brave new films
brave new films: Page 1
A disturbing new element has crept into our political life: organized efforts to intimidate private citizens who choose to support certain political causes or otherwise participate in civic affairs... [examples of leftists swarming houses of their opponents and much more deleted] ...Conservatives are decent people and don't engage in such repugnant tactics.
The last sentence of the excerpt  would only make sense if Hinderaker had never heard of the tea parties. Since he's clearly heard of them, is he either delusional, or is he trying to mislead?
One of the reasons why I oppose the teapartiers is because they act just as badly as vile leftists. Certainly, no teapartiers have as far as I know swarmed the houses of their opponents. However, they have thrown dollar bills at a Parkinson's sufferer (see the last link). And, about the only arguments they can ever present are vile ad hominens, as I well know. For just one example, see this. For more, see some of the posts at the tea parties link above, or Glenn Reynolds trying and failing to whitewash how the teapartiers have acted, or some other posts on the Glenn Reynolds page. For even more, see some of the replies I've received from teapartiers are various sites, such as Ann Althouse (as "LonewackoDotCom").
I even coined a term for how the teapartiers make an argument: the Jump, Smear, and Lie Technique. And, because of that technique, I have to point out that this post is not in any way supportive of leftists swarming the houses of their opponents. (And, because I know full well how teapartiers operate, I know they won't bother clicking those links.)
The point of this post isn't to support Leftists Behaving Badly, it's to point out that self-styled conservatives are now acting almost as bad. And, all of that was done with the silent (or not so silent) assent of their leaders.
 In the full post, Hinderaker mentions a supposed plan by Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films to film the houses of the Koch family. I oppose both parties: Greenwald for supporting illegal immigration, and the Kochs for funding loose borders groups. Hinderaker can only rise to opposing one of those parties. Hinderaker also mentions Katrina vanden Heuvel, just not in the way that I do (see the link).
George Soros has contributed $5 million to the group Health Care For America Now (healthcareforamericanow.org) so that they can push Obamacare. That's dwarfed by the $35 million he's giving to help/"help" children in New York (in partnership with the federal government, ). As discussed here, HCAN is considered a bit on the wimpy side by the far-left, such as Jane Hamsher. That's despite HCAN including some true "liberal" stalwarts. Their steering committee includes the following:
* AFL CIO
* American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
* Campaign for Americas Future
* Center for American Progress Action Fund
* Campaign for Community Change (part of Center for Community Change)
* National Council of La Raza
* National Education Association
* Service Employees International Union
* United Food and Commercial Workers(UFCW)
Other members include: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), National Abortion Federation (abortion doctors association), National Korean American Service and Education Consortium (NAKASEC), Brave New Films, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Gamaliel, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Rock the Vote, USPIRG, MDI Imported Car Service of Maine (?!?), and the YWCA.
 By giving the state of New York $35 million, Soros will trigger matching federal funds - from the stimulus - of $140 million (link):
Soros' gift and the matching government funds will provide 850,000 children currently receiving public assistance and food stamps in New York State with $200 each for back-to-school supplies and other necessities... Soros emphasized the need to give the children a grant with "no strings attached," even if it does not guarantee the money is used as intended.
Probably only a small portion will go towards back-to-school supplies.
The "Open Debate Coalition" - a group consisting of people such as Glenn Reynolds ("Instapundit") and Stanford law professor Larry Lessig  - is calling on John McCain and Barack Obama to open the presidential debates by allowing questions chosen by regular people and not just the MSM.
However, what they support has not only been proven to be a failure, but two of the signatories helped show how such formats can be gamed and another was involved with the system that was gamed.
John McCain ad was right and Barack Obama, MSM misled about BHO's kindergartener sex education bill - 09/16/08
"Obama's one accomplishment?This has led to a wide variety of BHO supporters - specifically those in the MSM - calling McCain a liar. To a certain extent, they have somewhat of a point: the bill might not be an "accomplishment" for BHO since he was just a supporter and not a co-sponsor and since it never passed. And, the McCain campaign might not have correctly contextualized some of the other quotes they provide in the ad relating to BHO's educational plans.
Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.
Learning about sex before learning to read?
However, their complaints don't usually involve those points but instead revolve around the middle sentences quoted above; they try to pretend that kindergarteners were just covered by the bill in order to prevent abuse when in fact the bill was much more far-reaching than BHO and his helpers would have you believe. For an example of what Obama would have you believe, see this or this quote from campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki (link):
"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."Now, for the truth about the bill, read this:
Within moments of the ad's appearance, the Obama campaign called it "shameful and downright perverse." The legislation in question, a bill [Senate Bill 99] in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, "written to protect young children from sexual predators" and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners...Read the rest, which includes a discussion of how what was originally meant for those in the sixth grade and up was changed to everyone in K-12 because urban areas might require different topics to be covered than more rural areas. The article also includes Byron York trying to get in touch with three of the four original sponsors and for some unknown reason or other not getting his calls returned. Only one of the four spoke with him about the bill:
Newspaper, magazine, and television commentators quickly piled on. "The kindergarten ad flat-out lies," wrote the New York Times, arguing that "at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." The Washington Post wrote that "McCain's 'Education' Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive." And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot "a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison."
After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told [original co-sponsor state senator Iris Martinez] that reading the bill, I just didn't see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. "I didn't see it that way, either," Martinez said. "It's just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current."That doesn't mean that the parts involving kindergarteners wouldn't be restricted to just inappropriate touching. However, the age range was lowered specifically to allow different school districts to offer teaching appropriate to their areas, and thus those in lower grades could be taught much more than BHO is letting on. For a discussion of that, see this or this.
So, I asked, you didn't see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?
A list of just some of those who've helped Barack Obama hide the truth about the bill is in the extended entry:
* Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times say the ad "misleadingly accused Obama of endorsing sex education for kindergarten students" (link)
* A New York Times editorial falsely states "At most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." (link) What they could have been taught was left up to the localities.
* Following the party line boilerplate, Paul Krugman says 'In reality, he supported legislation calling for "age and developmentally appropriate education"; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.'
* Larry Rohter of the New York Times pretends the ad was implying that "comprehensive" meant that kindergarteners would receive the information as high school students; he's probably the only person coming to that conclusion. He also takes Obama's word for his understanding of the bill rather than discussing what the bill actually says and what others intended by it (link).
* Emi Kolawole of FactCheck correctly points out some of the minor errors in the ad, but says 'It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate.' (link)
* Michael Scherer of Time says "[t]he sex-education bill in question had called only for age-appropriate instruction..."
* Brave New Films promotes a Planned Parenthood ad (alternet.org/blogs/video/98697/ planned_parenthood_rips_into_mccain_for_sex-ed_smear_campaign): 'In an ad, they say that Obama was helping children protect themselves from sex offenders, while McCain seemingly doesn't care.'
* Nedra Pickler and Charles Babbington of the Associated Press claim that the ad "misrepresent[ed] [BHO's] position on sex education for kindergartners." (link). That's not completely inaccurate, but it fails to note that BHO either hasn't read, hasn't understood, or is misrepresenting the bill.
* Joe Garofali of the San Francisco Chronicle falsely states 'Obama doesn't support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. The bill -- which never was passed out of the Illinois legislature --included teaching "age-appropriate sex education" -- you know, what is inappropriate touching, that sort of stuff'. (link)
* Richard Cohen offered "The Ugly New McCain" (link) and called the ad a "lie". That referenced a McCain appearance on The View (!) where Joy Behar called it a lie as well.
* "Hilzoy" of the Washington Monthly pretends it was just about inappropriate touching (link).
* Joe Sudbay tries to pretend it was just about preventing abuse (americablog.com/2008/09/mccain-got-nasty-defending-his-negative.html)
* Democratic consultant Mark Mellman says "There is not an iota of reality in McCain's attack on Obama's supporting comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. As we all know, he voted to help children avoid sexual predators."
* A Tampa Bay Tribune editorial says 'The facts: Obama, while a state lawmaker in Illinois, supported a measure to provide older students with age and developmentally appropriate sex education. Younger children, such as those kindergarten-age, would be taught "age-appropriate" things such as how to protect themselves from sexual predators.'
* A Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial says "There is no evidence that Obama supported explicit sex education in kindergarten, as a McCain ad implied."
* Not even understanding BHO talking points, Cox Newspapers columnist Tom Teepen says 'No, as an Illinois state legislator Obama did not push for "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarteners. He supported a proposal for age appropriate sex education -- which, for kindergarteners, would have meant only making them aware of the possibility of sex abuse and teaching them means to counter it.'
* Darrell West from the Brookings Institution falsely states "The McCain campaign ran another spot erroneously claiming Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners." (link)
* It's an Anderson Cooper from CNN and "FactCheck" two-fer. CNN aired a "Fact Checking" episode that hewed to the party line (link):
[RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT]: Did Obama want to teach sex education to kindergartners? Not really. The programming question was intended to teach kids how to avoid sexual predators, says the nonpartisan group FactCheck.org.What BHO says he wants and what was in the bill he voted for are, of course, two entirely different things.
VIVECA NOVAK, FACTCHECK.ORG: What he wanted to do was increase the range of some -- some sort of sex education, K-12. But the kind of thing he was interested in having kids at a young age learn about was inappropriate sexual advances that might be made against them.
A few weeks back you at The Nation offered an Open Letter to Barack Obama (link) , listing some of the things he must stay true to in order to fulfill the progressive agenda.
Earlier I noted that Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films was going to start producing immigration documentaries. Their first is a video (link) and site (adreamdeferred.org) supporting the DREAM Act, one of the most anti-American pieces of legislation ever devised. It would let illegal aliens take college discounts and slot from U.S.
Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films has a new crusade: trying to stop the Fox News "virus" that supposedly spreads from Fox to the rest of the MSM, specifically as it relates to criticism of Barack Obama. Their foxattacks.com/virus page makes it clear that, if Greenwald had his way, Fox would be off the air:
Fox is a Republican mouthpiece, not a legitimate news organization.
Brave New Films is a sleazy , left-wing organization, akin to the low-rent Hollywoodish version of ThinkProgress. A few days ago, John Ehrenfeld from that site tried to attend  a Rudy Giuliani appearance, only to be kicked out apparently after Guiliani staffers learned who he was with.
"Dreams Across America"  is the latest stunt from supporters of a massive illegal alien amnesty, consisting of about 100 people taking a train Washington DC to lobby for "reform".
Via LGF (link right) the full text of the celeb letter of support to Saddam is here.
The cumulative number of months that these people haven't worked is probably well into the 4 figures, as they say in Hollywood. And, how did these has-beens find out about the letter? Is there a celebrity mailing list? Did they put up a poster at the unemployment office?
You might ask, who cares what some celebrities think? Well, unfortunately, celebrities do have an influence on society.