Teddy Roosevelt impressed the nation with his focus on conservation and while he was president was responsible for pushing to conserve our nation's wilderness in the form of sundry national parks, mostly in the western U.S. This was a worthy enterprise, few can deny. But what is the true purpose of these conservatories but to set aside tracts of land away from developers so that nature can prevail? Is it not a given that these lands should be governed by nature and but set aside by government?

So, we all agree that government may take the unspoiled wilderness and save aside a portion of it to be left to the machinations of Mother Nature so that future generations might see what our landscape looked like untouched by man's industry. Well and good.

But, what if Mother Nature isn't so kind as Uncle Sam? We have here a perfect example of what happens when government gets involved in anything and it's what the military calls mission creep.

The AP reported this week that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is issuing warnings that the nation's second oldest wildlife refuge is deteriorating and "needs" restoration. This alarming rhetoric should get the most concerned conservationist's attention. "Deteriorating" is quite a frightening term after all.

But, why is it "deteriorating"? Is it industrial encroachment? Is it human neglect or pollution?

Not really.

The Chandeleur and Breton islands have been battered by hurricanes in the past four years and they took a pounding from Hurricane Katrina, which "reduced the islands by one-half of their pre-storm size," the agency said in a new report.

So, Mother Nature is responsible? Yet, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are claiming that "the nation should pour money into restoring the refuge" as if the U.S. government and we the people -- who pay its bills -- should take responsibility for what Mother Nature hath wrought?

The logic simply does not stand to reason.

We made these wildlife refuges to allow Mother Nature to reign supreme. Yet, when Mother Nature makes her decision to destroy these same places, we feel somehow responsible to step in and... what... "fix" Mother Nature's "mistake"?

This is the arrogance of government writ large. What we have here are some government drudges who are justifying their jobs by raising false alarms about what we the people should be forced to waste our money upon. We have some government men who are tasked with safeguarding a couple of islands so that Mother Nature can operate unhindered suddenly deciding that they are smarter and more responsible than Mother Nature herself to govern those pristine garden spots.

What arrogance these men exhibit.

And, at what cost do we "fix" Mother Nature's obvious neglect, government man?

Because the islands are so far from shore, restoration would be expensive and would cost tens of millions of dollars, Bohannan said. Scientists are studying what sections could feasibly be restored, he said.

Mark Schexnayder, a coastal adviser for Louisiana State University's Sea Grant Extension, said the nation and state need to find the money to save the islands regardless of the cost.

But why, why should we be more caring than Mother Nature, Mr. government man?

"It's got historical significance and it's the largest rookery for our state bird, the brown pelican," Schexnayder said. "I'm not willing to fold the tent and go home."

See, here is your logical error, Mr. government man. Birdies have these things called wings. When they find their natural home destroyed naturally, they naturally fly away with them wingie thingies and find a new home. They won't just stand on the islands and drown as the ocean overtakes the land. All life will not end if nature decides in its infinite wisdom that these little islands are to be no more.

Certainly I am not for wanton destruction by men of our natural habitats. Absolutely I think we can be sensible enough to put aside some bits of our natural resources and lands to maintain those habitats. But when nature itself steps in to say otherwise, who are we mere humans to nay say that eventuality?

It is wrong headed and illogical to pour tens of millions of dollars to protect nature when nature itself is saying no to such protection.

But, then this is what we mean by "mission creep." These government drudges have a charge and that is to save these islands for nature and they aren't going to let nature get in the way of that cushy government job. They have gone from assuming they are helping nature to assuming they are ruling it.

Mission creep at its most extreme example. And its most obscene.

The San Diego Union-Tribune published a story last week that typifies the lack of perspective and a refusal to give a more full account of the facts in the illegal immigration debate common from too many media outlets. The Union-Trib was all worried that "22 migrants have died in S.D. sector" but didn't seem too interested in all relevant information, leaving only a vague feeling that sympathy is due these "migrants," as they repeatedly call them, instead of illegal aliens.

First of all, the very title itself of the story by staff writer Norma de la Vega calls these illegal invaders a much more benign "migrants." It's as if they are legal entrants, honest "migrants," instead of those sneaking into the country through the desert back country of San Diego.

To their credit, though, the story does call them illegal at least twice. First here...

The number of people who have died while trying to cross the border illegally in the San Diego area has more than doubled in the past year.

And here...

Zamudio, a Michoacan native who had lived in the United States for 20 years, was deported in May. As far as anyone knows, he crossed illegally over the mountains May 20.

But, there is the problem with the story and it tends to make the reader "feel" badly for these illegals despite the fact that they are breaking laws to get here. There is no perspective of this death rate that the story says has "more than doubled" as if the numbers are cause for great alarm.

Now, of course, no one wants a single person to die just because they want to take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that they might find in these great United States. But, even a quick glance at the numbers of illegals coming in shows that the 22 or so that have died is a tiny number and that it isn't really anything to get too alarmed over in the statistical sense.

Thus far in the 2008 cycle, the San Diego border patrol has apprehended 122,554 illegal immigrants crossing our borders. And that is just San Diego. Add in the other sectors of the Southwest Border Patrol and you get 578,774. And these are only the ones caught. Certainly the estimates of over 1.9 million illegal crossings in the Southwest area can be believed.

So, let's realize the paltry number that is 22 or so deaths that have resulted from this dangerous crossing. With thousands apprehended and over a million not being apprehended, 22 deaths is a statistically insignificant number.

And, as the story does report, the San Diego patrol has rescued 64 people thus far this year. So, we've even saved lives with our border patrol. There is little reason to feel too bad for these people. They took their chances, broke the law, and some paid the ultimate price for that decision. They should feel lucky that even more didn't die from the efforts.

In the end, here, one can only assume that the sort of sensational approach to the story was meant to make Americans feel sorry for these lawbreakers instead of feeling scorn for them.

It's amazing to see how a Democrat so warps the word "right" these days. Last week California Democrat Rep. Brad Sherman was only the latest Democrat to take the word "right" and misuse it for his disgusting, partisan ends when he decided that it was a "right" to unionize, but NOT a "right" to eschew a union.

Sherman proposed last week that Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley act of 1947 be repealed. This section deals with a real right, that of being guaranteed that you can keep your job WITHOUT being forced by the state to join a union. With a warped sense of "rights," Sherman wants that section repealed so that states can force employees to join unions.

Sherman wants to repeal a true right and substitute state coercion in its place. Sherman gives us a typical Democrat lie to explain himself saying, "It is time that we let unions organize and time that we allow workers who want to have a union, to enjoy that right."

Time we "let" union organize? Is Sherman living in 1898? No, what it is really time for is for Americans to know that they have a democratic choice. Join a union if you feel so disposed, but don't have the iron boot heel of Brad Sherman forcing you to join one just so you might have the privilege of earning a paycheck.

Rep. Brad Sherman is an oppressor of rights, not an advocate of them and unions are his storm troopers.

Yesterday was finally the end of the days this year when you were working to pay the government its exorbitant fees. That's right, July 16 was Cost of Government Day for the average American. Grover Norquist , author of the recent book "Leave Us Alone," has once again crunched the numbers and determined how long it takes most of us to finally pay off our own personal bloated government debt and begin, at last, to make money for ourselves.

This year Americans have worked until today, July 16, to pay for the total costs of federal, state and local government. This is 197 days of the year consuming 53.9 percent of national income. Over the past 22 years, in only four years (1982, 1983, 1991 and 1992) did Cost of Government Day fall later in the year.

Its simply outrageous that it takes 197 days of a year to finally pay off our government obligations and utterly criminal that more than half our income is consumed by bloated, needless bureaucracy.

Federal spending will consume 83.7 days. State and local spending will consume 50.5 days effort. Federal regulations cost 4l.7 days and State regulations cost 20.9 days. The spending data is precise, the regulatory burdens are understated.

And it is a singular failing of the Bush administration that we have added three more days of slaving to pay the government to this burden since he took office. But it is even worse that six days have been added by our own state and local governments.

And what do we have to show for this increased theft of our income? Not too damned much, that's for sure. Many are quick to blame deficit Federal spending. But Norquist makes a more salient point.

But the deficit is the uninteresting and unimportant number that is the difference between two very interesting and important numbers: total government spending and total taxes raised. A government that costs one hundred dollars of spending where ninety dollars are taken in taxes and ten are borrowed is as expensive and burdensome as one where the government takes and spends all hundred. No money is freed up for the economy by taking an additional ten in taxes. The true cost of government, whether paid for today through taxation or borrowing, is total government spending plus the regulatory burden paid by consumers in higher prices.

And Norquist warns that if the next president doesn't keep the relatively pro-growth tax policy that Bush has continued we will find major trouble. Since we have had "fifteen years without a legislated tax hike" we have lived a "unique" time with tax policy, says Norquist.

The pro-growth tax cut of 2003 created economic growth that by2008 increased the number of American jobs by eight million, real per capita income grew $2,887, the stock market increased by $3.7 trillion in value and federal revenues jumped by $785 billion. Those tax cuts lapse in January 2011 and already the markets are anticipating losing those gains.

The next president and Congress will not only need to maintain the relatively pro-growth lower tax rates on individual income and investments, but -- as Cost of Government Day painfully reminds us - deal with the true costs of government: total government spending and the regulatory burden.

Reagan was right. Lower taxes means pro-growth. Let's hope the next president does not torpedo the relatively good economic times we've had these last 15 years in favor of higher, economy killing taxes. The burden on the taxpayer is far too much and regulation is stifling to us all.

Larry Hunter claims he is a "lifelong conservative." Yet, in his recent New York Daily News article, he also says he is voting for Barack Obama for president. The two simply cannot coexist. One has to be obliterated in favor of the other. And, regardless of the facile reasoning Hunter gives for his apostasy, this article does nothing to support any supposed conservative cause. It does, however, give the media something to crow about.

Larry Hunter begins by assuring us of his conservative credentials. A supply sider from the Reagan White House, Hunter had a 5-year-long stint as chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was a member of Bob Dole's economic team for the 1996 presidential race and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America. All of this does confirm his economic conservatism. But none of it says anything to his ideology otherwise. Still, regardless, we can take at face value his credentials and mark him as generally on the right side of the issues.

Yet, even after telling us his resume, Hunter says, "This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama." Naturally, he says his "colleagues were shocked." So should be anyone who thinks conservatism the best direction for this country.

So, why is Larry Hunter voting for Barack Obama? It turns out he isn't voting "for" Barack Obama, he's voting against the Republican Party. And that is NOT a legitimate reason to mark the ballot for Obama. Hunter's "reasons" are ill considered, filled with petulance, and self-defeating to the ideology to which he insists he hews.

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.

There is, of course, much room for honest debate on whether the war was justified or not. But that we are fairly in it regardless makes the debate of little interest in the contemporary decision making process. Hunter's second reason, the "unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights" is simply absurd. There have been no such abridgments. If Hunter means the reputed abridgment of the non existent rights of the terrorists, it is even more absurd. Additionally, when compared to the actions of past presidents in past wars, Bush's efforts seem wonderfully measured and moderate. But it is his last part that is most absurd, that of the "mortal sins" of bad economic policy. I am no fan of much of Bush's domestic policies, but to use these failures as an excuse to vote for a party that will institute socialist inspired policies that will make Bush's policies seem as if it was crafted by Joseph A. Schumpeter or Milton Friedman, well that simply makes no logical sense at all! It makes Larry Hunter appear as if he has taken leave of his senses.

Admittedly, what conservative isn't mad at the Bush administration? There really are but a handful of things Bush did well -- or at least stood on the right side of the issue over -- so no conservative has been happy since he took office. So-called "compassionate conservatism" was merely an excuse for big-goverment, no conservative denies that.

Additionally, few conservatives trust McCain to be much better. However, we can at least say that McCain has a lifelong aversion to raising taxes and is a consistent budget hawk. Certainly all a voter can base his vote on is the record, not the rhetoric and campaign promises, and McCain's economic record places him in the conservative camp. Obama's, on the other hand, is a socialist's record. There is nothing whatever conservative or even moderate about Barack Obama's actual voting record.

For an economist mad at the Bush administration's economic record and calling that record a "venal and mortal sin" because of its lack of conservative principle to then vote for a man who's record places him on the socialist side of the line is just plain foolish.

But, what we can easily see is that Larry Hunter seems to hail from the abjectly isolationist, paleo-conservative branch of conservatism because the war appears to be his overriding concern.

But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.

This claim of Iraq being a "bloody boondoggle" is simple-minded rhetoric at best, an outright lie at worst. But to Iran his assumption is, of course, that we must avoid a war with Iran. That is not a given despite Hunter's squeamishness over the matter. In fact, his base assumption that war with Iran must be avoided places him in the immoral, Chamberlainesque, peace-in-our-times camp and that camp is not "conservative" but merely blind. And even as he reiterates his nonsensical feeling that all our "individual rights" have been violated by Bush, he hasn't a case to make there but one based on wild-eyed alarmism.

Then we get to Hunter's specificity on the candidates. First he says where he imagines the candidates stand on the war based on what he's heard them say.

John McCain would continue the Bush administration's commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That's what conservatism used to mean - and it's what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.

Hunter bases his feeling on Obama's suitably "conservative" ideas on foreign policy on the man's rhetoric on the campaign trail and uses that as an excuse to bash McCain. OK, well and good. But, then Hunter immediately follows that with the next paragraph.

Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don't take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn't bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn't mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it's taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.

This is stunningly facile reasoning. On one hand he fully believes Obama's unsupportable campaign rhetoric on what his foreign policy will be -- unsupportable because he has no track record by which to prove his claims, quite unlike McCain -- but then goes on to say he doesn't believe what Obama says about domestic policy and can, therefore, completely blow off Obama's rhetoric! Talk about cognitive dissonance. How can a candidate's word be taken for gospel on one issue but not on any others? Either Obama's rhetoric can be believed or it cannot, especially in light of his actual voting record.

Then Hunter foolishly launches into off handed praise for Obama's "centrist advisers" and uses that as an excuse to support his candidacy. But the record is the record and Obama has not ever had a record of voting for any "centrist" positions. Throughout his career, Obama has paid lip service to centrist policy yet never voted for them. When push came to shove, Barack Obama's voting record has remained as far left as the worst of them.

But, for all his carping about Bush and the Republican's economic failures, despite his entire life's service as a conservative economist, Hunter gives us a contradictory line about Obama.

But here's the thing: Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I'm still voting for him.

So, for all his interest in the economy, in the end, Hunter doesn't care. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Consequently, we see that Hunter's overarching problem is the foreign policy issue. He feels that Bush has illegitimately "spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution." He thinks that McCain will merely continue Bush's bad policies and this is enough to make him vote Obama.

If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.

In this I have to say that Larry Hunter has no clue what the word "suffered" means. Our economy has not "suffered" too badly from the expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, this country has scarcely "suffered" at all from the war. Obviously, the war has touched only a small portion of our people and few Americans have been much put out by it. Even the battle deaths are miniscule compared to any of our past wars. (And YES, speaking as a father of one of our soldiers, it is heartrending to lose even one soldier)

Larry Hunter reveals himself to be Chicken Little where it concerns our current level of "suffering" and a complete traitor to all other conservative causes on nearly every level in his hyperventilating over the matter.

It goes without saying that one does not urge a nation to conservative principles by voting for the candidate and party that stands foursquare against every single one of those principles. One can legitimately refuse to vote for John McCain, but to actually and purposefully vote for Barack Obama is a direct stab in the heart to supposed conservative principles. One can only presume that Larry Hunter does not really find a principle an insoluble idea but considers it, rather, something that can be dispensed with on a whim.

And to be sure, being anti-War is not a "conservative" principle. It is, in fact, its very own principle, a pacifist's. Pacifism is not a conservative principle but a utopian's. It is a foolhardy idea based on a failed assumption about the innate goodness of human kind and it is a decidedly unAmerican ideal. Even as far back as George Washington, a truly American principle is to constantly be ready for war -- that being the only true guarantee of peace. And being ready for war also means to be willing to engage in it.

Larry Hunter believes that getting out of war, in any manner at all, should be the nation's only priority. And he believes with a faith of religious proportions that Barack Obama will fulfill that wish. Larry Hunter's only problem is that the train he hopes Obama will catch has long since left the station and that any moves to precipitously withdraw from the Mid East now would do far more damage to the world in general and the United States in particular and will pale in comparison to the economic damage the Obama will do to this nation. All following Hunter's prescription will do is give us a bad economy and even worse foreign policy than we currently have.

Worse, one does not fix a party by voting for its rival. If Larry Hunter imagines the GOP has strayed, voting for its mirror opposite does nothing to help right the only party that would even come close to his proclaimed principles. The axiom of cutting off one's nose despite one's face applies here in spades.

Larry Hunter has done damage to every cause he thinks he believes in with this editorial. He has damaged the Republican brand further, damaged the economy should enough people follow his recommendation, and endangered us all on the war on terror. He has also foolishly handed the MSM ammunition that they will turn on every single principle, but one, that he seems to claim to hold dear. And even that one is a dangerous one to pursue for this nation.

Sadly, in every area, Larry Hunter the "lifelong conservative" is dangerously wrong.

(Photo credit: the National Tax-Limitation Committee)

What is the ages old misconstruction of Shakespeare? "First kill all the lawyers." Well, one might excuse bloggers if they might wish to add the officers of the courts to that death sentence, at least if the experience of the bloggers at New York's "Room 8" blog are concerned.

For Ben Smith and his fellow "Room 8" bloggers, the world got a bit topsy-turvey not long ago when he was served with a grand jury subpoena by state prosecutors demanding that the identities of anonymous posters on his website be revealed.

Worse, the court wouldn't inform Mr. Smith exactly why they wanted the identities of several posters and what they would do with the information once they got it.

Smith's subpoena got retracted and the identities weren't needed after some legal wrangling, but incidents like this are beginning to occur more and more. Bloggers are running up against the law with increasing frequency in the US and the world. Of course, for much of the world's bloggers, their blogging is landing them in jail to be tortured by oppressive regimes like China and the like, but bloggers are also finding their work under question in the free world, too.

It's still the wild west as far as the law is concerned with blogging. Blogs haven't been around long enough for the law to have settled on what to do with them, what rights bloggers have or don't have, and what they can or cannot do. The status blogs have in the eyes of the law is still incredibly amorphous. Are bloggers journalists? Should they get the same protections as newspapers? Are they entirely private communications? Should they be held to exactly the same libel laws as other media? And, where do anonymous bloggers stand? Should they be forced to reveal their identities? How about commenters on blogs? Should they be forced to publicly declare their identities? Is their privacy somehow perfectly secure?

These are questions that the law is just beginning to grapple with.

But where should we bloggers stand on this issue? Should we rise up with one voice and stand on untrammeled free speech?

I maintain that we cannot claim that blogs are somehow above the same rules that applies to the media generally. Of course blogs should be considered free speech, especially where it concerns political blogs. However, there is no reason at all to think that blogs should be held above the law where it concerns libel. After all, blogs have just as much capacity to destroy someone's life if used maliciously as any TV show or newspaper.

But, one thing is sure. Bloggers are absolutely covered untouchable under the Constitution in one area: politics. A blogger should be able to say anything on politics without fearing the iron boot heal of the law coming down upon them for their political opinion.

After all, freedom of speech to the Founders meant free political speech. The Founders did not mean that people could say just anything they wanted to say in general, but the Founders did wish to safeguard all political speech. Every state in the Union at the inception of the Constitution had limits on free speech and the Founders didn't necessarily mean to upend all of them. But, they did want to be sure that political speech was untrammeled (save for libel which takes that speech in a different direction).

So, we bloggers should not expect to have license to say just anything we feel like saying. But when it concerns our ideas on politics we should be able to feel utterly free of government interference.

Last week, the BBC aired a new TV series titled "Bonekickers" touted as a "groundbreaking" show where "history comes alive," and a series that is "Based in fact." The premier episode, though features an odd thing if "fact" is the aim of the Beeb's new TV series: a Christian beheading a Muslim. Yeah, THAT is really a "fact" based premise, isn't it?

Of course, the few remaining Christians in Britain have found themselves a bit put out by this "fact based" show where it is a Christian beheading a Muslim instead of the other way 'round.

And it isn't just a beheading, the entire episode turns our current "fact based" reality on its head as the plot gives us a group of "right wing Christians" bent on purging England of its immigrant population, a group the TV series is fictionalizing as the "White Wings Alliance." In a day when extremist Muslims the world over are killing people for not being a Muslim, this show features the exact opposite situation. Christian "extremists killing innocent, moderate Muslims. For what reason? Only the Beeb knows for sure.

The whole premise is so ridiculous that Andrew Anthony of the Guardian newspaper said, "A Martian watching TV drama of late would probably conclude that the country is crawling with homicidal Islamophobes, desperate to kill those few Muslims who have not already been interned by the government or shot by the police." In his droll way, of course, Anthony is saying that none of that is happening despite the outrageous plot line that appears in this "fact based" series.

The Independent's reviewer was no kinder saying, "Murderous Christian fundamentalists, like the ones on Bonekickers, are frequently on TV, but their Islamic counterparts rarely make an appearance. Our TV controllers have a tendency to make like the three wise monkeys when it comes to Muslim extremism: hear no evil, see no evil, broadcast no evil." So much for "facts."

From the Bonekickers website, the show is describe as such:

Bonekickers is a highly original six-part series about a dynamic team of archaeologists... As a team their skills combine under a variety of imperatives to extract bodies, books, weapons and all manner of artefacts which lead them into an investigation of the past that will unlock dangers and mysteries in the present.

Based in fact, the series has on board the expertise of Professor Mark Horton, Head of Archaeology at Bristol University, a specialist in the archaeology of historical societies around the world and Bonekickers consultant on the factual evidence and background to the relics featured in each episode.

In any case, many viewers complained about this upending of reality, so many so that the BBC had to respond with a statement. And the BBC has responded to critics of their new series quite unsatisfactorily, it seems.

Complaint

We've received some complaints from viewers who felt the scene featuring a beheading in Bonekickers on BBC One, Tuesday 8th July 2008 was inappropriate viewing.

The BBC's Response

We regret that some viewers felt the beheading scene was inappropriate. It appeared half way through episode one of Bonekickers, by which time the character's extreme fundamental belief' had been revealed, providing the audience with a good build up to the scene in question.

This storyline looked at religious fundamentalism within a fictional Christian group, and one character in particular who took his beliefs to an extreme. His ignorance and misguided behaviour lead to the beheading of a peaceful Asian Muslim character in the drama. His actions are clearly condemned by leading Muslim and Christian clerics. The drama also has the balance of a Christian character that has a deep faith which she uses humbly and only for good.

The killing and the method used reflected the flawed beliefs that the character had. It does not attempt to condone or glamorise such a violent act in any way. The drama seeks to highlight the consequences of a misguided fundamentalist taking his beliefs to violent extremes.

The inclusion of the scene had been carefully considered and was very much central to the story line and reflected the character's extreme fundamental beliefs and state of mind.

They regret nothing, of course.

So, lots of “extremist Christians” running about the countryside beheading moderate Muslims over there in England? There must be. After all, we did mention that this is a “fact based” series, didn’t we?

Speaking of bones, this appears to be another reason why the west hasn't the backbone to stand up to Islamic extremism, doesn't it?

(Photo credit: Blackstar.co.uk)

Andrew Breitbart, CEO of Breitbart.com, had a great op ed in the Washington Times yesterday about how Hollywood oppresses Republicans and conservatives in La La Land. Detailing the travails of Republicans in Hollywood -- including destruction by Hollywood's liberals of personal property owned by identified Republicans -- Breitbart laments the "bullying" the self-proclaimed tolerant lefties mete out to those who walk the Republican side of the street.

Breitbart says of this ideological inbreeding:

But Los Angeles is a one-company town. And because of bullying (or what Democrats would call blacklisting or “political discrimination” if the shoe were on the other foot), Hollywood has become a one-party town. History will show this dynamic hurt both the creative and the political processes. In the absence of checks and balances we end up with a system that creates a mainstream film about Ronald Reagan -- written, produced and directed by narcissistic and myopic partisans who only viewed the Gipper through the lens of partisan AIDS activism. Like anyone would watch an epic movie about America’s victory in the Cold War.

Hollywood is so left-wing that it hurts its own bottom line by constantly producing films that no one wants to see. Especially their current crop of dreck about the war in Iraq. Breitbart mentions the many failures of these left-wing, anti-Iraq war films.

More than a dozen box office failures vilify the troops without a single counter-perspective seeing the light of day. Yet one impactful and heartfelt pro-war film, Brothers at War, dares to tell the story of a noble and patriotic American family yet can’t find a distributor.

But there is another way to see how little America cares for these anti-American bombs. It is instructive to take a quick look at the box office takes for these unmitigated disasters to see how Americans have reacted to these films.

• Lions for Lambs $15 million
• Stop-Loss $10 million
• Rendition $9 million
• In the Valley of Elah $6 million
• No End in Sight $1 million
• Gunner Palace $601,000
• The War Tapes $255,000
• Iraq in Fragments $205,000
• Redacted $66,000
• Home of the Brave $52,000
• Grace Is Gone $51,000
• Battle for Haditha $9,000

Now, in contrast, some of the current crop of films at the theater have earned so much more than these flops that it boggles the mind. Even those films considered flops, like Speed Racer, have so far out earned Hollywood's dreary, anti-American Iraq war films that it seems impossible to believe.

Winners thus far this Summer are:

• Iron Man $300 million
• Indiana Jones 4 $300 million
• Kung Fu Panda $200 million
• WALL-E (After only two weeks) $163 million
• Sex in the City $148 million
• Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian $139 million

And here are some of what are being called box office bombs this Summer:

• The Happening $63 million
• Speed Racer $43 million
• The Love Guru $31 million

Even the execrable Eddie Murphy debacle "Meet Dave" earned $5 million thus far and it just came out on July 11. Comparing these numbers to the paltry box office take of Hollywood's horrible Iraq war movies is an eyeopening exercise.

Breitbart sums up his point thus:

The litany of negative consequences to the ideological rigidity of modern Hollywood is virtually limitless. The lack of tension between competing ideas has made the arts increasingly tedious and rendered the celebrities woefully uninteresting.

Well, if nothing else, the box office earnings I just recounted tend to support that, at least to reveal that Americans simply don't agree with Hollywood's point of view. Yet they persist in being as far off target from how the average American feels about this country as possible.

Breitbart is right. Hollywood does not reflect the ideology of most Americans. And its militant, hatred of the ideology of the largest number of America's citizens, as well as its hypocritical comportment in reaction to that ideology, makes the lie to its claim of being the more "civilized," "caring," and "intelligent" spot in the country.

(Photo credit: zdnet.com)