The Unconstitutional subtext of the movie Dodge City.

I grew up watching Errol Flynn movies. I first fell in love with "The Sea Hawk" made a favorite out of "Captain Blood" and enjoyed his many oaters. One of these is the wonderful movie "Dodge City" starring Flynn, Olivia De Havilland, Alan Hale (Father of a famous "Skipper.") and a list of extras each with a long line of credits of their own. In other words, a sterling cast and a great director: Michael Curtiz. But the plot is so full of subtexts that it barely rises above political indoctrination. And maybe it doesn't even do that. The movie is an exercise in perceived good over perceived bad.

The following ideology is presented as good:

1. Suspension of civil rights.

2. Ignoring the Constitution and constitutional rights.

3. Ignoring due process. Unlawful detention. No legal representation.

4. Rampant killing to preserve totalitarian rule.

5. Taxation without vote, representation or objection.

6. Land redistribution.

7. Murder justified by situation.

8. Government control.

This list is presented as bad:

1. Independent thinking and action.

2. Ownership.

3. Gun rights.

4. No taxation.

5. Desiring a lawyer and hearing before incarceration.

There are more but these are lumped as traits exhibited by a group of characters who are portrayed as really unpleasant people who are barely better than thugs. Even poor Ward Bond is cast as a low-watt thug who finally sells out everyone around him. At least he played the part well. Along with the listed "bad" actions are greed, murder, manipulation, drinking and gambling along with gun ownership and possession. So we have totalitarian government rule better than murder which the government does to gain power. When government does it, it's good. When ordinary people do it, it's bad.

You know, I used to think that movies were independent from government influence. Now, one must remember that this movie was made during the reign of FDR. Much of Hollywood received government money in one way or another. The FDR propaganda machine worked its way through many movies from Shirley Temple to Busby Berkeley along with a host of films even staring such luminaries as Ronald Reagan. The ideals and ideas of progressive socialism or at least the American version of the same fill movie scripts without restriction. But when one actually looks at the films with the idea that these are screenplays based on propaganda, one gets a completely different idea about the films. Basically, many films are nothing more than well-acted vehicles for Democrat propaganda. It's sad to say but even such a classic as "It's a Wonderful Life" is full of anti-American sentiment and full of collective thinking.

I have to admit that growing up, I had little or no political awareness on this level. Errol Flynn was simply a he-man kind of hero. He stood up for the downtrodden, abused and oppressed as far as I was concerned. "Captain Blood" was about abusive rule of monarchs and the limits that drive men to rebellion. Maybe there's another message that I missed in the film. With all film, reality is quite a distance from fantasy and film is fantasy. As it turns out, film (movies) is also propaganda. And this is propaganda of the most insidious sort. Sometimes political messages are obvious such as in war films made during WWII and after. Sometimes they are so direct as to be almost foolish like many of the anti-communist films made during the 1950s. But often, these messages are hidden behind seemingly innocent stories. One wonders if the book and cinema versions of "The Grapes of Wrath" are as close as one would expect. A close scrutiny of the screenplay would have to be made to ascertain where the movie inserted propaganda, if any.

So I will have to review films made under FDR to see how many "political" messages I have missed though youthful ignorance. Until then, take a look at "Dodge City." Whether or not it is propaganda, which I think it is, it's still a good view.

FB

Expecting Exceptional Expectations

I have been divorced. After the second divorce, I figured out that I was the problem and made some adjustments. But during both break ups, my wife and I had to go to relationship counseling to see if the contract could be saved. One of the things that came up was something called "managing expectations." When I first heard it, it didn't make sense. How could I manage what someone else expected from me if I didn't even know what that was? But people develop expectations in more than one way. They have an internal view of what they want out of their efforts and energy and they develop expectations based on what they are told by other people.

Nobody can successfully manage anyone's internal desires, goals and expectations. It just can't be done unless that person tells you what they are and what they want and what they expect based on a situation. Even then, it can be a difficult thing because sometimes people have unreasonable expectations. However, if you tell someone something, it is very important to make sure that what you say comes to fruition or you better have excuses and reasons and a work history that shows that the reason what you said didn't come to pass is due to situations outside your control so you have to settle for a partial victory and readjust your goals.

If people were completely truthful, this would be great. But people lie. If situations start going South, people make all kinds of excuses to cover their own missteps and this brings me the the topic of this post: Managing Expectations.

We are used to politicians making extravagant claims and promises they have no possibility of achieving. This is especially true with presidential candidates. If one were to look at what presidents have claimed they would do and what actually happened, the shock might be horrific. When I went to school, I was told how FDR saved our country from the ravages of President Hoover. We were inundated almost daily with how FDR saved us from the horrible, inhuman/inhumane, anti-poor, rich-groveling, enemy of the people and friend of the greedy: Herbert Hoover. (Lest you think I'm a Hoover apologist, you would be wrong. When the veterans known as the Bonus Marchers descended on Washington D.C. peacefully demanding promised bonuses for service, Hoover sent three stalwart military officers to root them out and destroy the veteran built "tent" cities. These officers were Pershing, MacArthur and Eisenhower. MacArthur and Eisernhower were not yet generals but they followed orders and routed and burned out the encamped veterans some of whom had families with them.)

But how wrong my teachers turned out to be. Oh, FDR substituted pump-priming for trickle down but it turns out that trickle down works where pump-priming doesn't. He nationalized industries in a way, promoted unionization and worked to get us into war. Why war? Because the problem with unlimited government spending is that no structure is built that can be used to repay the debt. Even war has limitations in that regard. At some point, the economy must start creating things that people want. Technology must change and advance and products must be created out of that effort. Those products replace older, less efficient ones and add to the quality of life as well as the quantity. Without that financial rebirth the society is doomed.

With FDRs programs, the sustaining force turned out to be the military industrial complex. But that behemoth is a tricky monster. Yes we need defense but the whole industry is more like a work-fare program than true capitalism. So it is difficult to say that the extension of the military industrial complex really aided to a free market recovery after the depression, double-dip recession and war. But it really didn't matter because people believed that FDR was solving economic problems. In a very real way, we was establishing expectations and managing to give the impression of meeting those expectations. It persisted all the way through the 1960s and is even prevalent today. FDR basically sold free market Americans that government control was better than the free market. Sadly, such is not the case but perception is difficult to change and a lifetime of education is impossible to change.

So presidential candidates lie and presidents lie and set up expectations that are never met. If the economy is sound and unemployment low, nobody holds the politicians' feet to the fire so to speak. But if things start heading south, people start caring and a politician's promises once met with cheers hang like lead weights around his neck. All presidents have been in the same situation but some like Clinton are lucky and others like Carter are unlucky. But all suffer the same fate if they do not manage expectations based on promises. Obama is having an especially difficult time in part because his campaign was so full of hype and hyperbole along with outright lies and people were so dissatisfied with W., that his candidacy was an easy sell. When people feel their president has let them down, they react and Obama is a reaction to Bush falling off of his conservative slant in an attempt to become popular. Ever since the contested election with Gore, Bush had never felt he had the full support of the American people and the Democrats didn't even support him after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In addition, they grudgingly supported him in his efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice or death. But W. set up expectations that he failed to deliver on and when tragedies like Katrina occurred, he was given absolutely no wiggle room to make errors.

But Obama is a different case. Because the press gave him such overwhelming support, they failed to listen with any skepticism as he rattled off promises and made statements that, as it turns out, are working out completely opposite from his promised outcomes. In a very real sense, Obama cast himself as a healer, unifier, financial wizard, commander in chief, diplomat, peacemaker, defender and world leader when, in fact, it was all lies. People can point to his success with "health care reform" but it is costing every American who buys insurance more money in a time when the value of that money is less because of spending initiated by Obama. Unemployment is much higher than he promised and there is every indication that the figures his administration give out for the unemployed are too low by at least two to three points. This means that real unemployment is closer to twelve to thirteen percent. Why isn't anyone other than his arch rivals pointing this out?

He came to office with the outstanding credentials of being a constitutional scholar. However, he has ruled by fiat and the case could be made that the only reason he studied the constitution was to find ways to get around it. His administration is marked by failure after failure and makes the Carter administration look incredibly successful when it was one of the worse in modern times. There is a price for using hyperbole and extravagant claims to sell one's self when those claims fail to materialize or are put into place at a cost that is unsustainable at any time. And yet we have a large portion of the supposedly critical media supporting him as if he is Christ risen. The ultimate sadness of this whole process is that no one but American people will pay anything for being lied to. We are lied to, forced to pay and nary an iota of representation. Obama will possibly lose some power in congress but he has done his best to make congress meaningless. He may not get reelected in 2012 but he will never be made to pay for the destruction he and his crew have done to America's stature in the world, our ability to defend ourselves and our ability to wield power in a world where power and influence are the only currency.

Obama has not only misled us, he has damaged us. He has supported our enemies over our friends and basically worked to bring America down. The fundamental transformation he so touted has proven to be the transformation of American leadership and solidarity in an unstable world into something a little better than a rogue African nation. He has set up a fantasy of expectations and he has failed to manage them in any meaningful way. Yet, yet, media groups that support him and anything that isn't W. report on his actions with a fervor of Orwellian proportions. The crash from this fantasy high will be horrific.

FB

Is Obama A Muslim?

There are certain Jewish holidays where so many people want to attend that local churches are often used for Jewish services. It's the same for certain Christian holiday observances. Synagogs are used for Christian worshipers when Churches have overflow attendance. One would wonder if Muslim mosques also follow this tradition? I have never heard about it.

This brings me to an interesting point. The Jewish trait is carried and transmitted by the mother or woman. I have no doubt that this was to deter "looting" of women by raiders. An invader was less likely to capture and have children with women if that woman also transmitted religion along with her genes.

In the Muslim religion, the religion is transmitted by the father. Possibly because when the religion went evangelical and promoted the religion by baptism by the sword, all the raping that went along with the raiding meant more Muslims. Call it baptism by insemination rather than by birth.

So Obama, being the son of a practicing Muslim would have been born a Muslim. However, he converted to Christianity at some point in his youth. Was he baptized? I don't know. But let's assume he was baptized by the Baptist church which is the basis of the church he joined with Rev. Wright as the leader. So would one call him a Muslim? Not if he adapted Christian dogma, was baptized and accepted Christ as his personal savior. That should be it. So why are people running around saying that Obama is a Muslim?

It's his actions. He spends a lot of time catering to Muslims. For example, he supports a Mosque being built near the wreckage of the Twin Towers but doesn't support the granting of a permit to rebuild a Christian church that was destroyed as part of the destruction. He made trips to the mideast with the so-called "Apology Tour" and has recently sent Imam Rouf on a state department paid mission to Muslim countries to raise funds for the Mosque to be built near ground zero. In addition, he has held talks with Muslim leaders, celebrated Ramadan while ignoring the National Day of Prayer and ordered the new NASA head to "reach out" to Muslim nations so they can feel good about their contributions to the general body of science we use to launch into space. All in all, he's bending over backwards to cater to Muslim interests in the world. Maybe he thinks this will make us safer because if they like us, they won't attack us. Who knows? It's possible that Obama doesn't even know. But he's shown a remarkable penchant for supporting those he thinks have been "done wrong" by the West. In that sense, he's anti-Western in many of his statements and his acts. We have a serving president who doesn't really like the country he is president of and is using all of his power to change it into something he thinks he will like.

Unfortunately, most of the rest of the people in that country don't seem to agree with him and are looking for anything to explain his actions. If he were a Muslim - which is fine with me - so be it. Religion shouldn't matter even if the president is from a minority religion like Mormon or Catholic or Judaism or Buddhism, etc. But we are again drawn to Obama's actions. If he isn't a closet Muslim, he is, at very least, a supporter of Muslim causes and therein lies the rub. See, a president is prohibited by the constitution from promoting any one religion over another. The government can't give money to religions or allocate funds for religious development like the building of churches, synagogs, pagodas or mosques. His and the state departments funding of Rouf is unconstitutional because it requires tax payers to fund religious activities without their consent. The congress nor the president cannot reallocate funds to a favorite religious group because taxpayers my not want that group funded. Not only is this discussed in the constitution but in literally hundreds of supporting documents from the founders. Most of them were Christians who practiced occasionally because of proximity of religious resources. But several attended church regularly and all quoted the bible in their writings. They didn't want ANY one religion supported over any other on a national level. Several wrote that states could do so if they wanted and a state can adopt a religion but this is not recognized by the federal government.

No president has made such overt overtures to a religion in lieu of other religions. Not a single president until Obama. So why? Why is he doing this? In my mind, he doesn't belong to the Muslim faith but he does identify with it because of his father. To honor his father, he has chosen to promote Islam in as many ways as he can until he is stopped. But why isn't anyone speaking up? It's clear that Obama is a Muslim sympathizer but to call him such in America in our current atmosphere is to open oneself to the labels of intolerance and bigotry. Since most Muslims in the world are people of color, the tag of racism is not far behind. But the real bigot is Obama and it's clear by his actions.

FB

Blatant violation of Separation of Church and State: Why must we tolerate intolerance?

Here is part of the first amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The founders were so concerned that the Federal government would promote a state religion or work on behalf of any one religion over another or work in any way to establish any religion that they addressed it first. They must have thought it pretty important.

But we have a situation where he state department has decided to hire imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to represent America and help fund raise for the ground zero mosque he wants to be built in New York. We are hiring this foul-mouthed zealot to represent our government in a push to show that Islam is more important to this administration than any other religion. The administration has chosen to support Islam and the concerns of Islam in a direct display of subservience. If this administration were not subservient to the tenets of Islam, there would be no concern over what private citizens do with any image of any aspect of the religion nor would there be any concern with the religion at all. After all, there are zoning laws in every major city that preclude certain types of business or organizations from building in the area. For example, Mayor Gulliani used zoning to eliminate sex oriented businesses in parts of the city. Sex is one thing but religion is another. The government is prohibited from getting involved with ANY religion.

The American photoartist Andres Serrano created an image of a crucifix in a beaker of urine. He called it "Piss Christ" and while many Catholics complained, the image was not censored because the first amendment prohibits government involvement in religious matters. Interestingly, the Constitution does not prohibit religion from being involved in politics but it prohibits government from acting on behalf or for the interests of any specific religion. In other words, we can't take federal funds and use them to promote the activities of any religion. NO PUBLIC FUNDS CAN BE USED TO PROMOTE THE ACTIVITIES OF ANY RELIGION.

Now how in the world does the administration justify any process where an Imam is sent into Muslim countries to promote. . what. . . how tolerant we are of their intolerance? Just what the hell is going on with this administration? Supposedly Obama is a Christian who went to a Christian church where a great deal of the sermons were anti-American in nature. But his orientation should still be Christian. He may subjugate his beliefs to laws which should be expected. For example, he may believe that abortion is the same as murder but as president, he must uphold the laws of the land and these laws allow abortion to occur. But how he deals with his own beliefs is a far cry from supporting a religion because that same religion threatens to wage war and bomb us and terrorize us for any number of reasons both false and factual. We have no prohibition on showing religious images in any way. The government can't control how we lampoon or laud any religious figure. But we can't show images of Mohammed because we are afraid of what? Just what does free speech mean when the government will fight to allow something like "Piss Christ" and fights to prohibit a simple representation of Mohammed?

I constantly hear that fundamental Christians are the same as fundamental Muslims but nobody and I mean nobody is afraid of offending Christianity because he knows that as loony as some zany Christian sects are, they don't go around bombing people over satire. The two are not comparable but we have been sold this illusion in a way to dull reality. That reality is that Islam is at war with the West and Christianity represents the West.

So I call for an immediate suspension of any "mission" carried out by Imam Rauf or any other Muslim cleric chartered by the state department to carry out any official or semi-official duties. This is like sending Reverand Ike to Germany or Denmark to show how Christianity works in his Christian sect and fund raise for his special project. (As a matter of fact, I have a lot of respect for Reverend Ike and his ministry.) But we can't do that because to send a Christian because he is a Christian would bring the first amendment howlers out of their closets and onto the streets. Where are the constitutional scholars protesting this plan to send a Muslim Cleric out to do state department business with Muslims? Nowhere. It's hip in intellectual circles to be tolerant of Islam and even to overtly support Muslim causes. In intellectual circles, Muslim inferiority feelings are believed as if Muslims are somehow not as successful as Western countries because of some overriding plot against Islam. Such is not the case. But remember, we are dealing with intellectuals. While they may ponder the why of things, as ee cummings noted: "they will never wholly kiss you." The absolute irony of this is that if one looks at the names of many of the Muslim apologists, they are predominantly Jewish. How could we have Jewish academics supporting the causes of a religion that has as a primary tenet the conversion or death of Jews? How can they support any religion with branches, like the Catholic Jesuits, who act as shock troops for the religion? How can they support the potential of groups who have the death of Israel and Jews as a basis for membership? How can the world have been turned so upside down?

If this is an attempt to show other countries that America is moving towards Islam, the administration is violating the constitution. Even sending this Imam because he is a Muslim is prohibited by the Constitution. It appears that the only reason Obama studied the Constitution was to find ways to get around it and potentially destroy the charter. It's time he is censured and thrown out of office. Nixon's cover up and "hit list" along with his misuse of the FBI is child's play compared to the liberties the Obama administration is taking with the constitution.

FB

Does Anyone Know a Way Out of This? Reinvention?

Where oh where did my country go

Where oh where can it be?

Oh where oh where did my country go

Radicals have taken it from me.

We voted for change. Obama said he would transform America and indeed a transformation has taken place. Race politics which had been sidelined and marginalized into the property of overt racists has risen again to the forefront. Accusations of "racist" fly freely and an atmosphere of race fear has been stoked and nurtured creating an absolute stench. Congressman Maxine Waters, long known as a race baiter and race apologist has risen to new heights by accusing her accusers of racial motivations. We have entered some kind of space-time warp where the country based on the rule of law has become the country of rule of race. It's disgusting.

How do we expect to use anything that is going on in politics as a model for our children? What can our children learn from this state of affairs? Here's some lessons they might learn:

1. Politicians lie. They have to lie to get elected and to stay in office.

2. Politicians are crooks. They all cheat, steal, misappropriate funds, dodge taxes and lie, lie, lie.

3. Politicians think they are better than everyone else. Remember back in grammar school when there would be class elections? The popular kids always won. They would lord their popularity over other kids in the class as if they were somehow better. The rest of the class were happy just to be in the presence of these "popular" kids. What a joy to be selected on one of these kid's team for 4-square. Of course, as soon as one of their real friends got on the court, they would turn on the odd ball and once again would rule supreme by working together to get rid of any interlopers.

4. Politicians think that we are stupid. While they might give speeches about how smart their constituents are, they really have contempt for them. Out in California there is a congressman named Lois Capps. She's singularly unqualified for the job and gets elected partly from sentimentality because her husband died while in office and partly because her district includes Santa Barbara which is just slightly less liberal than San Francisco. Election time is coming up so all of a sudden, people start getting newsletters from her office "informing" everyone of all the great legislation she has initiated and how she is doing so much for the area. She's an opportunist, liar and manipulator who thinks people are so stupid that this will pass for real work of which she does very little. But basically, politicians think they have answers and assume that because they are elected and have opinions that they are intelligent. Somehow they have forgotten that their opinions are no better than another's.

5. Politicians think that they are above the law. These are elected officials and through bribery, lies and manipulation stay elected if they can. Laws that apply to everyone else except the government elite don't apply to them because they are part of that elite. How else could anyone explain the disgraceful behavior of Edward Kennedy and the death of Mary Jo Kopechne? He swims across the narrow inlet to his house and calls emergency crews eight - yes it was eight hours later - hours later to report the "accident. Of course, he remembered to call all his political advisors first. Meanwhile, Mary Jo was fish bait. Yet our intrepid Senator was reelected again and again. If that situation had happened to any ordinary citizen, that person would be in the slammer. Of course, his wife was understanding. Sure. She understood that if she made too big a stink, she would risk her elite status. Maybe John Adams can write another "grand" opera based on "The Death of Mary Jo."

6. Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same but cast themselves as poles apart which is another lie. How do we really show our children the differences between the parties? While there may be parts of the parties that are more extreme, the average party member is the same kind of person both politically and intellectually for both parties: The average guy/gal wants prosperity, safety, opportunity and freedom. Politicians know that and cater to that while lining their pockets with raise after raise while making speeches about how congress spends too much money. If a private companies behaved as politicians, their CEOs would be in jail. Actually in the few cases where they have been caught, they are in jail. But the crimes committed by CEOs are dwarfed by those committed by politicians and all the politician gets is a reprimand.

7. Politicians make sure their cronies and big supporters are "taken care of" with lots of benefits and opportunities but anyone else with an idea, regardless of how much merit the idea may have, can beg until he is hoarse and his knees bleed and the request will go unheeded. Someone I know, worked for the McCain campaign. They put a lot of hours in and actually got to meet him. This person's child wanted to go to West Point and wrote a letter asking John to give a recommendation. What did this individual get back? A proforma letter from an aide which stated that McCain only gave recommendations to "large contributors" and "personal" friends. What kind of BS is this? In other words, my acquaintance didn't give John enough money to warrant a recommendation. Silly me, I thought the were supposed to be for kids who showed enough moxy and worked hard enough to be successful at one of the service academies. What a joke. It doesn't have anything to do with the applicant but has everything to do with how much silver crosses John's palm. What a great lesson this was. I'm sure the kid learned a lot from this futile exercise.

What we have is a government that we were given a Bill of Rights by our founders to prevent from happening. They warned us about such a government and envisioned the possibility that such could take place so they gave us tools to protect us from exactly what our government has become. But our tools have been blunted by the very government they were designed to protect us from. The tools have been reinterpreted in such a way that a hammer is now a saw and a screwdriver is a level. In other words, the tools have been so recast as to be barely shadows of what they were. As interpreted by our elected politicians over the years, the Bill of Rights has become a document of words rather than concepts. Who would have figured. Not the founders because if they had, they would have warned us about "interpretations" of the Bill. Oh wait, they did. Jefferson even thought we should have an armed revolution every twenty years to clear out the deadwood and revitalize the core concepts. But who reads that stuff anyway other than scholars looking to reinterpret the simple words for whatever purpose they deem important. I have been told that the Bill of Rights can't apply today because the founders never envisioned the complex world we live in. What a crock. They wrote it the way they did because they knew everything would change technologically but that people would still be motivated by the same truths they found important.

There's an interesting movie called "Instinct." It is about a gorilla expert who lived with gorillas in that wild. He is accused of murder and found to be mentally incompetent. He's put in an asylum where he runs afoul of everyone. He's asked about gorillas in a zoo and he replies that those a not real gorillas but shadows of gorillas. Real gorillas live wild and have social structure and live differently. Well, our Bill of Rights has been so interpreted that it is not much more than a shadow of what it is supposed to be. Government has seen to the demise of the very document meant to control that same government by politicians who operate from ideologies that are so far removed from those of the founders that there are no similarities.

Someone took the Bill of Rights to the streets of New York and asked people to sign it as if it were a petition. Few recognized the document and most people thought that they were advocating the overthrow of the government. Not many signed it and a few argued against it. What does this tell us? Maybe we are as stupid as politicians believe.

So how do we get out of this situation? How do we return to our core values and principles without going backwards? After all, the world has changed and other than a violent revolution which destroys everything, how do we go about reinventing ourselves in a way that gets rid of the excesses, controls government and expands freedom without losing some of the benefits good government can provide?

From time to time, I will posit what I think are possible solutions. Feel free to agree or disagree as the muse moves you. All the post will bear the title "Reinvention."

FB