George Clooney: 2016 Presidential Candidate

1 Comment

This is from Joe For America.

Here is a scary combination for 2016 George Clooney Tunes and Alex” the ass” Baldwin.




George Clooney isn’t a politician, but he’s played one on TV.


Starting later this year he will play one for real, according to several news sources, including Daily Mirror:

He has conquered Hollywood and is smitten with his new fiancee , but George Clooney now has his eye on another challenge – politics.

The heart-throb, 53, is planning to launch his new career after he ties the knot with Brit lawyer Amal Alamuddin, 36, in September, following an eight-month romance.

George already counts President Obama as a friend and is a committed political activist.

Now he is looking to take on a more official role, and could even run for office.

A pal said: “He has big ambitions and aims to get into politics imminently.

“He wants to do more humanitarian work and hopes to join the Democrats’ 2016 election campaign.”

London-based barrister Amal, who represented WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, is one of the world’s leading human rights specialists.”Now he has Amal by his side it will give him more credibility to run for office.”

The actor rallied for Mr Obama at the 2012 election and was arrested outside the Sudanese Embassy after a planned protest over Darfur.

That year he ruled out running for president and said: “There’s a guy in office who is smarter than anybody. I have no interest.”

But a week is a long time in politics – and two years is almost an eternity .

Do you think George Clooney would make a good politician?



Ronald Reagan was the last Leading Man in the White House. George Clooney doesn’t even qualify as nominee for best supporting actor. (T)



Race Card Of The Day

Leave a comment

This is from Alfonso Rachel.

I do not watch the Communist News Network(CNN).

I was visiting someone years ago they were watching Cross Fire on the Communist News Network(CNN).

It aggravated me to the point I wanted to kick the television off the table it was setting on.


Bob Parks Black & Right: Race Card Of The Day “While trying to call Rush Limbaugh a racist and draw attention to herself and a show no one watches, she said more about Hollywood than she probably intended.”

– See more at:

Actors Who Are Pro Gun


This is from Bullets First.

In la-la land when tend to think in terms of Liberals and Conservatives, we find that Liberals are far and away more numerous in the acting profession than Conservatives.  That seems pretty clear, though I feel many right leaners tend to stay quiet about their views in order to have a career and I won’t fault them for that.

But here is the funny thing, the right to keep and bear arms is not a Liberal v Conservative issue (though it often falls that way), it is a control v freedom issue and many of my friends who are center left have come to embrace gun ownership as part of the American identity.  While we may not agree on healthcare, taxes or any other big government socialist like agenda’s we come together on the 2nd Amendment.

It is the notion of freedom and control of one’s own destiny that has seen a large increase in gun ownership in both women and liberals.

It comes at no surprise then that there are many actors in Hollywood that keep themselves armed.  So long as they don’t pull the traditional liberal hypocrisy of saying THEY deserve to be armed while the peons should go without, I will not fault them for their other misguided notions for they got the most important one right.

Of course you have the Tom Selleck‘s of the world who are notable in their support of the 2nd Amendment and an open supporter of the NRA and the Luke Bryan‘s (country singer) who is the co-owner of Buck Commander.

But then you have some other stars who you may be surprised to know take gun ownership and protecting their family personally.

Stars like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.

Jolie: ”Brad and I are not against having a gun in the house, and we do have one. And yes, I’d be able to use it if I had to… If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I’ve no problem shooting them.”

Pitt: ”America is a country founded on guns. It’s in our DNA. It’s very strange, but I feel better having a gun. I really do. I don’t feel safe, I don’t feel the house is completely safe, if I don’t have one hidden somewhere. That’s my thinking, right or wrong.”

Very sensible opinion.  Now, do I expect the couple to go out and campaign against the SAFE Act, or lobby the federal government to do away with Title II requirements?  No.  But I know a lot of “traditional” gun owners who don’t believe in the individuals right to own so called “assault” weapons.  I think Pitt and Jolie have the understanding of the basis of gun ownership and in Hollywood that’s a pretty big step.

Other Hollywood stars offering different logical views on guns:

James Earl Jones: ”The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.

Christian Slater offers up a classic: “It’s better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.”

And while we have country singers who one would traditionally view as pro gun such as Luke Bryan and Miranda Lambert, Lambert takes on a very Libertarian view on the whole thing;

Lambert: ”I carry a weapon. I got a death threat a few years ago and was really scared. But I don’t want bodyguards. I am my own security.”

While some personalities have grown with the idea of the 2nd Amendment others have had the ephiphany dawn on them in dramatic fashion such as The View’s co-host Sherri Shepherd:

Shepherd (after being the victim of a home invasion):   “I have nothing, a bat, nothing.  We’re going to get a gun.”

But bar none the Hollywood Star that spoke about gun control is the Clint Eastwood.

Eastwood: “I have a very strict gun control policy: if there’s a gun around, I want to be in control of it.”




This is from Patriot UpDate.

These Holly Weird types have lived in their fantasy land

they no longer have a clue what reality really is.

Like the Meryl Streep screeching about the dangers of Alar

in apples back in 1989 .

How many small farmers went bankrupt as a result of Meryl  

Streep’s uninformed rants?

Here is how you could die from Alar on apples. Snark.

The compound was extensively tested before 1966 and cleared for use by the U.S. government. In laboratory tests, the amount fed to mice before any effect was noted was equivalent to an average adult eating 28,000 pounds of Alar-treated apples each year for 70 years, or a 10-pound infant eating 1,750 pounds per year.


It stands to reason that most Hollywood actors, directors, and producers would be liberals because Hollywood is all about fantasyland, that place that does not exist but where liberals are most comfortable.  There are a few notable exceptions, but for the most part Hollywood is synonymous with liberalism.  I do not begrudge Hollywood types their political views, but I do wish those views were better informed and less hypocritical.  What chaps me about Hollywood is that it is filled with people who are quick to criticize the very nation that made their stardom and financial success possible.

Think about it.  Actors are entertainers.  They make their living doing the same thing little children do: playing let’s pretend. They do not invent new technologies that improve the quality of life.  They do not conduct agricultural research that feeds starving children in faraway places.  They do not start companies that employ hundreds of people and give them a chance to be self-supporting.  Hollywood actors—no matter how good or bad—are just entertainers.  They inhabit the land of fantasy.  No matter how much we enjoy a given movie, in the final analysis it is nothing more than a brief vicarious diversion from reality.  Of course, those of us who have real jobs and real lives can use a little vicarious diversion every now and then, so movies can serve a positive purpose.  But people who watch movies and those who make them need to remember that movies are just that: movies.  They do not convey upon those who make them any special knowledge or insights into politics.

Hollywood gives actors fame, money, and an audience.  There is nothing wrong with any of this. But fame, money, and an audience are assets that should be used responsibly.  This is where I part company with the majority of Hollywood actors, directors, and producers.  Some of the most irresponsible, hypocritical public statements on socio-economic issues are made by Hollywood actors whose knowledge of the subject in question is thinner than a sheet of paper.  For example, actor Marin Sheen decries the wickedness of corporate America but acts in movies developed, produced, and paid for by corporate America.  Hollywood movie studios and production companies are corporations.  In fact, they are some of the most entrepreneurial corporations west of Wall Street.

Director George Lucas made not millions but billions from his movies, yet he is a critic of what he calls “capitalist democracy.”  He would prefer a socialist democracy.  What hypocrisy.  George Lucas made his billions from the most capitalistic, entrepreneurial business in America.  In fact, a substantial part of his fortune was earned from retailing movie related merchandise.  Actor Russell Brand favors a “socialist, egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth.”  Well Russell, if you are so interested in redistributing wealth get out your checkbook.  There are charities galore just waiting to hear from you.

Brand is typical of the hypocrites now so closely associated with Hollywood. They want to redistribute all of the wealth of the world; all of it that is except their own.  If you have grown weary of the hypocrisy emanating out of Hollywood, I can recommend a book that will make you feel better.  Hollywood Hypocrites was written by Jason Mattera.  Mattera makes his living confronting Hollywood hypocrites with their own hypocrisy.  Here is an example of his good work: Mattera confronted Harrison Ford who was spouting the usual Hollywood tripe about global warming with the fact that he owns seven airplanes; a fact that gives Harrison a carbon footprint bigger than Al Gore’s ego.  Congratulations to Jason Mattera.  It’s about time someone held Hollywood actors accountable for their hypocrisy.




ANIMALS: 16yr. old Girl, raped/beaten ’til her ear bled by 2 girls & 3 boys who recorded attack on cell phone

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

More rapes and beatings by sons and daughters of Obama.

These feral animals need to put down.

This report comes from the U.K. Daily Mail.

Was this covered by  the Amerian  Media?

Look at these feral animals.

Screen Shot 2013-11-05 at 10.19.56 AM

A teenage gang of two girls and three boys have been accused of raping and beating a 16-year-old girl so badly she broke bones in her face and bled from her ear.

The victim was allegedly set upon when she visited a friend’s house in Hollywood on Friday night.

Police claim she was raped by one of the accused, 19-year-old Jayvon Woolfork, while she was held down by Lanel Singleton, 18, and three minors – a 17-year-old male, 15-year-old female and a 14-year-old girl.

The victim claimed she was kicked, thrown down stairs and had her face smashed on concrete, breaking bones near both her eyes.

Hollywood Police told NBC 6 they were able to identify all five of the teenagers allegedly involved because one of the accused took video of the fight and sexual assault on their cell phone.

Woolfork and Singleton were jailed without bond when they appeared in court yesterday, dressed in jailhouse scrubs with their wrists handcuffed behind their backs, for the first hearing in their case.

According to the Sun Sentinel, Broward County Judge John Hurley said: ‘This 16-year-old woman, both of her eyes were closed from being beaten, she had blood coming from one of her ears.

‘The court is concerned for the safety of this 16-year-old alleged victim.’

Read more:


Criticizing Obama: Does it really get you blacklisted in Hollywood?

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Entertainment.

James Woods is spot on with is comments about HollyWeird.



LOS ANGELES –  This week, actor James Woods took to Twitter to criticize President Obama amid the government slimdown and also said he now expects to struggle to find work in left-leaning Los Angeles. So is Woods on target, or just paranoid?

According to Mell Flynn, President of the Hollywood Congress of Republicans, discrimination against Republicans in Hollywood indeed runs rampant.

“I have known quite a few people who were let go from a job after they made their political affiliation known. Maybe it was a coincidence, but I doubt it. This type of discrimination is hard to prove though, especially where actors are concerned,” she told FOX411. “They just won’t get hired or even called in to read for a part.”

Producer Gary Michael Walters noted that “outspokenness can definitely be held against someone’s career prospects” in the largely liberal land of entertainment, and another show business insider told us that a director friend won’t take on any conservative-type projects for fear of not getting work.

“I have a prominent actress friend who lives in holy terror of losing her position on a TV show if she is outed as a born-again Christian and conservative,” another source told us.

Early last year, Kelsey Grammer scooped a Golden Globe for his performance in the Starz series “Boss,” and at the after-party boasted to us that being a Republican was “easy” for him “because [he] was such a revolutionary” and refused to be told what to do. Yet several months later it seems Grammer had a change of heart after he was surprisingly snubbed for an Emmy nomination.

“I’m a declared out-of-the-closet Republican in Hollywood,” he told Jay Leno. “Do I believe it’s possible that some young person, young voting actor – or even older voting member for the Emmys – would sit there and go, ‘yeah, that’s a great performance but ooooooooh, I just hate everything he stands for?”

And not long after Obama’s first swoop into the White House, actress Angie Harmon told us that she was left with the “racist” label for vocalizing her disappointment in the Democratic leader, and claimed that she had been rejected for jobs over the years due to her right-of-center views.

“The Hollywood names who advocate acceptance are the first to shut the door on a conservative,” observed Angie Meyer Olszewski, who has worked in publicity for both entertainment and political sectors. “But Republicans are finding their voice. They’ve had enough.”

A couple of months ago, “Patridge Family” mom and proud conservative Shirley Jones told FOX411 that while “it’s pretty bad here” as “they’re all Democrats” she doesn’t feel as though going against the political grain hurt her career. “I didn’t care one bit about that stuff,” she said. “I do my thing my way, if you don’t like it then tough!”

And earlier this month, life-long liberal supporter Rob Schneider, 50, happily declared his political party switch, citing the mess that the State of California is in, and how the Democratic majority is no longer serving the people.

“Dozens of Republicans have come out of the closet recently with no repercussions,” insisted producer Mark Joseph, a self-proclaimed registered independent. “That wasn’t always the case. It’s a healthy thing. We need more diversity in all areas in Hollywood if we’re going to better serve our consumers.”

Some industry experts have even gone as far as to say that the so-called GOP discrimination is pretty much a myth.

Last year, the former head of MGM and powerful Hollywood Republican, and former member of President Reagan’s Advisory Committee, Harry Sloan wrote in the Hollywood Reporter that he has never actually heard of GOP bias actually happening.

But one “Clueless” star Stacey Dash came under enormous attack in the Twitterverse last year when she dared endorse GOP candidate Mitt Romney for the Presidency – yet she told us just weeks ago that not a single person has challenged her political views to her face, and work is going great in terms of developing her own television projects, mobile apps and inking a book deal.

And then there’s the likes of Gary Sinise, a devout GOP-er who is deemed one of the most respected TV actors as a star on the long-running “CSI: NY,” as well as Patricia Heaton who has managed to keep her job on the ABC sitcom “The Middle.” And of course there’s Clint Eastwood, a conservative Republican who has not only held a position in public office for his party but yelled at a chair during the Republican National Convention last year – yes, he is still working and yes, he is still pretty celebrated.

“The growth of alternative media has encouraged more stars like Stacey Dash and James Woods to be open about their beliefs,” added Dan Gainor, VP of Business and Culture at the Media Research Center. “They know the risks [of possible work ramifications] but take them bravely.”


School Video: I Pledge to Serve Obama

1 Comment

This is from MinuteMan News.

This is straight out of the Nazis and Communist playbooks indoctrinate the children.

 Do you notice the resemblance of Hitlers indoctrination and the tactics used by the

Obama regime?


A Wisconsin school district is apologizing after middle school students were shown a video that featured Hollywood celebrities pledging to be a servant to President Obama.

“I pledge to be a servant to our president,” Demi Moore said in the “I Pledge,” video shown Wednesday at Hudson Middle School.

The video was part of a number of Peace One Day activities, an international event to build peace awareness. The students were also invited to make their own pledges after viewing the video.

But there was a big problem – the video conveyed the idea that Americans should serve the presidency instead of our elected officials serving the citizens, Fox9 News in Minneapolis reported.

“I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama,” Red Hot Chili Peppers singer Anthony Kiedis said.

Those statements led the middle school and the Hudson School District to issue apologies.

“We apologize for any part of the video that was offensive to students, their families and staff,” Principal Dan Koch said in a prepared statement. “We respect the Office of the President of the United States but like all of our other elected officials – that office serves each of us as well.”

The principal also made an announcement to students explaining why the video was inappropriate.

Read More:


Leave a comment

This is from Patriot Update.

This is offered without comment.


It would hard to find a more Alice-in-Wonderland-like phenomenon than liberal logic. A more apt description of liberal logic is liberal lunacy, and examples of this phenomenon abound.   For example, liberals like to call themselves “progressives.”  The Free dictionary defines progressivism as “Promoting progress toward better conditions…”  If Barack Obama and crowd are progressives, then the concept of “better conditions” means higher unemployment, more Americans on welfare, an insurmountable national debt, weakness in foreign relations, and domestic policies that hurt the very people they were enacted to help. These things are not progress.  They are lunacy—liberal lunacy.

Examples of liberal lunacy abound.  For example, liberals in Hollywood make gratuitously violent movies while decrying the amount of violence in American society.  They turn out a steady supply of shoot-‘em-up movies while supporting the anti-gun lobby and trying to overturn the Second Amendment.  What is even worse is that these vacuous Hollywood hypocrites don’t even see the irony in their say-one-thing-but-do-another approach to life.  This is liberal lunacy.

Only liberals would hold $25,000 a plate fund raisers where they listen to leftwing candidates who arrive in limos pontificate about poor Americans who don’t have enough to eat.  Only liberals would demand millions for making pointless, mindless movies that have the intellectual depth of a sheet of paper while speaking out at every opportunity on the evils of greed in America.  Only liberals would support candidates who denounce corporate greed and then, once elected, spend the rest of their careers pandering to people who greedily lust after every dime they can pilfer from the federal treasury.  What is even worse is that while complaining about the “greed” of hardworking taxpayers who question the forced redistribution of wealth, liberals give substantially less to charity than do conservatives and Christians.  Not only can liberals glibly take such contradictory stands, they can do so with a straight face and no sense of embarrassment, much less shame.  This is liberal lunacy.

Only a liberal would have the audacity to accuse America of being a racist nation that discriminates against blacks when we have a black president, black attorney general, and 18 percent of the federal workforce is black, while only 12 percent of the population is black.  While I am on the subject of race, only a white liberal would have the blatant audacity to tell a black conservative he isn’t “black enough.” Further, only a liberal would be so presumptuous as to tell a black conservative he is not really black because he does not toe the line of liberal orthodoxy.  This is liberal lunacy.

Only a liberal would call the murder of unarmed military personnel by a Muslim fanatic “workplace violence” instead of what it is: an act of terrorism.  Only a liberal would respond to terrorist bombings that kill and maim countless Americans by worrying that there might be a backlash against Muslims.  Only a liberal—Barack Obama for example—would make such an absurd statement as: “…Islam has always been a part of America’s history.”  Oh really Mr. President?  Which one of our Founders was a Muslim? Which signer of the Declaration was a Muslim?  Which author of the Constitution was a Muslim?  How many companies of soldiers under George Washington were made up of Muslims?  Where were the Muslims during World War II (Oops, Mr. President—they supported Adolph Hitler).  Where were the Muslims during the Civil Rights battles against Jim Crow (those were Jews walking with Dr. King at Selma, not Muslims)? This is liberal lunacy.

Only a liberal would chastise the people who pay 86 percent of all taxes in America for being unwilling to pay their “fair share” while coddling and pandering to people who pay no taxes.  Only a liberal would oppose requiring an ID to vote but support requiring an ID to buy cigarettes or alcohol.  Only a liberal politician—one like Barack Obama—would extol the virtues of public education while sending his children to private schools and see no contradiction in his actions.  This is liberal lunacy.

Liberal lunacy is a fact of life in America because those who are responsible for calling liberals on their hypocritical words and actions are liberals themselves.  The mainstream media—those entrusted with the responsibility for pointing out the hypocrisy, lies, and falsehoods of politicians—have not just abdicated, they have joined forces with those they should be guarding the public against. This is the ultimate in liberal lunacy.


Henry Winkler: Guns and Bullets Aren’t Guilty in Navy Shipyard Deaths

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Henry Winkler a voice of the loony left.

Myself I am like others am responsible gun owner.

Henry Please shut up and go away our fifteen minutes of fame are over.

There’s been another shooting and Hollywood actors are coming out to push for  more gun control legislation, in this case Henry Winkler. So far, reports are  that 12 people are dead, about the same number that are killed in cities like  Chicago and Washington DC about every two weeks.

Henry Winkler of FonzieHappy Days” fame sent out his thoughts on the Navy  Yard shooting calling for more gun control:

ANOTHER shooting in WASH D.C. PLEASE America do nothing to promote gun  control because that’s how we roll until we have all shot each  other.

Here’s the problem. The guns used in the crime did not shoot themselves.  There are hundreds of millions of guns in America and billions of rounds of  ammunition. Guns and ammo do not shoot themselves in the same way that water  does not drown people or cars kill people in accidents.

Timothy McVeigh used kerosene and fertilizer to kill 169 people. Islamic  terrorists used three airplanes to murder 3000 people.

Kerosene, fertilizer, and airplanes are legal to own. Airplanes fly millions  of passengers around the world every year. Fuel oil and fertilizer are used on a  daily basis. Evil people use legal things in immoral and illegal ways. It’s been  that way since Cain killed Abel.

Henry, the thing of it is, we all don’t shoot one another. The vast majority  of Americans are law abiding citizens who have never and will never kill anyone  with their weapons.

President Obama is correct that the PERSON or PERSONS who “carried out this  cowardly act [will be] held responsible.” The guns and ammo will not be on trial  or punished if the people who shot and killed innocent people are punished


The Chilling History of How Hollywood Helped Hitler (Exclusive)

1 Comment

This is from The Hollywood Reporter.

Even is the area of The Golden Age of Hollywood it was filled by

Leftist Loons and Nazi sympathizers.

The more things change they stay the same in Hollyweird.

2013 Issue 27: How Hollywood Helped HitlerIn devastating detail, an excerpt from a controversial new book reveals how the big studios, desperate to protect German business, let Nazis censor scripts, remove credits from Jews, get movies stopped and even force one MGM executive to divorce his Jewish wife.

This story first appeared in the Aug. 9 issue of The Hollywood Reportermagazine.

The 1930s are celebrated as one of Hollywood’s golden ages, but in an exclusive excerpt from his controversial new book, The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler (Harvard University Press, on sale Sept. 9), Harvard post-doctoral fellow Ben Urwand uncovers a darker side to Hollywood’s past.

Drawing on a wealth of archival documents in the U.S. and Germany, he reveals the shocking extent to which Hollywood cooperated and collaborated with the Nazis during the decade leading up to World War II to protect its business.

Indeed, “collaboration” (and its German translation, Zusammenarbeit) is a word that appears regularly in the correspondence between studio officials and the Nazis. Although the word is fraught with meaning to modern ears, its everyday use at the time underscored the eagerness of both sides to smooth away their differences to preserve commerce.

PHOTOS: Hitler’s Hollywood: The Films Nazis Loved and Hated

The Nazis threatened to exclude American movies — more than 250 played in Germany after Hitler took power in 1933 — unless the studios cooperated. Before World War I, the German market had been the world’s second largest, and even though it had shrunk during the Great Depression, the studios believed it would bounce back and worried that if they left, they would never be able to return.

Beginning with wholesale changes made to Universal’s 1930 release All Quiet on the Western Front, Hollywood regularly ran scripts and finished movies by German officials for approval. When they objected to scenes or dialogue they thought made Germany look bad, criticized the Nazis or dwelled on the mistreatment of Jews, the studios would accommodate them — and make cuts in the American versions as well as those shown elsewhere in the world.

It was not only scenes: Nazi pressure managed to kill whole projects critical of the rise of AdolfHitler. Indeed, Hollywood would not make an important anti-Nazi film until 1940. Hitler was obsessed with the propaganda power of film, and the Nazis actively promoted American movies like 1937’s Captains Courageous that they thought showcased Aryan values.

Historians have long known about American companies such as IBM and General Motors that did business in Germany into the late 1930s, but the cultural power of movies — their ability to shape what people think — makes Hollywood’s cooperation with the Nazis a particularly important and chilling moment in history. — Andy Lewis  

VIDEO: Author Ben Urwand Talks ‘Hollywood and Hitler’

‘Victory Is Ours’

On Friday, Dec. 5, 1930, a crowd of Nazis in Berlin seized on an unusual target: the Hollywood movieAll Quiet on the Western Front. Recognized in most countries as a document of the horrors of the First World War, in Germany it was seen as a painful and offensive reenactment of the German defeat.

The Nazis, who had recently increased their representation in the Reichstag from 12 to 107 seats, took advantage of the national indignation toward All Quiet on the Western Front. They purchased about 300 tickets for the first public screening, and as they watched the German troops retreat from the French, they shouted: “German soldiers had courage. It’s a disgrace that such an insulting film was made in America!” Because of the disruptions, the projectionist was forced to switch off the film. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels gave a speech from the front row of the balcony in which he claimed that the film was an attempt to destroy Germany’s image. His comrades threw stink bombs and released mice into the crowd. Everyone rushed for the exits, and the theater was placed under guard.

The Nazis’ actions met with significant popular approval. The situation came to a climax Dec. 11, when the highest censorship board in Germany convened to determine the fate of the film. After a long discussion, the chairman of the board issued a ban: Whereas the French soldiers went to their deaths quietly and bravely, the German soldiers howled and shrieked with fear. The film was not an honest representation of German defeat — of course the public had reacted disapprovingly. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, the picture offended a whole generation of Germans who had suffered through the War.

And so, six days after the protests in Berlin, All Quiet on the Western Front was removed from screens in Germany. “Victory is ours!” Goebbels’ newspaper proclaimed. “We have forced them to their knees!”

STORY: How Jack Warner Tried to Crush the Postwar German Film Industry (Book Excerpt)

In Hollywood, the president of Universal PicturesCarl Laemmle, was troubled by the controversy surrounding his picture. He was born in Germany, and he wanted All Quiet on the Western Front to be shown there. According to one representative, his company had “lost a fine potential business, for the film would have been a tremendous financial success in Germany if it could have run undisturbed.”

In August 1931, Laemmle came up with a heavily edited version of the movie that he was convinced would not offend the German Foreign Office. He made a trip to Europe to promote the new version. The Foreign Office soon agreed to support All Quiet on the Western Front for general screening in Germany, under one condition: Laemmle would have to tell Universal’s branches in the rest of the world to make the same cuts to all copies of the film. Late in the summer, Laemmle agreed to cooperate with the request.

As months passed, however, Laemmle, who was Jewish, grew worried about something much more important than the fate of his film. “I am almost certain,” he wrote in early 1932, “that [Adolf] Hitler’s rise to power … would be the signal for a general physical onslaught on many thousands of defenseless Jewish men, women and children.” He convinced American officials that he could provide for individual Jews, and by the time of his death in 1939, he had helped get at least 300 people out of Germany.

And yet at precisely the moment he was embarking on this crusade, his employees at Universal were following the orders of the German government. In the first few months of 1932, the Foreign Office discovered unedited versions of All Quiet on the Western Front playing in El Salvador and Spain. The company apologized. Afterward, there were no more complaints; Universal had made the requested cuts all around the world.

The following year, Laemmle made another concession to the Foreign Office: He postponed The Road Back, the sequel to All Quiet on the Western Front. His son, Carl Laemmle Jr., also agreed to change many pictures in Germany’s favor. “Naturally,” the Foreign Office noted, “Universal’s interest in collaboration [Zusammenarbeit] is not platonic but is motivated by the company’s concern for the well-being of its Berlin branch and for the German market.”

PHOTOS: Hitler’s Hollywood: The Films Nazis Loved and Hated

Throughout the 1930s, the term “collaboration” was used repeatedly to describe dealings that took place in Hollywood. Even studio heads adopted the term. An executive at RKO promised that whenever he made a film involving Germany, he would work “in close collaboration” with the local consul general. A Fox executive said the same. Even United Artists offered “the closest collaboration” if the German government did not punish the studio for the controversial 1930 air combat movie Hell’s Angels. According to the Foreign Office, “Every time that this collaboration was achieved, the parties involved found it to be both helpful and pleasant.”

All this was a result of the Nazis’ actions against All Quiet on the Western Front. Soon every studio started making deep concessions to the German government, and when Hitler came to power in January 1933, they dealt with his representatives directly.

The most important German representative in the whole arrangement was a diplomat named Georg Gyssling, who had been a Nazi since 1931. He became the German consul in Los Angeles in 1933, and he consciously set out to police the American film industry. His main strategy was to threaten the American studios with a section of the German film regulations known as “Article 15.” According to this law, if a company distributed an anti-German picture anywhere in the world, then all its movies could be banned in Germany. Article 15 proved to be a very effective way of regulating the American film industry as the Foreign Office, with its vast network of consulates and embassies, could easily detect whether an offensive picture was in circulation anywhere around the world.

The Mad Dog of Europe

In May 1933, a Hollywood screenwriter named Herman J. Mankiewicz‚ the man who would later write Citizen Kane, had a promising idea. He was aware of the treatment of the Jews in Germany and he thought, “Why not put it on the screen?” Very quickly, he penned a play entitled The Mad Dog of Europe, which he sent to his friend Sam Jaffe, a producer at RKO. Jaffe was so taken with the idea that he bought the rights and quit his job. Jaffe, who, like Mankiewicz, was Jewish, planned to assemble a great Hollywood cast and devote all his energies to a picture that would shake the entire world.

Of course, various forces had been put in place to prevent a picture like this from ever being made. First and foremost was Gyssling. Up to this point, he had only invoked Article 15 against pictures that disparaged the German army during the World War. The Mad Dog of Europe was infinitely more threatening: It attacked the present German regime.

Gyssling was unable to use Article 15 against The Mad Dog of Europe for the simple reason that the independent company producing the picture did not do business in Germany. He was left with only one option: Inform the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association of America (popularly known as the Hays Office), which regulated movie sex and violence for Hollywood, that if the movie were made then the Nazis might ban all American movies in Germany.

The Hays Office reacted quickly. Will Hays, the organization’s president, met with Jaffe and Mankiewicz. He accused them of selecting a “scarehead” situation for the picture, which, if made, might return them a tremendous profit while creating heavy losses for the industry. Jaffe and Mankiewicz said they would proceed despite any ban that Hays might attempt.

STORY: Competing Scholar Challenges Ben Urwand’s ‘The Collaboration’

Hays needed to adopt a different approach. He asked his representative, Joseph Breen, to reach out to the advisory council for the Anti-Defamation League in Los Angeles. The advisory council read the script and felt that the direct references to Hitler and Nazi Germany might provoke an anti-Semitic reaction in the United States. But “if modified so as to apparently have reference to a fictitious country, and if the propaganda elements … were made more subtle … the film would be a most effective means of arousing the general public to the major implications of Hitlerism.”

Even if the script were toned down, the Anti-Defamation League suspected that the Hays Office would object to the film because the major Hollywood studios were still doing business in Germany. Nobody in the ADL group knew exactly how much business was being done. Some imagined that Germany was banning films starring Jewish actors; others thought that Germany was banning entire “companies supposed to be controlled by Jews.” Nobody had the slightest idea that the Nazis were actually facilitating the distribution of American movies in Germany.

The Anti-Defamation League decided to carry out a test: It asked a well-known screenwriter to prepare an outline of The Mad Dog of Europe that contained none of the obvious objections. This scriptwriter then submitted the outline to three different agents, and without any hesitation, they all told him the same thing: “It was no use submitting any story along this line as the major studios had put ‘thumbs down’ on any films of this kind.”

Eventually, Jaffe gave up his plans and sold the rights to The Mad Dog of Europe to well-known agentAl Rosen. And when the Hays Office urged Rosen to abandon the picture, Rosen accused the Hays Office of malicious interference and issued a remarkable statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency claiming “on good authority” that Nazi officials were trying to stop the picture. He scoffed at the idea that the picture would provoke further anti-Semitism.

Over the next seven months — from November 1933 to June 1934 — Rosen continued to work on the film, but he failed to convince Hollywood executives to pour money into the project. Louis B. Mayer told him that no picture would be made: “We have interests in Germany; I represent the picture industry here in Hollywood; we have exchanges there; we have terrific income in Germany and, as far as I am concerned, this picture will never be made.”

And so The Mad Dog of Europe was never turned into a motion picture. The episode turned out to be the most important moment in all of Hollywood’s dealings with Nazi Germany. It occurred in the first year of Hitler’s rise to power, and it defined the limits of American movies for the remainder of the decade.


In 1936, the studios started to encounter major censorship difficulties in Germany. Nazi censors rejected dozens of American films, sometimes giving vague reasons, sometimes giving no reasons at all. The smaller companies had all left Germany by this point, and only the three largest companies — MGM, Paramount and 20th Century Fox — remained. By the middle of the year, these three companies had managed to have a combined total of only eight pictures accepted by the censors, when they really needed 10 or 12 each just to break even.

The studios were faced with a difficult decision: continue doing business in Germany under unfavorable conditions or leave Germany and turn the Nazis into the greatest screen villains of all time. On July 22, MGM announced that it would bow out of Germany if the other two remaining companies, Paramount and 20th Century Fox, would do the same.

Paramount and Fox said no. Even though they were not making any money in Germany (Paramount announced a net loss of $580 for 1936), they still considered the German market to be a valuable investment. They had been there for years. Despite the difficult business conditions, their movies were still extremely popular. If they remained in Germany a while longer, their investment might once again yield excellent profits. If they left they might never be permitted to return.

Over the next few years, the studios actively cultivated personal contacts with prominent Nazis. In 1937, Paramount chose a new manager for its German branch: Paul Thiefes, a member of the Nazi Party. The head of MGM in Germany, Frits Strengholt, divorced his Jewish wife at the request of the Propaganda Ministry. She ended up in a concentration camp.

The studios also adopted new tactics. When Give Us This Night and The General Died at Dawn were banned, Paramount wrote to the Propaganda Ministry and speculated on what was objectionable in each case. Give Us This Night was scored by a Jewish composer, so the studio offered to dub in music by a German composer instead. The General Died at Dawn had been directed by Lewis Milestone,who had also directed All Quiet on the Western Front, so the studio offered to slash his name from the credits.

In January 1938, the Berlin branch of 20th Century Fox sent a letter directly to Hitler’s office: “We would be very grateful if you could provide us with a note from the Führer in which he expresses his opinion of the value and effect of American films in Germany. We ask you for your kind support in this matter, and we would be grateful if you could just send us a brief notification of whether our request will be granted by the Führer. Heil Hitler!” Four days later, 20th Century Fox received a reply: “The Führer has heretofore refused in principle to provide these kinds of judgments.”

In April 1936, Laemmle lost control of Universal Pictures to the American financier and sportsmanJohn Cheever Cowdin, who revived All Quiet on the Western Front sequel The Road Back. “When this story originally came in four or five years ago,” a Universal employee explained to the Hays Office, “we were loath to produce … solely due to the jeopardy in which its production would have placed our German business. … [S]ince then the situation with regard to the American Film Industry has completely changed and we are now ready and anxious to produce this story.”

Despite this proclamation, Universal had not lost interest in Germany. In February 1937, Cowdin traveled to Berlin, and according to U.S. ambassador William E. Dodd, he made an “unusual offer” to the Nazis. “The company in question was previously controlled by Jewish interests but after recent reorganization, it is understood that it is now non-Jewish,” wrote Dodd, “[and after] discussions with government officials … a plan was considered whereby, probably in collaboration with German interests, his company might re-enter the German market.”

On April 1, 1937, Gyssling made his boldest move yet. He sent letters to about 60 people involved inThe Road Back — the director, the cast, even the wardrobe man — and he warned them that any films in which they participated in the future might be banned in Germany. The move created an uproar. Gyssling had directly threatened American film workers for their activities on home soil. He had used the U.S. Postal Service to frighten and intimidate individuals. Universal told everyone to keep the matter a secret, but the news leaked out. Several actors sought out legal advice; complaints were lodged with the State Department. One member of the Hays Office hoped that Gyssling would finally be expelled “on account of his viciousness.”

STORY: The Berlin Hotel Where Hollywood Sleeps — and Hitler Did Too

The matter was considered at the highest level. A representative of the secretary of state met with the counselor of the German embassy and pointed out that such actions did not fall within the proper functions of a consular officer. He did not want to lodge an official complaint; he simply asked the counselor to bring the matter up with the German government.

In the meantime, Universal Pictures made 21 cuts to The Road Back. By this stage, there was hardly anything in the film to which the ambassador could object. So many scenes had been cut out that the plot barely made any sense. The ending, which had criticized the rise of militarism in Germany, now criticized the rise of militarism all around the world. But the Nazis would not allow the company back into Germany.

For Gyssling, the news was less bleak. The German Foreign Office sent a brief, unapologetic letter to the State Department to explain that the consul in Los Angeles had been instructed not to issue future warnings to American citizens. As a result, the State Department considered the matter closed.

In all of these dealings with the Hollywood studios, Gyssling was doing something very strategic. He was objecting to a series of films about the World War when his real target lay elsewhere. Ever since he had heard about The Mad Dog of Europe, he had understood that Hollywood was capable of producing a much more damaging type of film from his perspective: a film that attacked Nazi Germany. His reaction to The Road Back was carefully calculated. He was focusing his energies on the films set in the past in an attempt to prevent the studios from moving into the present.

In April 1937, the final volume of Erich Maria Remarque‘s trilogy, Three Comrades, which was prime Hollywood material, was published in the United States. Whereas All Quiet on the Western Front had been about the World War and The Road Back had been about its aftermath, Three Comrades was set in the late 1920s, when the Nazis were emerging as a significant political force. The MGM producer Joseph L. Mankiewicz (brother of Herman) hired none other than F. Scott Fitzgerald, who wrote a script that mounted a powerful attack on the rise of Nazism in Germany.

When the Hays Office’s Breen read the new script, he panicked. He had just received a fourth warning from Gyssling about Three Comrades, and he knew exactly what the German consul was capable of. He wrote to Mayer in the strongest possible terms: “This screen adaptation suggests to us enormous difficulty from the standpoint of your company’s distribution business in Germany. … [and] may result in considerable difficulty in Europe for other American producing organizations.”

Despite Breen’s concerns, the shooting of Three Comrades went ahead. Screenwriter Budd Schulberg recalled MGM screened the movie for Gyssling: “There was some films that Louis B. Mayer of MGM would actually run … with the Nazi German consul and was willing to take out the things that the consul, that the Nazi, objected to.” Although Breen did not keep a record of the meeting between Mayer and Gyssling, he was soon in possession of something else: a list of changes that needed to be made to the film. It is very unlikely that Breen came up with the list himself, for he had his own separate set of suggestions (relating to sex, foul language, etc.). In all likelihood this secret document, which contained 10 unusual changes, was the list that Mayer compiled with Gyssling at the end of their screening of Three Comrades.

STORY: Showtime’s ‘The Vatican’ Casts Its Pope: ‘Downfall’s’ Hitler

Breen went through the list in a meeting with several MGM executives. The film needed to be set somewhat earlier, in the two-year period immediately following the end of the World War. “Thus, we will get away from any possible suggestion that we are dealing with Nazi violence or terrorism.” He read out the scenes that needed to be cut, and he pointed out that these cuts could be made without interfering with the romantic plot at the center of the picture. The MGM executives agreed. After all the changes had been made, Three Comrades neither attacked the Nazis nor mentioned the Jews. The picture had been completely sanitized.

From Gyssling’s perspective, the removal of all the offensive elements of Three Comrades was the true benefit of his behavior from the previous year. He had reacted so dramatically to the second film in the trilogy that he had now managed to get his way on the third. And this was no small feat, forThree Comrades would have been the first explicitly anti-Nazi film by an American studio. At this critical historical moment, when a major Hollywood production could have alerted the world to what was going on in Germany, the director did not have the final cut; the Nazis did.

‘Throw Us Out’

The collaboration between Hollywood and the Nazis lasted well into 1940. Though Warner Bros. released Confessions of a Nazi Spy in 1939, this B-picture had no effect on the studios still operating in Germany. MGM, Paramount and 20th Century Fox kept doing business with the Nazis, and MGM even donated 11 of its films to help with the German war relief effort after the Nazis invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.

As the war continued, the studios found it virtually impossible to distribute their pictures in England and France, two of their largest sources of foreign revenue. In this context, they were less concerned with the relatively minor German market. MGM soon embarked on its first anti-Nazi picture The Mortal Storm, and 20th Century Fox began work on Four Sons. The Nazis responded by invoking Article 15 and by September 1940, both had been expelled from German-occupied territory.

In the year that followed, the studios released only a handful of anti-Nazi movies because of another, very different political force: the American isolationists. The isolationists accused Hollywood of making propaganda designed to draw the United States into the European war, and in the fall of 1941, Congress investigated this charge in a series of hearings. The most dramatic moment came when the head of 20th Century Fox, Darryl F. Zanuck, gave a rousing defense of Hollywood: “I look back and recall pictures so strong and powerful that they sold the American way of life, not only to America but to the entire world. They sold it so strongly that when dictators took over Italy and Germany, what did Hitler and his flunky, Mussolini, do? The first thing they did was to ban our pictures, throw us out. They wanted no part of the American way of life.”

In the thunderous applause that followed, no one pointed out that Zanuck’s own studio had been doing business with the Nazis just the previous year.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: