web analytics
May 27, 2016 / 19 Iyar, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘movie’

The Real Reason They’re Digging Up Arafat (Satire)

Wednesday, November 28th, 2012

The news reports about why they are digging up Yasser Arafat are all lies! Read the below and you will learn the real reason the murderer is being exhumed today.

Last June a Swiss lab ran radioisotope tests on his the deceased mass murderer.

The Lab found “very small” quantities of polonium, an isotope that is naturally present in the environment. The quantities were higher than one would normally find in the environment, especially in Arafat’s underwear and hospital clothing ( I am not making this part up).

Suha Arafat, the despot’s widow and former “kissin cousin” of Hilary Clinton, called for an autopsy in the wake of the lab’s findings. She did not explain why she waited nearly eight years to have the belongings tested, nor did she explain why she doesn’t just release the report of the French doctors who treated him during his final days.

The fact is the polonium on Arafat’s “tighty whiteys” is an elaborate hoax. Polonium has a half-life of 138 days, which means every four-and-a-half months (give or take a day or two) only half of the radioactive substance would remains. The amount found on Arafat’s gown and boxers, eight years after his death translates to levels that would have infected his doctors and wife during his last days. In other words the polonium was added more recently than eight years ago.

The months before he died news reports showed Arafat looking frail and sickly. The rumors at the time ranged from Colitis to Cancer. His immediate cause of death was a massive brain hemorrhage according to the French doctors. After his death the rumors were that he died of AIDS.  We don’t know because Suha Arafat and the Palestinian Government have suppressed the actual medical reports.

Now if they reached into the gates of hell to dig up Arafat a month ago I might have thought they were doing it so he could vote for president, most probably in Chicago. But they are digging him up now

Which means the question still remains, why are they really digging up ole’ Yasser? There are only  four possibilities left:

  1. Its a set up—the Swiss lab will find that the dead terrorist was poisoned with polonium, and ignore the fact that the half-life of the substance makes it impossible.
  2. Ringo Starr is making a movie and wants to use the corpse as a stunt double.
  3. The cash poor Palestinian Authority is going to use Arafat’s body and make a movie, like “Weekend at Bernie’s.” That movie made over $30 million in 1989. Abbas believes a madcap romp with the always fun mass-murderer will make a blooming fortune in the Arab world. None of that money would be traceable, so the PA leadership would be able to steal all they want without any consequences. Just like they do now with foreign aid.
  4. Comedian Jeff Dunham is growing tired of Achmed. The PA intends to sell the body to Dunham and he will turn it into an new character: Yasser the Dead Terrorist.

Which ever way the Palestinian Authority goes, I can guarantee you one thing, lies will be told about Israel and the mainstream media will reprint them as if they were of divine origin.

Originally published at Yid With Lid.

Jeff Dunetz

The Innocence of Obama

Sunday, October 28th, 2012

Ten years ago most left-thinking liberals were constantly worried about the erosion of civil liberties under the War on Terror though they could rarely name an instance where an American citizen had actually experienced such an erosion.

This was after all before the days when naked scanners and drone strikes had entered the vocabulary and the best they could do was to haul out Jose Padilla, aka Abdullah al-Muhajir, ACLU’s choirboy of the month, a Brooklyn-born convert to Islam who was being held in jail for no reason at all except aiding terrorists and plotting to build a dirty bomb.

Ten years later the lefty civil liberties types were proven right. The War on Terror did erode our civil liberties and America’s first political prisoner in generations has spent a month in jail for making an inconvenient movie at an inconvenient time.

When Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the Navy SEALS who died fighting in Benghazi, met with Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State assured him that, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.” And they got him, officially on charges of violating parole, unofficially on charges of violently offending violent Muslims.

The woman whose policy had overthrown the Libyan government and then placed a barely defended consulate in the middle of a city of Jihadists, did not promise the grieving father that his son’s killers would pay. She promised him that the man who offended his son’s killers would pay. Not only would his son be the first casualty of that appeasement policy, but the Constitution that his son had sworn to support and defend would be the second casualty.

Mark Basseley Youssef is not the first filmmaker sent to prison by a Democrat in the White House for making the wrong kind of movie and interfering with his foreign policy. That would be Robert Goldstein who made the The Spirit of ’76, a movie about the American Revolution, at a time when Woodrow Wilson was trying to get Americans deeper into World War I.

Wilson’s Justice Department directed Chicago Police Deputy Superintendent Metellus Lucullus Cicero Funkhouser to confiscate The Spirit of ’76 and Goldstein spent three years in prison and eventually died in a Nazi concentration camp. Both Youssef and Goldstein made two bad movies that were politically inconvenient. The Spirit of ’76 was not welcome in 1917 and the origin of Muslim violence is not an appropriate topic for 2012. “History is history and fact is fact”, Judge Bledsoe conceded and went ahead with his ruling anyway.

Goldstein’s Federal trial took place in the Southern District of California. Mark Basseley Youssef’s trial will take place in the Central District of California. Goldstein was convicted of creating a movie was calculated to arouse antagonism and enmity. That is the unofficial charge that has been brought against Youssef. Goldstein was convicted of reminding Americans of the origin of their country and Youssef is guilty of reminding them of the origin of Islam.

The strange confluence of using Chicago politics and California Federal courtrooms to cover up the nakedness of a progressive president’s policies has a certain resonance less than one hundred years later. Youssef and his video trailer made a convenient scapegoat so that progressive politicians could avoid talking about the collapse of Libya into roving bands of Islamist militias and the triumph of Al Qaeda in North Africa.

After Obama had denounced Youssef in every forum from 60 Minutes to the United Nations to Pakistani TV, he was arrested, not to protect the Innocence of Muslims, but to protect the Innocence of Obama.

Blaming the Innocence of Muslims briefly silenced the more dangerous questions about what had gone wrong in Benghazi and the even more dangerous questions about what had gone wrong with the Arab Spring. Youssef, like Goldstein, was a foreigner, and an excellent choice as a scapegoat. And for weeks people focused on Youssef and his many aliases, and not on the question of why Americans died in Benghazi.

Americans died in Benghazi for the same reason that American hostages had been taken in Iran and for the same reason that Leon Klinghoffer had been murdered on the Achille Lauro and US Marines had died in Beirut. They died because their government had appeased Muslims, had given their terrorist groups hope that they could achieve their aims if they killed enough people, had saved them at the moment of their greatest weakness and had elevated them to power.

Daniel Greenfield

Massacring the Truth

Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

The so-called “Jenin Massacre” of 2002 — a massacre that never happened — is emblematic of the way the truth is violated, over and over in this conflict.

I’ve written about this several times. I discussed Palestinian filmmaker Mohammad Bakri, and his “Jenin, Jenin,” an effective propaganda piece full of false accusations and made-up atrocities (including the bombing of a hospital wing that never existed). I wrote about the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by slandered IDF soldiers. I drew attention to biased journalist Philip Reeves, now a respected correspondent for NPR, who wrote some of the earliest reports from the site, suggesting that “hundreds of corpses” were buried in the rubble.

Dr. David Zangen, a doctor who works at Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem, was an eyewitness. As a reserve medical officer, he was present during the nine days of the  battle. He was interviewed recently by the IDF blog:

During the operation, we made a point to leave the hospital in Jenin unharmed so that injured people would be able to receive medical treatment. Whenever we passed by it snipers on the roof shot at us, but we didn’t fire a single bullet back at them.

Despite that, the people who were there at the time told the media that we killed 16,000 people — even though there were only 54 casualties — and that we shut off the hospital’s electricity. This lie drew a lot of harsh criticism from international organizations and news agencies.

Dr. Zangen wrote an article a few years ago called “Seven Lies about Jenin” in which he gives more details about what was in fact a massacre, not of Arabs, but of the truth.

The most shocking aspect of the affair, for me, was the cynical way in which Bakri and others were comfortable with inverting reality for ideological reasons. Bakri himself admitted that  many “details” were not exactly correct (a massive understatement), but that he served a higher truth.

And here is how Dr. Zangen, who was present at the scene (as Bakri, of course, was not) was treated when he tried to speak out:

A few months after the operation, Mohammed Bakri was about to release the movie ‘Jenin Jenin’, which projected many lies. A member of an Israeli bereaved family called me and asked me to try talk to a cinema manager in Jerusalem who was about to screen the film, and ask him to reconsider.

The manager called me and invited me to watch the film and give her my personal opinion. I came to the cinema and watched the movie, which was filled with lies. She still decided to screen the film, but invited me to stay and speak when the movie was over. I agreed. When I arrived, Mohammed Bakri was on stage and telling the audience that the reason he created the film was to show both sides of the conflict in order to promote peace.

Then I got up on the stage, told him and the audience who I was, and told him that the things he put in his movie never happened. The audience got upset, yelled at me that I was a child murderer and took the microphone from my hands. It was a tough moment for me. That’s why whenever I can, I fight to spread the truth.

Visit FresnoZionism.org.

Vic Rosenthal

Atlas Shrugged II: The Plot Thickens

Sunday, October 14th, 2012

Speaking for myself, I can’t wait to see John Galt’s 100-page soliloquy on screen, a pleasure that should be heading our way in, what? Twelve months? Eighteen?

Samantha Mathis as Dagny Taggart adds some gravitas to the second in the Atlas Shrugged series – Atlas Shrugged II: Either-Or – and director John Putch (the 2005 Poseidon AdventureThe Book of Love) keeps the story moving right along.  Some of the aesthetic choices are kind of weird (what were they thinking with the cut of that silver evening gown on Mathis?  And why the Boyz-in-the-Hood slow-mo with the Taggart Transcontinental board sauntering down the corridor?), but overall, the action is peppy and interest-keeping.

I had two strong impressions, however, watching the film yesterday.  One was quite simple: this should have been done as a TV miniseries.  Ending with cliffhangers is just tacky for theater fare.  (Changing out the lead actors between Parts is hard to overcome as well.  Hank Rearden was Grant Bowler but is now Jason Beghe – another change for the better, in my view, but it’s still jarring.  And where was Esai Morales when we needed him for Francisco D’Anconia in Part I?)

The writers (Duke Sandefur, Brian Patrick O’Toole, and Duncan Scott) tried to square the circle on the cliffhanger problem – Dagny pilots her plane into John Galt’s mountain redoubt, and Part II ends with his face in shadow as he pulls her out of the wreckage – by making it a story resolution previsaged in the movie’s opening sequence.  But, naahh, it’s still a cliffhanger, and it belongs in a cable miniseries.  I’m seeing six episodes and endless cult fascination.

The other problem is harder to solve.  The similarities between the U.S. federal government of 2012 and its fictional doppelganger in Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel are – who knew this would be weird – too obvious.  The tanking economy of Atlas Shrugged hits too close to home.  What you sit there thinking is not so much that Rand wrote prophetically as that the trappings of her fictional world are outdated and a tad annoying.

It’s as if someone had made – in 1942 – a movie of the Homer Lea geopolitical classic The Valor of Ignorance, which in 1909 prophesied a war between the US and Japan, starting with a sneak attack across the Pacific.  Had such a movie been made in 1929, it would have been appreciated later on, and perhaps become a minor classic.  But in 1942, post-Pearl Harbor audiences would have seen little point in creating a fictional story to compete with the real one.

An Atlas Shrugged made – faithfully to the novel – as a 1970s miniseries would no doubt be beloved of Rand fans today, and would figure in YouTube clips as a clincher to libertarian and conservative arguments across the infosphere.

Trying to set the story in the present day, with tablet PCs and ubiquitous information screens dotting the landscape, just highlights the incongruity of plot elements like railroads and steel – and in particular, the conundrum of the “motor of the world” device, which comes off in II as laughably silly.  With all that information at their fingertips, the remaining Great Brains of Fair Share America can’t, like, do some web searches?

One scene is especially poignant.  At the Unification Board hearing on Hank Rearden’s unauthorized shipment of Rearden metal to coal magnate Ken Danagger (Arye Gross), the scene is staged much like a 1930s show-trial, with sanctimonious officials presiding and a chamber full of press and people forming judgments as they watch.

But the theater of 20th-century collectivism has never figured on the American political scene, and it doesn’t today.  The real inroads of ideological collectivism on America have been made more sedulously and incrementally, in the most banal and uninteresting ways, with some industries sued into co-dependence here, and some silent job-killing over there.  Today’s industrial titan faces less the public calumny of show-trial tribunals than the disdain of bureaucrats.  The latter never approach their real goal head-on, but instead administer death to the titan’s bottom line by a thousand tangential cuts.

Ayn Rand’s ideas were formed by Sovietism, and ultimately, it would take a lot more editing to make Atlas Shrugged stand outside of its time on screen.  Americans saw the cartoonish bluntness of Sovietism coming; it was making the rule of law available for service to ideological arbitrariness that few recognized as a great threat 40 or 50 years ago.  That’s hard to capture in film, but the difference between that reality and Rand’s more dramatic vision of the collectivist threat lurks over the Atlas Shrugged movies like an unanswered doorbell.

J. E. Dyer

‘Innocence’ Actress Says the Cast Was Duped, Muhammad’s Character Was Named ‘George’ (Video)

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

The 80 cast and crew members employed by the makers of the movie that has provoked the Islamic world said told CNN on Wednesday that they were “grossly misled” about the film’s intent and expressed regrets over the violence the movie has been causing.

“The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer,” they said in a statement to CNN about the movie, “Innocence of Muslims.”

“We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose,” continued the statement to CNN. “We are shocked by the drastic rewrites of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.”

Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed Tuesday in Benghazi, Libya by a terrorist team taking advantage of the local outrage over the film, which ridicules the prophet Muhammad.

A casting call published in July 2011 in Backstage magazine and in other publications listed the movie title as “Desert Warrior,” and presented it as an “historical Arabian Desert adventure film.”

An actress in the film who asked not to be identified said the original script did not include a character named Prophet Muhammad.

The actress said she spoke on Wednesday with the producer, who is identified in the advertisement as Sam Bassiel. “He said he wrote the script because he wants the Muslims to quit killing,” she said. “I had no idea he was doing all this.”

The AP has since verified the man’s identity as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, age 55, a Coptic Christian.

“I would never be involved in a film to ever hurt or bring harm to anybody,” the bactress told CNN. “This makes me sick to my stomach to think that I was involved in that movie that brought death to somebody else.”

According to the actress, the character of Muhammad was named George during the shooting.

A member of the production staff who worked directly on the film and has a copy of the original script told CNN it does not mention Muhammad or Islam.

The Wall Street Journal identified the filmmaker as Sam Bacile, an Israeli-American real estate developer. The Journal reported that, in its telephone interview with Bacile, he characterized his film as “a political effort to call attention to the hypocrisies of Islam.”

“Islam is a cancer,” he told the newspaper. “The movie is a political movie. It’s not a religious movie.”

“This guy is totally anonymous. At this point no one can confirm he holds an Israeli citizenship and even if he did we are not involved,” ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said. “No Israeli institution, government department or office has any involvement in this. This guy acted on his own behalf.”

Consultant Steve Klein told CNN he worked with Bacile on the movie and said the filmmaker had gone into hiding.

James Horn, a friend who has worked with Mr. Klein in anti-Muslim activities for several years, told the NY Times that he believed Mr. Klein was involved in providing technical assistance to the film and advice on the script. Mr. Horn said he called Mr. Klein on Wednesday. “I said, ‘Steve, did you do this?’ He said, ‘Yep.’ ”

“He’s very depressed, and he’s upset,” Klein told CNN on Wednesday regarding Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. “I talked to him this morning, and he said that he was very concerned for what happened to the ambassador.”

Klein said it was not the film’s fault that protests had turned bloody.

An online trailer for the film depicts Muslims very much the way Nazi propaganda movies depicted Jews and their plot to “conquer the world.”

Muhammad is shown as a womanizer, child molester and bloodied killer.

The movie, which was posted in July on YouTube, got more notice after Egyptian television aired segments and anti-Islam activists, including Egyptian-born Coptic Christian Morris Sadek, promoted it online.

Florida Qoran burning pastor Terry Jones said he had been contacted to help distribute the film.

“The film is not intended to insult the Muslim community, but it is intended to reveal truths about Muhammad that are possibly not widely known,” Jones told CNN.

“It is very clear that God did not influence him (Muhammad) in the writings of the Qoran,” said Jones, who blames Muslims’ thin skins, rather than the film, for the riots and murders.

Tibbi Singer

New York Times Bestseller List Bad News For Obama?

Wednesday, September 5th, 2012

Do book sales reflect the general mood of the American electorate? If so, the current New York Times bestseller list does not carry good news for President Obama.

Three books critical of the president topped the list, while only one book praising Obama made the non-extended list, coming in at #15.

At number 2 is Dinesh D’Souza’s Obama’s America, which argues that “Obama’s goal to downsize America is in plain sight but ignored by everyone.”

The book is the namesake of D’Souza’s wildly popular movie “2016: Obama’s America,” which will expand from 1,000 to 1725 screens across the country this weekend. The movie reportedly earned $6.3 million in just 1091 screens last weekend, bringing its total earnings to over $9.2 million.

Taking the number 3 spot on the Times’ bestseller list is Ed Klein’s The Amateur, which has graced the bestseller list for weeks. The book advertises that it pulls back the curtain on “one of the most secretive White Houses in history.”

And coming in at number 8 this week is Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed. The book, by radio host and Jewish Press columnist Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, details specific policy prescriptions Obama will attempt to enact if he is reelected in November. It has been featured on the New York Times bestseller list since its release earlier this month.

Jewish Press Staff

The Lion of Judah Rises

Monday, September 3rd, 2012

Many Jewish people, including myself, avoid Holocaust movies because it is far too painful to watch the dehumanization of those we love. Still, facing what is painful is an important part of life. “Lion of Judah” is not an easy film to watch, but for the next generation it will be a valuable resource for educating children in a world without survivors. More importantly, it is centered on the incredible, Leo Zisman, the Lion of Judah.

An unsinkable man with a zest for life, Leo shares the most intimate details of his life in the Kovno Ghetto and more than one concentration camp. It’s shocking to hear stories of incredible brutality told by this rather gentle and humorous man to young listeners on a March of the Living trip.

Although the film would have been magnificent with Leo just sitting in the comfort of his home and telling his story, the movie also features the perspective of the group of students. One student had recently discovered she was actually Jewish, others knew they were, but had no idea what it meant. There were also non-Jews in the film crew. It was a very diverse group of people who journeyed back to Eastern Europe to follow Leo’s life path through a manmade hell.

Many of the students are truly stunned with what they found. Without giving too much away, the group encounters truly virulent Anti-Semitism, and finds themselves face to face with the images of genocide. One tragic scene shows “man on the street” interviews in Poland about Jews. Most of the young Polish interviewees seem resentful of Jews and try to minimize the nation’s collective guilt over the genocide. While a few express and show sympathy, most are tired of the subject. In contrast, the Jewish group members seem to be genuinely shocked at how little they knew about the Holocaust and are desperate to understand.

A strange connection is made for one participant when he actually finds a bone fragment scattered in the dirt making it clear that the verdant fields around him are graveyards. Leo is disgusted with the cleanliness and sterility of the camps turned museum, and reminds them how filthy it was when in use.

One of the most powerful ways the movie helps move the journey along is interjecting actual footage of the Holocaust, highlighting Leo’s descriptions in a way that truly chills the heart. Although the moviemakers insist they took the least graphic clips, the scenes are heartrending and parental discretion should be advised as some of the scenes will bring an adult to tears. Yet, few moments can compare to when Leo breaks down and describes how a “German take(s) a baby, maybe a month old, and rip it up like a chicken…” Quite a few in the audience, including myself started to cry, as Leo tries to wrap his mind around how a man could do that to such an innocent.

Although the question is never answered, it is clear that the students take the message. When they came back home, each seemed to have formed a deeper connection to what it means to be Jewish. Instead of wallowing in sadness, the movie ends optimistically and with the message that in spite of the horrors found in it, the world is a beautiful place. When one hears Leo still able to joke after all he has seen, one can have hope for the future.

Leo’s story is so incredible that I recommend not only seeing the movie, but getting a copy of Mr. Zisman’s book, Ani Ma’amin. The story of his survival is so miraculous, Leo has to actually count the ways in which he cheated death. Although every story is incredible, my personal favorite is how Leo rallied his fellow children to march into Auschwitz in formation, singing Ani Ma’amin as a show of defiance. An angel must have put it into his head, because not only was it a way to keep up morale among the Jewish students, it also impressed the Germans enough to allow them to live. I will remember that story for the rest of my life, and sang Ani Ma’amin to myself the entire way home.

The movie has its flaws; the score is overly dramatic and should have made better use of silence. I applaud the producers for not going the traditional Klezmer route and trying to use something more original. At its best, there is actual street music from Poland to highlight the culture, but at dramatic scenes, the music is heavy thudded sounds that scream, “here is a dramatic scene.” Considering the film is showing a gas chamber, there is little need to add to the effect.

Elke Weiss

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/sections/magazine/teens-twenties/the-lion-of-judah-rises/2012/09/03/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: