Kenneth T. Tellis: "Hollywood's love affair with totalitarianism"

VHeadline commentarist Kenneth T. Tellis writes: Does World Net Daily's Joseph Farah have any idea about the topic of totalitarianism?

He made it a point to make a statement which bears no resemblance to reality ... but worst of all was his deliberate omission of the greatest dictator of all time, a man who had the gall to steal two Presidential Elections right from under the noses of the American people. By even coercing the very U.S. courts into going along with his charade of democracy.

That man is a disgrace to the democracy he touts.

I guess by now Farah knows who I am talking about? It is his very own pseudo-President George W. Bush, who now resides in the White House.

Farah attempts to make light of democracy by adding the name of Hugo Chavez to his list of totalitarian rulers, when such is not the case at all. Señor Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias was elected PRESIDENT by a majority in Venezuela, so how in his muddled mind, how can Farah refer to him as a dictator?

He might refer rather to Mr. George W. Bush as a DICTATOR, but only because he used coercion to hijack not one but two U.S. Presidential Elections.

I am afraid that Farah has barked up the wrong tree this time, it may be perhaps because his senses have been dulled by his environment, the corrupt society that now controls the U.S.

What is worse still is that today nearly all the U.S. news media is harking on the fact that Cubans have been allowed access to cell-phones by the Raul Castro the new president of Cuba.

Though, I must dwell on this matter for another reason. In Cuba the people can now own Mobile-Phones, so that is something very new. But the U.S. has had CELL-PHONES for quite a while. Do you know why? Because those phones are really in the CELLS of people in prisons, and U.S. prisons or penitentiaries are so full up, that the release of some prisoners has become necessary since there is no room for more.

So, I must hearken back to Farah's initial statement of "Hollywood's love affair with totalitarianism," which has no bearing on reality.

That of course could be because Farah has to write an article and it must meet with the approval of his boss. Thus, it may be what he really wanted to write, but since he have to earn a living, he really has no choice in the matter at all.

Kenneth T. Tellis
kenttellis@rogers.com