrote this rivals that of a smushed maggot.As does anyone who agress with it.Chris.
So...I guess I'll put LL on the list! :p
The political musings of Edward Scissorhands doesn't interest me in the least, but at least the dumb son of a bitch has the decency to leave this country, unlike his hypocritical reprobates residing in Hollywood.
Why not?!The aim of the Communists was to gain power, whether socially or politically. And both aspects hold quite abit of control of a government and society.Beyond that, they were financially supporting a party that's sole purpose was to overthrow our Country. The Communists were very bright and scheming. They knew, and still know, that you can't just turn a country communist by replacing its leaders (in the western world). You need to convince the people as well.That is the part that Hollywood played. They should be held accountable. Thank God that the convert Chambers shed light on it all.Communisim is, in itself, illegal. It is treason. Those communists within our country were aiding the Soviets.
I can't believe what I'm reading on this thread. Thanks George, for setting the record straight.Our country will only remain free while opinions from all sides of an issue are heard, not censored. That is what America is all about.
Oh, and by the way, Johnny Depp is one of my favorite actors. He certainly has more talent than Arnold. (but than again, that doesn't take much). I could really care less about his political opinions, but what the heck, he's entitled to share them as much as anybody else.[ 09-04-2003: Message edited by: mainelydave ]
quote:I think you need to resign from the military. You can't keep your oath to uphold the Constitution when you have such a poor understanding of it.
George,I don't take an oath to uphold a judge. I take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which clearly states that TREASON is giving the enemy aid and comfort. Members of the CPUSA do exactly that.
O.K. Gomer. Time to go home to see Aunt Bea.
Mayberry is what every town should strive to be.
(((((((((( George ))))))))))
Following a doctrine privately is one thing. But publically joining a group that's main aim is to overthrow our system is another.I believe joining the communists is an overt act, for reasons stated above.Whether certain judges agreed with that or not makes no difference to me. All I can guess is they were probably tainted.
Are you all so brainwashed by the doctrine of 'open-mindedness' that you will allow enemies to walk among us?People whose sole purpose is to enslave us is not free speech. It is war.
Mainefirst, give John Ashcroft a call. He'll probably hire you on the spot.
quote:Originally posted by Lewiston Liberal:
[b]Those who subscribe to this article are complete morons.Period.Discussion is pointless because the crancial capacity of the idiot who wrote this rivals that of a smushed maggot.As does anyone who agress with it.Chris.
Chris,The kernal for your next dia... excuse me, column in the TCT!!! Go Chris!
Communism? COMMUNISM? In case you political sages haven't noticed, communism is as dead as Know-Nothingism, the Luddites, and Tammany Hall. What a waste of oxygen. . . As for dissent being equated with "Anti-Americanism," I'm not at all surprised to see that line coming from the usual suspects on the website. Hey, folks, as that great political philosopher, Donald Rumsfeld, said, "Democracy is messy."
So are the Bush interrogation rooms in Guantanimo.Chris.
quote:Most of the complaints I read where people claim Ashcroft is trashing the constitution are from people who understand the constitution about as well as MaineFirst.
I can't wait until I have the understanding capacity of George. Then I can think I'm always right.
quote: I am not openminded on communism. I simply have enough faith in the strength of our system to withstand a few misguided folks getting together to talk about their beliefs. I think the best argument against communism is the Communist Manifesto. It should be required reading in our schools.
I could have written that paragraph. You are missing the point. People talking privately about their beliefs is fine.But when they joined the Comunist Party they went too far. The CPUSA was a branch of the Kremlin. When you joined them, you bought into their ideology and mission. Their mission was the overthrow of our government. Therefore, they were guilty of treason. They were guilty of conspiring to commit a crime - if overthrowing our government isn't a crime, I don't know what is.People are arrested everyday for conspiring to murder. They are just talking about it up until the actual act. It is the same thing with conspiring to destroy our country. Or do we have to let them takeover before we can arrest them??Most were probably just pawns, or joined for social status. But hey, it is guilt by association. They were part of the puzzle.
You know, I'm really not into politics. But I've got to tell you, O Wise and Omniscient Oracle, you miss "Pirates of the Carribean," you're missing a fun movie.
Just by the fact that some States don't have that requirement proves by point.But I'll give you this one. Just talking about it is not enough. But if I wanted to murder someone, and recruited some people for that act, that would be the furtherence of the conspiracy. That would be an overt act ( in the sense that while it may be secret, it is still a REAL action).So now I'll spell it out once again:If I wanted to overthrow the government, and recruited some people for that act, I would be in a conspiracy to commit a crime.That is exactly what the CPUSA did. And that is why the House UnAmerican Activities Committee had every right to question them.
quote: But you can still believe it because we don't lock people up for what they believe. Though if we did, I would suggest you be on the list.
:D I can't wait until I'm running the show. There's gonna be a helluva lot of changes. But don't worry, George, I won't put you on a list... And people say I'm close-minded!Obviously my side lost. The Communists have been winning - proof: The fact that some posters here don't believe the communists still exist, that they disappeared over night.On another note:It is almost as though you have no opinion on anything. I regularly post opinions on what I feel are injustices and wrongs by the government and courts, or whoever. You just repond that this is the law, your side lost. Not if it is right, not if it is wrong. You are the definition of status quo.If it is was 1800, you would argue that slavery was okay. Of course, when slavery was outlawed you would argue that it was not okay. Unjust laws ARE passed. Bad decisions ARE made by the courts. You can think for yourself. Don't be chained down by other "more important" people's mistakes.Knowledge of the law is a good thing. But it doesn't mean you have to be a slave to it.
Come on, George, don't give us that middle of the road **** . It's time to stand up and be counted. As MaineFirst put it, "Knowledge of the law is a good thing. But it doesn't mean you have to be a slave to it." To paraphrase one of the great characters of English literature, "When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean. The question is, who's to be master, you or the word?" As Humpy Dumpty spoke of The Word, so too may we speak of the The Law. So, my question to you, George old boy, is: Are you going to be a slave to the law, or merely a servant, or just a friend? And if you're a friend, are you a fair-weather friend? Or are you going to stand up,as MF suggests, and say, 'Hey, Mr. Law, I'm not your slave. I'll obey you whenever I feel like it, and when I don't feel like it, I won't. Ha-Ha." So what's it going to be, George? Are you a little girly-man slave to the law, or are you a real man, who makes his own laws?
"The gentleman from Maine is recognized". Thank you madame chairlady.I have carefully read the threads to the post in question, and I find myself bemused by the comments of some of our fellow threaders.I say this madame chairlady with great disproportionate feelings as regards some of the statements made herewith.Surely, it would appear we are not lacking in intellect in the membership of AMG, however we at times make our opposing arguments by denigrating, disdaining, and disparaging those who may disagree with our point of view. I too find that I at times am guilty of this fauz pas.In this posting, the threads have for the most part been very logical and well defined with only a few exceptions. I posted this subject matter mainly because I had a very small active part in what happened during and after those days.Many years have passed since then, and many more will have to pass before a complete understanding of just what the Communist Party was attempting to do to this country at that time.When that day comes, our children and grandchildren will see how fortunate this nation was, for having people in high office who were not fazed by the nay sayers, thus doing the job they were elected to do, and doing it well. During that time, their primary job was to save this nation from Communism and that is exactly what they did.Thank you madame chairlady.Oracle
Oracle,You might take the time to read the Bill of Rights and specifically the 1st amendment, and then read what is, and isn't allowed, as determined by Supreme Court decisions. Your eyes might be opened regarding the laws of this nation in which we live.charlie
I have no doubt CharlieN that you can cite those documents you refer to in the above thread by heart.But, it is apparent to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you have a slight tendency to read into said documents what you wish or believe they said. Thus frequently basing your arguments on incorrect or prejudiced premises.N'est pas?Oracle[ 09-05-2003: Message edited by: Oracle ]
One of the great books on this subject:Hollywood Party - How communism Seduced the American Film Industry in the 1030s and 1940s
-Kenneth Lloyd Billinsgley, 1998 Forum/Prima Pub.Here's a couple of paragraphs from the front flap..."the complete story finally emerges, backdropped by the great upheavals of our time and with all the elements of a thriller--wrenching plot twists, intrigue, betrayal, violence, corruption, misguided passion, and lost idealism.
Using long neglected information from public records, the personal files of key players, and recent revelations from [b]Soviet archives[/b],Billingsley uncovers the Communist Party's strategic plan for taking control of the movie industry during its golden age, a plan that came perilously close to success. He shows how the Party dominated the politics of the movie industry during the 1930s and 1940s, raising vast sums of money from unwitting liberals and conscripting industry luminaries into supporting Stalinist causes."It's worth the time regardless of what side of the fence you're on...just my two cents. For some it may be a real eye-opener![ 09-05-2003: Message edited by: LMD ]