Not Exactly A Book Review: Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left by David Horowitz

I feel like I am preaching to the choir by recommending this book. Readers of this blog are not as docile as Mitt Romney or John McCain or even George Bush who would not fight in the public square to defend his war or terrorism. If we could get Reince Priebus and all the presidential candidates not named Donald Trump to read this book, we would all be better off.

Let's not leave Trump behind just yet. Horowitz's premise is that the Left is vulnerable and the only way to exploit their vulnerabilities is to expose the human victims of Leftist ideology. Think Detroit. Yes it's a hellhole and a national joke but what might get forgotten is that a half century of Democratic rule has left a toll of human disaster that makes things like hurricanes trivial by comparison.

There are dozens of other US cities under long-term Dem rule following Detroit's trajectory. Think of the disaster that is public education. It's gotten worse just about everywhere but it is especially bad in cities ruled by Democrats. Urban blight and the farce of public education are two examples that Horowitz suggests we throw back in their faces.

Trump threw sanctuary cities back in the faces of the Dems and he was launched directly to the top of the polls. Horowitz would probably approve.

I have not been posting a lot at this blog in part because I can't get excited about the GOP candidates. I like Trump's spirit but I don't think he is the answer. Many of us were hoping someone else might pick up the fight.

Returning to Hororwitz's book, I have a a couple of criticisms. Horowitz is of the opinion that we should parrot the same slogans the way the Dems do. To that I say, we are cats and they are cattle. We fancy ourselves free thinkers and they are obsessed with pruning their thoughts to conform to a rigid orthodoxy called correctness. We concern ourselves with truth and they concern themselves with sentiment. Being largely uninformed, the Democratic base is dependent on slogans. They want to be told exactly what to think and what to say.

But should we want to echo the same verbiage, we would be hard-pressed to beat the Dems. What Horowitz seems to miss is that 90+% of the news media repeat Dem slogans for them. They legitimatize their every viewpoint. War on women, health care reform, Wall Street reform, gun violence, living wage, the gap between rich and poor, global warming/climate change/climate disruption...We cannot compete against the Dems and the media when it comes to cliches.

With the nitpicking out of the way, I will sing my praises to Horowitz. He is one of the richest minds of our era. Given his Leftist background, Horowitz brings more to the table than say, Ann Coulter or anyone at Fox News.

Horowitz scores points with me for admonishing those on our side who call the opposition liberals. Horowitz prefers leftist or radical. Sometimes those labels are apropos but the opposition is dominated by people who are about as ideological as Al Capone or Charles Ponzi or Attila the Hun. Jonathan Gruber is not a liberal, he is a con artist. Lois Lerner is not a liberal, she is a criminal. Eric Holder is not a liberal, he is a thug. Barack Obama is all of the above (except liberal.)

Horowitz lays out a viable strategy. What is so overwhelmingly frustrating is that the truth is on our side. We can show victims of ISIS, victims of body part brokers, victims of Obamanomics, victims of Obamacare, victims of jihad, victims of Fast and Furious, victims of the war on coal, victims of IRS abuse, victims of voter fraud, victims of sanctuary cities, victims of John Corzine...we have a lot to choose from.

This book is well worth reading but I am probably preaching to the choir.

CNN: 15.3 Million Watch Hillary's Debate

Vs. 24 Million who watched Fox Republican Debate

Vs. 22.9 Million who watched CNN's Republican debate.

Reading Between The Lines: How Many People Watched Democratic Debates?

I spent over an hour trying to find out the number of people who watched last night's CNN debates. I am not interested in pollster lingo, so a 11.6 Nielsen means nothing to me. I realize that's 11.6 % of total number of homes with televisions but  11.6 % of how many? Does the number of faces who watched CNN last night exceed the 25 million who watched the first GOP debate or the 23 million who watched the second?


Sometimes it's what they don't say: If CNN et al reveal the lingo but not the actual numbers if viewers it's because the absolute numbers are unfavorable to the Dems. If they highlight that the debate was the highest-ever Democratic debate while omitting the numbers, it's because the numbers are unfavorable to the Dems. If we are repeatedly told that GOP debates' audiences were inflated by the presence of Donald Trump, it is to excuse a less than impressive Dem audience.


The numbers will come out soon enough, after the pundits can praise Hillary and the 3 VP candidates and the bitter man who missed The Russian Revolution by a century. Oh and they will excuse the low numbers by the Mets vs. Dodgers competition. Oh and the afterglow of the Cubs victory.

Prediction: After the Hillary praise subsides, we will hear about the enthusiasm gap.

Not Exactly A Movie Review: "Black Mass" Fails As Sacrilege

There are elements of "Black Mass" that are compelling. I must say again that truth is more sensational than fiction and the Bulger Family saga is at times too sensational to believe. Imagine submitting a script where Al Capone and Mayor Daley are brothers. "No. Sorry. Tone down the coincidence and you might have a story. The most powerful OC figure in the state just happens to have a brother who is the most powerful politician in the state? C'mon!"

There are so many facets to this story and almost everyone in New England has at least one "six degrees of separation" with the Bulger Family. I am a virtual recluse and I have several myself. It is hard to capture or convey the enmeshment that was Massachusetts.

Where "Black Mass" fails grandly, grossly and irredeemably is in the treatment of the FBI and FBI corruption. "Black Mass" should have been called "White Wash."

Frustratingly, Hollywood practices a long-term bias against displaying institutional corruption. It used to make movies like "And Justice For All" and "Serpico" (which was first a book by Peter Maas.) One, an original fictional screenplay and one a biopic (both with Al Pacino in the lead role) give us a glimpse of systems "out of order." One could say that "Serpico" actually reveals an orderly system of widespread illegality that allows the players to navigate a broken system but the system is broken nonetheless.

Fast forward to "The Big Easy." Spoiler alert, if that term applies to movies so terrible they are spoiled before they are showcased. Corruption in New Orleans and hero himself is tainted. Corruption is blamed on two bad apples. Bad apples smashed and hero marries crusading innocent.

"True Believer." Convoluted script but the essence is that there is nothing wrong with the system. Just one bad apple and that bad apple is removed from the barrel. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

"Hurricane." I did not see this movie because I read to reviews and didn't think I could sit through it. The story of Hurricane Carter has a lot of angles: racism, poverty, celebrity, the zeitgeist of a volcanic era. Even the brain dead critics could not let this one pass. Again, I did not see it but on its release, "Hurricane" was panned for reducing a complicated story to, you guessed it: one bad apple.

I don't see Hollywood exploring institutional corruption anytime soon. Movies are now made by people who grew up with televison. Television as a sponsor-driven medium does not challenge the status quo. Television is an ongoing public relations segment for the criminal justice system. Do you ever get the feeling when you watch a police drama, that no matter what the title is, you are watching the same show? "Law & Order," "Criminal Minds," "CSI," "X-Files" ad infinatum...it's all from the same vat?

If that sounds like an overstatement, I can almost guarantee you that they treat one subject exactly the same. Nothing wrong with the system that removing one bad apple won't correct. Hollywood is now in the hands of people whose worldview is dominated not by literature or stage or Scripture or even other movies, but rather by the simplistic perspective of the boob tube.

Returning to the specifics of FBI wrongdoing, especially the Boston field office, I refer you to Wikipedia's summary of the life of FBI Agent, H. Paul Rico. Rico has been scrubbed from "Black Mass." Too bad. Next to James Bulger himself, Rico might be the most significant real life character.

The idea that John Connolly introduced criminality to the FBI in 1975 is insulting to the viewer. Go back ten years and Rico et al (read FBI) is complicit in a murder and sends four innocent men to prison to protect a notorious organized crime figure (Joseph Barboza.) Significantly, this is not the only blemish on Agent Rico's career. He would die in jail awaiting trial for the murder of Roger Wheeler, an event covered in the movie without the mention of Rico's assistance in the crime.

Also significant is Rico's close association with J. Edgar Hoover. As a fan and loyalist, H. Paul styled his moniker on J. Edgar. He was rumored to be a member of the most exclusive inner circle within the FBI, the gay contingent that included Hoover and Clyde Tolson. Years later, a House Committee would reveal that Hoover knew of and allowed (and possibly facilitated) Rico's criminality.

I understand deleting events, scenes and characters for brevity sake. H. Paul Rico however, is too crucial to the story to be left on the cutting room floor. It's like omitting the demon from "The Exorcist" or Elliot Ness from "The Untouchables" or Butch Cassidy from that buddy movie..

"Black Mass" is not just disappointing, it is insulting for its cowardice. Seven word summary: Agents Morris And Connally: Two Bad Apples.

Further Reading:


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt414/html/CRPT-108hrpt414-vol1.htm

Guess Which Administration Banned Pork From Federal Prisons?

From the 'How Dare You Call Him A Muslim' File:

The nation’s pork producers are in an uproar after the federal government abruptly removed bacon, pork chops, pork links, ham and all other pig products from the national menu for 206,000 federal inmates.

The ban started with the new fiscal year last week.

How Many Syrian Refugees Has Russia Granted Asylum?

According to UK Telegraph: 

A trickle of migrants have entered Russia – but the country has granted asylum to only two Syrians so far this year.

Saluting Vladimir Putin

Putin is a leader, first and foremost. To understate things greatly, the West lacks leadership. Putin, despite his Communist Party background, is sympathetic to Orthodox Christianity and shows concern for all Christians. In my not even slightly humble opinion, Vladimir Putin is more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Obama or Al Gore or even Saint Yasser.

The Russian Army is crushing ISIS! We should be dancing in the streets. Instead, the faux Christian in the White House blathers on and Marco Rubio refuses to retract his slanderous statements about Putin and the Russian people. The John McCains show not even a shred of shame for supporting Syrian rebels who include members of Al Qedah and ISIS (Oh excuse me, White House, ISIL.) For all of Assad's flaws, he has a long history of protecting Christians. I will take him over ISIS/ISIL any day.

We need to rethink NATO. I for one, am sick of a morally, fiscally and yes, even a culturally bankrupt Europe badmouthing the US. Frankly, I think most of Europe would be better off with Russia's flat tax and respect for Christian values and culture. If Putin really wants the Has Been Continent, maybe we should let him have it.

In the meantime, Mother Russia fights for the oppressed people of Syria. May God bless Vladimir Putin