At one time, long before your author entered this world, Hollywood was known as a hodgepodge of different types varying on their personal political thought. In 1947 Congress’s House On Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began an investigation looking into the leanings of film actors and producers who were deemed to be supporting the American Communist Party. Congress called such Hollywood notables as future President and then head of the Screen Actors Guild Union Ronald Reagan, Walt Disney and Gary Cooper to give their assessment of the then current state of Hollywood.

At the end of the day a group known as the Hollywood Ten, which consisted primarily of directors and screenwriters, were deemed undesirable and eventually blacklisted. Others who protested the Committee, most notably the actor Humphrey Bogart, were marked as a sympathizer.

Before and after the Hollywood Ten investigation the film industry was literally controlled by Conservatives. Producers such as Jack Warner of Warner Brothers fame and Sam Goldwyn co-owner of MGM Studios, were hard right in their political beliefs.

The actions against the Hollywood Ten led by the HUAC have since been referred to as senseless. Often times this investigation has been labeled as being part of the ‘McCarthyism’ era, which is a complete falsehood since at the time of the trial Senator Joe McCarthy was just beginning his first Senate term.

Unlike today, the 1940s-50s actors, actresses, producers and writers who may have had controversial political beliefs weren’t publicly known until events such as Hollywood Ten case. In other words these figures did not advertise such or at least not inform the masses of their thought. While they may have had such sympathies they certainly would not venture to the former USSR and embrace communist society. They were not so bold.

This week your author read reports on actor Danny Glover and his acceptance of $18 million from Venezuela President Hugo Chavez. Your author has previously discussed President Chavez and how the future of his country will be a bleak one. The leader, elected by a criticized vote, has already nationalized their fuel industry and has made overtures to do the same with banking. In the end, as it always happens, this will fail and fail miserably but not before Chavez has safely made off with some of the loot. This has always been the scenario when hard left Socialist policies are implemented.

Chavez gave Glover the funding to produce a movie about the Venezuelan born Latin American independence leader Simon Bolivar. The freedom fighter or ‘El Libertador’ as he was known, who died in 1830, envisioned an American Revolutionary style war for Latin America. The primary enemy was Spain and their colonization of South America. A series of battles would become collectively known as the ‘Bolivar Wars’ and the country of Bolivia was named after him, one of the few to have an actual country named for their legacy. Bolivia was said to have espoused individual freedom above all else.

Your author must wonder if Chavez sees himself in the same light as Bolivar. This in itself would walk inline with many hard left Socialist and Communist leaders who build their legacy long before they are out of office. This cult of personality description is usually reserved for those who have passed away.

Latin American has had a long flirtation with hard left politics and multiple South and Central American countries have attempted to embrace such thought only to see it turn into chaos, civil war and poverty. Bolivar, much like Chavez, saw various republic countries coming together and having himself as their president. At the end of the day Bolivar was ousted.

Why would Glover accept such an offer? In no short order much of it stems from 2006 when Chavez was given center stage at the United Nations General Assembly and referred to President Bush as the devil. Other rogue leaders gave a loud applause in approval. Chavez is currently making plans to edit his country’s constitution in order to campaign again in 2012. His critics and Venezuelan dissidents describe his government as a ‘gigantic fraud’, if and when the price oil depreciates Chavez’s time will probably conclude as this has been a driving factor in his rule.

Anyone with scant knowledge of political science and economics knows that Chavez’s reign will throw Venezuela back several decades. We now know Glover’s reasons why and the fact that someone else is flipping the bill.

Then this week we were reminded by the big media machine of the on air catfight between Rosie O’Donnell and Elizabeth Hasselbeck on the television talk show The View. Your author wouldn’t even acknowledge this event except for O’Donnell’s previous statements that border on insanity.

In 1999, before her debut on The View, O’Donnell previously stated the following relating to her pro gun control philosophy, "You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison". Then in 2000 O’Donnell’s personal bodyguard applied for a concealed weapons permit in Connecticut.

Just like a typical self-professed Liberal, O’Donnell believes in freedom of religion but not when it comes to Christianity. Following the Supreme Court decision that overruled the legality of partial birth abortion, O’Donnell said the following, "You know what concerns me? How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic?" Prior to this proclamation, in November 2006, O’Donnell expressed hypersensitivity for gays when on the television program Live With Regis And Kelly, the show’s host Kelly Ripa protested having the hand of co-host Clay Aiken placed over her mouth. Ripa explained that she had not known where his hand had been. O’Donnell suggested it was a homophobic gesture.

Following the events surrounding Iran’s capture of British Royal Naval personnel in March of this year, O’Donnell compared the event to the Gulf of Tonkin, telling viewers to "google it!". O’Donnell would later further explain that the British officers purposely allowed themselves to be taken hostage in order to justify a war with Iran. O’Donnell also showed contempt of the US Military personnel when in a May 2007 episode of The View she expressed her ‘love’ for the military but later said the following, "655,000 Iraqi civilians dead. Who are the terrorists? If you were in Iraq and another country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?" She certainly didn’t imply that the US Military were terrorists but she used the word enough in her discussion that would make one wonder.

Finally to add further insult, regarding Tower 7 of the World Trade Center that collapsed during the 9-11 attacks, she stated the following, "I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7 — building 7, which collapsed in on itself — it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade Center 1 and 2 got hit by planes — 7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible. To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school — [the collapse] defies reason".

Hollywood is allowed to act foolish. They are often a part of the elite rich class-the exact wealth achievement obtained by others they demonize. They don’t shop at Wal-Mart, therefore that business is evil too and usually live safely behind mansion like compounds. Many in the field of the film and television industry are aging baby boomers so desperately wanting to make the rest of us believe that their time in the 1960s should be relived. It isn’t so much that your author spats at the 1960s, the Age of Aquarius and protest, just that it appears to have accomplished very little and filled with many pop culture icons made of paper. Although many who were politically active in that era would like one to believe that something of substance was achieved. Others such as O’Donnell push an agenda that is often littered with hypocrisy and lies, which your author provided evidence of such. Additionally individuals such as O’Donnell seem desperately obsessed with their own smug popularity but basically not producing anything of tangible substance. Either way Hollywood is best left to the big screen and television, sparing them entry into political thought, preventing an embarrassment and removing all doubt about their ignorance.