Video Podcast – Louis C.K. Admits Wrongdoing – Democracy on the Orville

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Comedian Louis C.K. did something not have. When presented with accusations of sexual misconduct and overall lewd behavior, he admitted that all the accusation were true. That’s astounding considering that the other Hollywood dirtbags are either denying or just running away. I explore this phenomenon.

A television program called the Orville is created, written and stars comedian Seth MacFarlane. It’s like Star Trek with some comedy. One episode was particularly fascinating as it dealt with democracy. Not democracy as many Americans think, but true democracy – as in mob rule. Only this time the mob all have smart phones. read more

WND Exclusive – Harvey Weinstein: Product of the Leftist System

The left is a breeding ground for the worst kinds of people. The latest example is, of course, the despicable

ICK!!

Harvey Weinstein. For decades he has abused females in the movie and television industry. He lorded his power and influence over these poor women – making or breaking their careers by means of the sexual favors they could provide to him. All the while other leftists looked the other way or covered for him.

We all know that Hollywood is a sewer; Weinstein is just the latest sewer rat to be nailed. But, as I said – it’s not just Hollywood. Hollywood is a mere subset. For the left, immoral and amoral behavior is common. Harvey is a just another product of the system – the progressive leftist system. read more

Progressive Hollywood Isn’t Progressive Enough

By: the Common Constitutionalist

When one wishes to take the pulse of the real radical left, you need to know where to look. Oh, I don’t mean just liberals like CNN or the Washington Post. I’m talking about radicals who think liberals aren’t liberal enough. For news on that front, you need to go to sites like MoveOn.org, ThinkProgress or the ACLU.

That being said – who doesn’t think Hollywood is progressive enough? Well, evidently the radicals at the ACLU (yes, I know that’s redundant) don’t believe progressive Hollywood is progressive enough.

Normally I would never side with the ACLU on anything. They are awful and a wholly un-American organization. But I do so enjoy when smug leftists in Hollywood get caught by other leftists not practicing what they preach.

For decades cloistered Hollywood has been on the cutting edge of every new “civil right” and liberal cause to come down the pike. But recently even it has come under fire.

We all remember the big flap over the lack of black representation at the last Academy Awards and the fight for equal pay for actresses, headlined by Jennifer Lawrence who only grossed $52 million in 2015. Poor girl.

If that’s not bad enough, “last summer, the ACLU asked federal and state agencies to explore whether gender discrimination is responsible for the dearth of female directors in the entertainment industry.” The federal investigation will be headed up by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. read more

Kim Goes Hollywood

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Or should I say, Kim goes off on Hollywood.Kim

I remember my children asking me a while back why North Korea has become the go-to enemy on TV, etc. I told them at the time that North Korea was a safe and easy target to use as an international bad guy. Nobody really liked them. Their leader was a bad guy and pretty much unprotected by any politically correct blanket. Up until now, although it hasn’t been confirmed, North Korea did not appear to care about being the villain.

How things have changed. Hollywood has evidently stepped over a red line that the North Korean leader, that pygmy Kim Jong-un drew. I guess he doesn’t see the humor of a fake assassination attempt in a dopey movie. The left should have known better. It’s not like this is “The Assassination of George W. Bush, A Love Story” (available at Amazon.com for about $50, and no I’m not going to link to it) or anything.

All kidding aside though – I guess Hollywood now understands that when the leader of a nation draws a red line, you’d best take it seriously, except if that line is drawn in the sands of Syria. Then it’s just a joke. Get it?

So now that North Korea is off limits, where can Hollywood turn? read more

Hollywood Hotspot

These black and white photographs show some of Hollywood’s hottest stars out and about at Hollywood club Ciro’s .

The hot spot, which was located at 8433 Sunset Boulevard on the Sunset Strip, opened in January 1940. Establishments on the strip were the home to best and brightest in the entertainment world but also attracted some Mafia sorts.

Famous guests at Ciro’s were Marilyn Monroe, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, Frank Sinatra,  Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, Joan Crawford, Ginger Rogers, Ronald Reagan, Dean Martin, Mickey Rooney and Cary Grant.

During his first visit to Hollywood in the late 1940s and before his foray into politics, John F. Kennedy stopped in at Ciro’s to enjoy the night life.

Despite its reputation as the place to be seen, it was forced to declare bankruptcy and was auctioned off in 1959.

Night life Journalist Walter Winchell, left, chats with Joseph Schneck, right, while Marilyn Monroe scopes out the place on May 22, 1953
Ol' Blue Eyes: Gossip columnist Hedda Hopper, left, chats with a young Frank Sinatra in October 1946 at a party at Ciro’s
The lady is not impressed:Mickey Rooney, right, is pictured with his former wife, Martha Vickers, left, at Ciro’s in Oct. 1951. The pair, who had recently divorced, appeared together at the hot spot fueling rumors of a reconciliation but Vickers quashed the reports telling the press, ‘This does not mean a reconciliation’
Good times Lucille Ball, front left, and her husband Desi Arnaz in costume at the club in May 1956 for a fundraiser. The party was held to raise funds for the building of a hospital for mental illness in Los Angeles
09 Feb 1955 Skating star Sonja Henie, left, welcomes pianist Liberace, center, and actress Susan Hayward, right, to her star spangled party at Ciro’s nightclub in February 1955
Sammy Davis Jr. Sammy Davis Jr, right, is shown with Cary Crosby before the singer took the stage to perform at Ciro’s in Hollywood in November 1955
That's a Busman's HolidayGail Russell and Guy Madison went to Ciro’s in Hollywood to get away from the cameras, before which they are seeking fame and fortune. But they found that cameras are not so easily evaded. Ciro’s camera girl Dixie Liston is showing them prints of photographs she snapped while they were dining in March 1946
Photo by Michael Ochs
20 Aug 1951, Los Angeles,
The hot spot, which was located at 8433 Sunset Boulevard on the Sunset Strip, opened in January 1940
What a show Stripper Lili St. Cyr gives the audience an eyeful during a performance at Ciro’s Nightclub in October 1951
GigCiro’s nightclub in Los Angeles with a sign promoting Desi Arnaz and His Orchestra as the current act in the late 1940s

Attribution: Mail Online

Enough is Enough

by: the Common Constitutionalist

America is in trouble. The country has been overrun. Congress should get involved in passing legislation to limit the sale, ownership and usage of this scourge. If Congress drags their feet, perhaps the President might sign an executive order.

Of course, I’m speaking of… Perfume. There ought to be a law against the abuse of perfume. Just Say NoFragrance vendors in every store are just waiting to accost the unsuspecting passerby with their chemical weapons. They rarely give one a chance to “Just Say No”. It happened to me once. I felt violated as if I were involved in a drive-by spritzing.

Greedy big corporations invade our homes in newspapers, magazines and on our televisions, all the while being recklessly promoted by advertisers attempting to influence otherwise innocent viewers.

The FCC should heavily restrict perfume advertising and fines levied for those targeting the innocent… our children.Very-Hollywood-Perfume

And then there’s the glorification of perfume by Hollywood. Stars and Starlets line up just to get their names on a bottle. It’s shameful that such an influential industry would embrace a product that should be deemed a controlled substance. How could they be so blind?

Nationwide, people suffer every day by just their proximity to perfume. Fragrances have been known to cause discomfort – triggering outbreaks of such ailments as sneezing and nasal congestion as well as runny noses and reportedly, asthma attacks. Oh the horror!

Well, I’m proud to say my state has taken the lead. The once conservative state of New Hampshire has finally, thanks to last election, gone almost completely Democrat and thus is now free to tackle the really tough issues.

A state representative has introduced legislation barring state employees froPatrick get hit with perfumem wearing fragrances who have contact with the public. This is actually the second time the bill has been introduced. Unfortunately the bill was shot down under the previous evil Republican legislature. Thankfully something may now get done and this bill should be but the opening volley of desperately needed restrictions.

Should we just demand this deadly substance be deemed illegal? Probably not, but the safety of our citizens, particularly our children, must be considered first and foremost.

Given how serious the situation is, I have some suggestions for our legislators and do-gooders.code stink

I recommend a nonprofit organization underwrite a new activist campaign. They could be called “Code Stink”. They would travel to perfume unveilings and upscale boutiques with their picket signs and newly devised slogans. Slogans such as, “Hey Hey, Ho Ho; we don’t need to smell good…uh… anyway”. Not a very catchy slogan, I’ll grant you, but activists tend not to be the brightest bulbs on the tree.

Schools and public places should be made “Perfume Free Zones”, complete with a zero-tolerance policy. Even a picture drawn of a perfume bottle by a young student should be grounds for disciplinaperfume spritzerry action.

The feds as well as local police must employee perfume sniffing dogs to deal with potential high school contraband and specially trained TSA agents dispatched to airport and railroad terminals to prevent unlicensed transport of what should be a controlled substance.

A national registry of perfume owners should be initiated. A 24-hour waiting period prior to purchase and background check should be required. Perfume should not be sold to repeat scent offenders or the olfactively impaired.large capicity automatic

High-capacity ionizers should be outlawed. Congress must take the lead and draft language defining the semi-automatic perfume dispenser (one pump, one spritz) versus the pressurized fully automatic version one might classify as an assault spritzer.

Last but not least, a new sin tax should be levied on the manufacturers and the Pushers (boutiques, stores and those representing them) for the medical and psychological damage caused to the sufferers.

Let us not concern ourselves with this pesky “Fiscal Cliff”, the “Affordable Care Act” or “Jobs”.

We must face, head on, the real pressing issue of our time, limiting the trafficking and use of perfume.

Scarlett’s Lady Parts

Hollywood’s Hysterical “Cancer Screening” Lie for Obama

by: Michelle Malkin

The Hollywood Women for Obama Club wants you to vote with your “lady parts.” I want the women of America to vote with their lady smarts. The latest ad from a trio of Tinsel Town actresses spreads one of the stupidest lies about Mitt Romney this election cycle. Fantasyland needs a fact check.

According to starlets Scarlett Johansson, Eva Longoria and Kerry Washington, the GOP presidential ticket wants to “end” funding for “cancer screenings.” If you and your reproductive organs don’t vote for Obama, the doe-eyed celebrities ominously imply, people will DIE, DIE, DIE!

Obimbos

This scare-mongering falsehood has been repeated endlessly by Planned Parenthood and the Obama campaign itself. An official Obama for America ad released in August accuses Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, of backing measures to “allow employers to deny women access to cancer screenings.” It also is being used by demagogic Democrats in key Senate races (in Montana, for example).

This much is true: Romney and Ryan do indeed support ending all federal taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood’s billion-dollar empire. One-third of the budget of the nation’s largest abortion provider, which masquerades as a comprehensive health care provider, comes from government.

But here’s what the famous femmes don’t tell you: Planned Parenthood does not provide women with mammograms. PP’s “women’s health” mantle is a sham. An undercover investigation of 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 different states, conducted by pro-life group Live Action, confirmed that the abortion provider does not perform breast cancer screenings. “We don’t provide those services whatsoever,” a staffer at Planned Parenthood of Arizona admitted. Planned Parenthood’s Comprehensive Health Center clinic in Overland Park, Kan., acknowledged: “We actually don’t have a, um, mammogram machine, at our clinics.”

But don’t just take Live Action’s word for it. In June 2012, the Obama Health and Human Services Department responded to a request for information about how many Planned Parenthood clinics were certified to operate mammogram facilities. “Our search did not find any documents pertinent to your request,” HHS told the Alliance Defense Fund.

Got that? Fraudulent Hollywood harridans and their hero in the White House have been deliberately deceiving women into thinking that eliminating Planned Parenthood subsidies would mean a catastrophic end to affordable cancer screening services. But the abortion provider’s purported “referral services” to outside mammogram facilities are negligible — especially given the widespread availability of free and low-cost breast and cervical cancer screening services across the country supported by both private and public grants.

Wait, that’s not all. In the real world, it’s the Obama administration, not Republicans, who have actively presided over and promoted a drop in cancer screenings for both men and women over the past four years. You can thank Democratic crusaders for health care rationing in the White House. They want all the glory of championing socialized medicine, but cut and run from the consequences at election time.

Under Obamacare, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) will be empowered to determine which health care services are “medically appropriate.” For nearly three decades, the federal panel of primary care physicians and epidemiologists has issued nonbinding guidelines and A-F ratings of recommended medical procedures. But as Forbes columnist Dr. Paul Hsieh explains:

“ObamaCare links insurance coverage of preventive medical services to their USPSTF rating. … (U)nder ObamaCare, Medicare payment decisions will become increasingly controlled by the new Independent Payment Advisory Board, explicitly created to reduce Medicare spending. … To reduce costs, many private insurers will likely drop coverage for “C” and “D” rated services. Hence under ObamaCare, the USPSTF guidelines will likely become the de facto standards for both government and private health insurance coverage.”

And that means dropping coverage for the very services Scar-Jo and her femme friends are accusing the GOP of threatening.

Note: The USPSTF is the same review panel that advised cutting back on routine ovarian cancer screenings last month, recommended fewer prostate cancer screening tests in May 2012, and proposed mammogram restrictions for women over age 50 in 2009.

In fact, the Mayo Clinic reported this summer that mammogram screenings for women in their 40s have declined nearly 6 percent since the Obama panel announced its decision in 2009. “Comparing mammography rates before and after publication of the new guidelines,” the Mayo Clinic wrote, “researchers found that the recommendations were associated with a 5.72 percent decrease in the mammography rate for women ages 40-49. Over a year, nearly 54,000 fewer mammograms were performed in this age group.”

It’s no surprise the Hollywood “cancer screening” horror ad script was written by left-wing actor/director Rob Reiner of “All in the Family” and Archie Bunker fame. These Obama-promoting meatheads and their hysterical handmaidens inhabit a manufactured world impervious to facts and fiscal realities.

Hold it Properly

It’s a familiar sight seen in dozens of  Hollywood gangster films: the gangster aiming down the side of his pistol before pumping a volley of bullets into his victim.

But with most people knowing that the aiming sights are found on the top of a gun barrel, it’s also a counter-intuitive way  to accurately fire a weapon.

So why is it that gangsters are always shown  using their guns in this way? According to Jon Davis, a former marksmanship  instructor with the U.S. Marine Corp, there is a good reason, at least in theory.

Which is best? researchers have analysed the reason gangsters often hold their gun sideways - and say it can actually help aimWhich is best? researchers have analysed the reason  gangsters often hold their gun sideways – and say it can actually help aim

As a specialist in pistol marksmanship and a veteran of the war in Iraq, Mr Davis has fired these kinds of weapons thousands of times.

He explains that when aiming a handgun in the conventional, barrel-up manner, the rear sites must line up with the front sight in the horizontal and vertical planes to make sure the bullet travels a straight line.

This important technique, known as ‘building the castle’ since the gunman has to line up the three ‘turrets’ into an even position, ensures that the barrel of the gun is aligned perfectly along the trajectory he wants the bullet to travel.

The problem with ‘building the castle’ each time you want to fire your gun is that it takes time. Time you might not have in a combat situation – or alternatively when you want to quickly execute your victim and make a fast getaway.

'Building the castle': This graphic shows the conventional way to line a target up using the sites on the top of a handgun‘Building the castle’: This graphic shows the  conventional way to line a target up using the sites on the top of a handgun

Instead, gangsters – albeit unkowingly – use another method to get what’s called a ‘flash sight picture’ by quickly aiming down the side of the gun barrel without perfectly lining it up with the target.

The ‘flash sight picture’ is a way to quickly get an aim that’s good enough for combat but without worrying too much about  being totally precise with your aim.

Marines do it too, Mr Davis says, but they hold their guns the right way up.

'Flash sighting' - gangster style: Mr Davis explains that this method is a much faster way of aiming a weapon, but it is much less effective for aiming accurately‘Flash sighting’ – gangster style: Mr Davis explains  that this method is a much faster way of aiming a weapon, but it is much less  effective for aiming accurately

In answer to a question on quora.com Mr Davis explains: ‘The problem with tilt style shooting is that it is almost impossible to acquire a reliable sight alignment. The alignment in tilt style is achieved by making the weapon flat and aiming down the side.

‘In theory this works, but in practice you  can’t accurately measure movement left or right and you have absolutely no way  of knowing if the weapon is tilted down below your field of vision from the back  of the weapon.

‘This means that you never actually take the same shot twice since you are never actually aiming the same way.’

This, Mr Davis adds, shows that there is in fact a rational method behind why gangsters aim their weapon side on. However,  it’s not a particularly good method – and they probably don’t realize that there’s method to it at all.

The research sheds new light on why holding a gun sideways can help aim under pressureThe research sheds new light on why holding a gun  sideways can help aim under pressureAttribution: Damien Gayle

Adolf goes Hollywood

It sounds like the bizzare script of a Hollywood B-movie. Maybe it still could?

In a parallel universe the Nazis have won the war and Adolf Hitler moves to Los Angeles where he mingles with the stars of the silver screen while running his evil empire from a luxurious ranch deep in the LA hills.

But during the 1930s, American sympathizers were so confident this exact scenario was actually going happen they spent millions building a deluxe compound ready for their fuhrer’s imminent arrival.

Equipped with a diesel power plant, 375,000 gallon concrete water tank, giant meat locker, 22 bedrooms and even a bomb shelter, the heavily guarded estate was home to a community of Hollywood fascists who hoped to ride out the war there.

There were further plans to build five libraries, a swimming pool, several dining rooms and a gymnasium with money from Germany.

But on the day after Pearl Harbor, as America entered World War Two, police raided the premises and rounded up the the 50 or so American fascists who were living there.

Today the eerie landmark lies in ruins, splattered with graffitti, and awaiting the bulldozers so it can be turned into a picnic area for hikers, a soon-to-be forgotten slice of American history.

Close to the homes of actors and directors such as Stephen Spielberg, the site has been a magnet for historians, curiosity-seekers and modern-day nazis.

At one point after the war it became an artists colony and was home to the novelist Henry Miller.

It was built by the Silver Shirts, a sinister group of 1930’s fascists who took their name from Hitler’s Brown Shirts grass roots organization. Their official name was the ‘Silver Legion’, but were nicknamed the ‘Silver Shirts’ due to their attire. A silver shirt, silver tie,  a campaign hat and blue corduroy trousers with leggings. The shirt was emblazened with a large scarlett ‘L’ signifying Loyalty, Liberation and Legion.

By 1934, the Silver Shirts had about 15,000 members, led by William Pelley and funded directly by Nazi Germany.

Fascism had been on the rise in the wake of the Great Depression and the Silver Shirts were one of the most fanatical groups.

The 55-acre ranch, was sold to mining fortune heiress Jessie Murphy in 1933 by screen cowboy Will Rogers.

In the next few years, Murphy struck up a relationship with a German man known only as Herr Schmidt. Unbeknownst to her, Schmidt was Hitler’s agent in America.

He persuaded her to invest $4million ($66 million today) to transform the property into a nazi stronghold fit for Hitler.

Historian Randy Young said, “This was supposed to be the seat of American fascism from where Hitler would one day run the United States”.

“The neighbors were a little freaked out by the construction and weird happenings, but until war broke out, they thought they were just eccentric people.”

Attribution: Daily Mail