"An American Carol" is a rarety in Hollywood - It is a Conservative Hollywood Comedy - and a movie that Hollywood wanted nothing to do with.

In fact, Hollywood was so upset with the Conservative leanings of the movie, that none of the American Production Companies would touch it, so the filmakers had to find a company outside the U.S. willing to produce it - and found one in France!

The Director and Co-Writer of the film is David Zucker (Airplane, Naked Gun, Scary Movie Franchise). An American Carol is a parody of A Christmas Carol, and the Scrooge that hates America as severely as Scrooge hates Christmas is Michael Malone played by Kevin Farley (a thinner version, but otherwise spitting image of his late comedian brother Chris). The Michael Malone Character is an obvious play on Michael Moore. The character is a slobby documentary filmmaker who's latest work, "Die, You American Pig," did not perform as he'd hoped, and his true goal is to make a feature film, of who's manuscript he carries with him and is titled "Fascist America." In fact, he is so determined to get it filmed and produced, that he is even willing to take money from Islamic Terrorists for it.

Meanwhile, the Malone character is also caught up in a movement to abolish the Fourth of July as a holiday, a movement he began, and as the movie progresses, begins to regret.

John F. Kennedy pays Malone a visit to warn the baseball cap wearing filmmaker that he will be visited by three spirits who will help him understand the value of America. The Spirits, George S. Patton (Kelsey Grammer), George Washington (Jon Voight), and Death (Trace Adkins), take Michael Malone on a journey through history, the present, and the future in an attempt to show him the importance of America, the importance of fighting for liberty when it is necessary, and the danger of liberalism and appeasement.

The ACLU Lawyers are depicted as Ten Commandment destroying zombies while Dennis Hopper as a judge pulls out his gun to take them down. David Alan Grier and Gary Coleman play slaves in an American Future that occurs because America never fought the Civil War because Lincoln (in this alternate reality) was a pacifist like Neville Chamberlain.

An American Carol was not screened in advance for critics, possibly because the filmmakers knew that the Hollywood Critics would use their Liberal bias to shoot down the movie the best they could - but Political Pistachio blog finds this movie about Michael Moore (I mean: Malone) being visited by the ghosts of Patriotism's Past, Present, and Future to be a winner, and worth seeing.

Apparently, I am not the only one. The movie opened in the top ten, grossing nearly $4 million - but that is still quite a bit short of its $20 million production budget. However, that is an accomplishment, considering its limited release (of the seven theaters in my area, only one was carrying it). And note that though this movie has its share of slapstick comedy (and some laughs that only "right of center" folks will understand) as it proceeds through the story, the message of American Values, Patriotism, and Support for our Troops is present. In fact, for those that truly do support the troops, some of the scenes near the end of the film may even moisten the eyes.

Note to liberals reading this piece: Don't give me that "We Support the Troops, Just not the War" crap. Puking out that line is like me saying I am an Angels Baseball fan, but I don't want them to win the World Series.

I give the movie an enthusiastic high mark, 5 stars, thumbs up, or whatever - But I encourage you to go out and see it in the theater, not only because the theatrical experience enhances the movie, but also so that this movie can earn well, and send a message to Hollywood.

American Capitalism, the Free Market, an economy based on free enterprise and the "pursuit" of the American Dream, has been abandoned. The Democrats have finally got what they wanted - an economic downturn of their creation that they have been able to somehow, through a plethora of lies and deception, blame on the Republicans, and specifically, the Bush Administration. And there is a bonus for the Liberal Democrats in it too! George W. Bush, the globalist president in search of saving his legacy, has folded once again, and given in to the leftist's socialism, and their demands that he do something about the "crisis" in our economy.

Conservatism is Conservatism, no matter how many people claim to be conservatives, yet are not. Bush calls himself a conservative, as has McCain, but in many ways they are not.

Conservatism is a belief system that holds to moral values, realizing this is a flawed society run by a flawed human species, and we must consciously defend and support morals, no matter how cockeyed society becomes. Reality dictates that we are unable to progress to perfection. Utopia is a pipe dream. Our human flaws will never allow a Socialist Utopia to ever exist, regardless of how much the liberal leftists try to convince you otherwise.

Conservatism also believes that individuals should take responsibility for their lives and their government, partly because they are accountable to God, and partly because in the long run it is in the best interest of the people to do so. A strong centralized government is detrimental to individual rights. However, government will always be at odds with the people, because those in government have "power." Power is a drug. Eventually it becomes a never ending need for more and more, and when government is left unchecked by the people (the people have abdicated their responsibility - and the politicians have been running wild as a result), government becomes a controlling force over the individual, often using Socialist Utopian ideals to convince the people to submit willingly. When federal government becomes too controlling, freedom and liberty is lost, and the citizen becomes enslaved by a government that, using the deception of good intentions, promises to provide everything for the people, but instead oppresses them. Conservatism lives to combat big government, to protect the rights and responsibilities of the individual, and to maintain a balance between liberty and order. Conservatism believes in limiting the federal government, just as our founding fathers did when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

Liberalism teaches that humanity is progressing toward a perfect state, and as that journey takes place moral values must change to reflect an ever increasing tolerance of values that were once considered not to be moral. The state must take responsibility for the people, to guide them, to apply what is good and decent upon them, and use force to apply these new values if necessary. The state, after all, is accountable to the progress of humanity. Anyone who stands in the way of this progress towards a socialistic utopia is considered to be narrow-minded and weak, and will eventually be eliminated by the Utopian revolution against the moral foundations of the old society, either by force, or by eventual extinction.

George W. Bush, like his father, is unfortunately a globalist. "W" desires progression towards a "New World Order." To reach that goal, sometimes he practices "American Socialism." His pharmaceutical plan, No Child Left Behind, and Amnesty ideas all wreak of socialism and globalism. But none of them hold a candle to the "Bail-out." In fact, the financial bail-out is so socialist, even the Democrats love it! Fortunately, there are conservatives in The House willing to stand up to it, and call it what it is. Those Conservative Republicans, and a handful of Conservative Democrats, stopped the financial package today.

For one more day a major move towards American Socialism has been held at bay.

But what caused this "crisis" to come about in the first place?

I have stated many times that the Free Market System, Capitalism if you will, is a self-adjusting system. Without government manipulation, the economy will take care of itself, and no recessions, or depressions, would enter into the picture.

The Great Depression was partly a result of the creation of the Federal Reserve System, and the new Federal Bank's manipulation of the economy. In other words, government tampering in the economy.

If this is true, then what government tamperings brought on the current economic mess?

It is generally agreed that the primary cause of the economic difficulties we are currently experiencing is result of the bursting of the housing bubble. The housing market enjoyed unbelievable growth, spurned by the government manipulating the market, making the bubble an artificial one. A Capitalistic Economy is a constant roller coaster, with ups and downs occurring in the many different facets of the system. As prices go up, people buy less, forcing prices down, which results in an eventual increase in sales, which drives prices up, and so on. Supply and Demand, and the Movement of Products, is what the American Economic System is all about.

If the government artificially manipulates the system, the ups and downs become more exaggerated - and, like with gravity, what goes up must come down - and. . . the higher something goes up, the farther and harder it crashes back to Earth.

It was government manipulation that created the housing bubble. Government, not capitalism, caused this economic concern - and now the cockroaches in Washington want to use government to fix it.

Many economists claim The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to be a large part of the problem. The CRA is a federal law passed under President Jimmy Carter that requires banks, and similar institutions, to offer credit to the entire market, including those that under normal circumstances would not be approved for the types of loans encouraged by this act. This specifically means that these lending institutions were required to lower their lending standards so that everyone may have an opportunity to qualify for a home loan, or other loans. The ultimate purpose was to help people obtain "affordable housing." This is an age old liberal tendency. Everyone has a "right" to home ownership (just like everyone has a right to health care, a college education, etc.), so the government made sure it happened.

In 1995, President Bill Clinton's revisions eased restrictions even more with the goal of increasing the number of loans to small businesses and home borrowers that would not otherwise be approved for a home loan. The Government used pressure, and threatened the banks with fines, if they refused to provide bad loans to people with low, or nonexistent, credit ratings.

In 2003, the Bush Administration proposed that Congress set up an agency to monitor Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush proposed what the New York Times called the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act concerned him, and Bush believed a weakening of the market may be on the horizon if the subprime mortgages continued.

John McCain co-sponsored with three other Republican Senators a similar effort in 2005. The changes were not acceptable to the Democrats in both cases, and both Bush's and McCain's efforts failed because of Democratic opposition.

The Democrats, with the CRA, and other programs, encouraged risky lending because of their "everyone has a right to affordable housing" chant. The Democrats wish to give, rather than encourage Americans to "earn". Now that their policies have fallen flat, however, the liberal left desires a bailout of the failed system, which will ultimately teach the lending institutions, and the morons that took out the loans they could not afford, that there are no consequences for their actions, regardless of how greedy or criminal said actions are.

In the face of this bail-out attempt, I stand against the moderate Republicans, the Bush Administration, and the liberal Democrats. I believe in conservatism, and a move towards government ownership of the banks, and bailing out failed companies and individuals, is hardly in tune with my conservative beliefs. Should the financial bail out succeed, it will be a major step towards America becoming a Socialist State.

I stand with the Conservative Republicans in The House, led by John Boehner, in their stance against the bailout.

I have been e-mailing my representatives my concerns, and my wishes. Have you?

Last Monday Night on Political Pistachio Radio a caller questioned my determination that the media is liberally biased. We agreed that television, especially the news networks, are liberal. Newspapers are notoriously known to lean to the left. In Southern California, from San Diego to Los Angeles, from the beach cities to the desert, the only non-liberal daily newspaper is the Orange County Register, and the Orange County Republicans are well known (along with a few niches in the Inland Empire) as being the final bastion of conservatism remaining in the Southern California region. Magazines definitely lean to the left. In fact, in my opinion, the only media outlet that does not lean far left is Talk Radio.

My caller on the radio show disagreed. He claimed that Hollywood is not liberal. I asked him, if that's the case, name one conservative movie (after which I added that for every one conservative movie he could name, I could name twenty liberal movies).

The liberal caller proclaimed Saving Private Ryan to be that conservative movie.

I was in such dismay that there was actually someone out there so misinformed that they actually thought that Hollywood is not in the tank for the far left liberal agenda that I did not respond specifically to the caller's choice of movie.

I later got to thinking about the liberal caller's choice of movie. First of all, I found it telling that the liberal caller had to go all the way back to 1998 to find a film he thought to be a conservative film, and as luck would have it, he chose wrong.

Speilberg wanted Saving Private Ryan to show the atrocities of war, beginning the film with, as the New York Times called it:

. . . mass slaughter of American soldiers is depicted in a compelling, unforgettable 24-minute sequence.

The idea of the film was to (as one commenter at the New York Times put it) be "horrifying" and "convince humankind to make eradicating war its number one priority."

Liberals seem to think that films like "Saving Private Ryan" are conservative films because of their depiction of war. Remember, the liberal left believes that conservatives are "warmongers" and "glorifiers of war." So, with that warped thinking, of course they think that realistic war movies must be Conservative.

I agree that most Americans want the troops to come home. I am one of those Americans that want the troops to come home. Nobody in their right mind is "Pro-War." But, I do not want the troops to come home under the flag of defeat, or without completing the mission. I want the troops to come home as victors. Coming home as anything less than under the banner of victory will encourage the enemy to strike America again, and a retreat in defeat from Iraq will embolden the enemy to step up their worldwide efforts - and that is not even talking about the message we would be sending to our allies when it comes to our dependability and willingness to finish what we start.

The far left will argue that if I don't like war, then how could I support such military endeavors such as the Iraq? If I am not a warmonger, how is it I can support sending our fine young warriors to a foreign shore to fight?

My answer to that is, "War Sucks. War is a horrible thing. But there are other things that suck much more than war, and because of that, sometimes war is necessary. For those that say war never accomplishes anything, remember that it took war to create this nation, abolish slavery, and stop genocidal maniacs like Hitler.

As for the answer to the question about Conservative Movies, there is one getting ready to hit the theaters this week, as a matter of fact. Every once in a while the Hollywood Right gains the opportunity to put out something that is not Anti-Military, or Anti-America. That most recent endeavor will be released October 3rd, and is called: An American Carol.

The Logan Act is a Federal Law forbidding American citizens not authorized by the President to correspond or meet with foreign governments with the intent of influencing conduct. Violation of the act, which passed in 1799, is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

There have been no convictions or prosecutions under the Logan Act. The Text of the Act is as follows:

Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

During the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy she was guilty of violating the Logan Act. During the Vietnam War when John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris, he too was in violation of federal law.

Nancy Pelosi visiting the Syrian leader, and Jimmy Carter's visits to the Middle East talking down America were both in violation of the Logan Act as well.

And now we have running for president, his Lord the Democratic Messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama. During his recent trip to Iraq it is alleged that Obama tried to negotiate with Iraqi leaders to delay the troop withdrawal (of course he wants credit for any troop withdrawal, and if troops begin withdrawing under the flag of victory now, then if he became president it would look as if he was simply continuing to do what George W. Bush had already begun). Word has it that nobody has been willing to follow Obama's plans of delaying the troop withdrawal.

Notice, the Logan Act has been violated a number of times (surprise! by the liberal left!) yet never with indictments. And the cases I have mentioned above are only the tip of the ice berg. I personally believe that Democrats routinely violate the Logan Act, well knowing that nobody will be willing to prosecute, and even if the GOP tried to launch an investigation, the Republicans would probably not be able to make a charge stick.

The McCain campaign, however, is making sure the Democrats know that The Right has noticed what they are up to.

The Obama Camp has responded to it as well, denying the report that Barry has had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November's election.

Now that is what I call a patriotic president, right? - After all, his wife, Michelle, loves this country - becoming proud of America for the first time in her life when Barack received a political promotion.