‘Yeah, we lied…it’s a widely accepted standard…to clarify the historical reality…?’

Only a Hollywood screenwriter could make such an assertion with a straight face.

The movie “Lincoln” portrays that president’s struggle to abolish slavery. And, in order to more accurately clarify the 13th amendment passing ‘by a very narrow margin’, the screenwriter decided he had to LIE about how many in Congress voted against it.

Got that? Accurately Clarifying historical reality justifies…lying about historical reality…!

Anyone who reads this linked Washington Times article would do well to pay special attention to the 10th and 11th words in the first sentence: The screenwriter “…conceded taking some liberties in…portrayal of a 19th century vote on slavery…”

Then ask yourself…some liberties? Could Mr. Spielberg’s screenwriter…clarify…?

Or is that just asking for more of his version of what constitutes… Historical Reality…?

Is he serious…or simply channeling Michael Moore…?

(Or, does he mean ‘hysterical reality’…? Too cynical? Consider this…)

Americans are being bombarded daily with accusations of racism and inequality. What purpose does screenwriter Kushner then serve, lying to make 1865-era Connecticut politicians seem more racist, when historical fact proves they were LESS so?

(Full Disclosure – BlueCollar admits choosing not to view this particular movie. We’re inclined to be suspicious of agenda-driven subtleties when Liberal agents of Hollywood come together to bring ‘historical’ dramas to the big screen, and especially when such a respected figure as Republican Abraham Lincoln is the subject. This article justifies our skepticism, revealing once more the lengths some will go to push their views.)

And it’s not a question of seeing the movie before passing judgment. As soon as you’ve bought the ticket, a Liberal bent on ‘taking some liberties’ could care less about your opinion…because he already has your money, and YOU CAN’T GET IT BACK!

(You can take a book back to the store, but try getting a refund on a just-viewed movie.)

Would it have been too much to ask that the ‘liberties’ taken be reserved for imaginary smoke-filled, back-room machinations, rather than lying about actual vote counts?

And, of course, there’s every possibility Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Kushner made great effort and ‘took some liberties’ in strongly emphasizing the fact that a newly-formed Republican Party came into being in that era for the express purpose of abolishing slavery!

But we doubt it.

Some ‘liberties’ just always seem to be a higher priority…for Hollywood types.

We would be thrilled to know we’re wrong…did this ‘historical drama’ make special efforts (‘take some liberties’, if you will) to glorify the Republican Party’s efforts to abolish slavery…are we in fact doing an injustice to Messrs Spielberg and Kushner?

Or were the movie’s special liberties reserved for emotional hysterics, stoking the embers of long-smoldering resentments, anger, inequality, and racism…?

Just asking…in the name of civility…

…anyone…anyone…?

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified today that “…Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.”

Really, Leon? Funny…

On Oct 28, the Blaze reported that a retired DIA senior intel officer was told by his sources that Obama was in the White House Situation Room, watching in real-time.

Also Oct 28, Breitbart.com quotes (ret.) Lt. Col. Tony Schafer telling Fox News that only Obama could order backup for the besieged consulate…so, he had to know, real-time.

And former Asst Defense Secretary Bing West noted on Oct 29 that Obama’s story had changed on the campaign trail a few days earlier, when O’ implied real-time orders were given to do ‘whatever was necessary’ to help assist the consulate and personnel.

Additionally, on Oct 29th National Review Online noted, given Libya’s shaky, insecure government, only National Command Authority could allow use of U.S. military to help.

CNS News reported 25 minutes after the attack started, an email was sent to two White House (undisclosed) recipients, and 80 minutes after it began, Obama met with Panetta and Biden. But we’re led to believe it was so unimportant Obama, what, went to sleep?

So, inside-intel officials say Obama was in the Situation Room, Obama himself says he was issuing directives (3?) during the attack, and only a president can authorize military force in a country we’re not at war with…but Leon now claims Barry was A-W-O-L?

Looks like Panetta has invoked the fruit-of-the-loom Protocol…

What else can you call his efforts to cover Obama’s rear?

They should both be impeached.

Actor and comedian Chris Rock demonstrates the typical Hollywood Liberal mindset, unable (or unwilling) to parse the difference between a ‘boss’ and a leader.

And always ready to fall back on feel-good emotional buzzwords and cotton-candy platitudes, when unable to rebut common-sense logic on issues (like gun-ownership).

On Capitol Hill in support of Obama’s gun control agenda Wednesday, at the press conference he explained why we must obey: Obama’s our ‘boss’, & the country’s ‘dad’.

Sorry Chris, Obama serves the people…we don’t serve him (yet). And those of us with Dads who abused their wives and kids would take exception to a ‘dad’ analogy as well.

Some dads are just sperm donors; those who beat wives and kids are evil ones at that. And though the ‘boss’ you support may act dictatorial, you weren’t in Cuba yesterday…

(Though since Obama says he can now kill Americans with impunity, Rock’s not far off!)

America to Chris…Obama & Democrats haven’t burned our Constitution – yet.

As an actor and comedian, you’re talented, entertaining…a pretty funny guy.

As a thoughtful civic leader, sadly, you’re a joke.

Your comments are a very clear example of when Laughter isn’t the best medicine…

Or were you just trying to be funny…and had an off day?

…why has the Democrat-controlled Senate hidden their spending details?

By not passing a budget for 3 years in a row, they’ve managed to keep a large amount of information out of view from the general population… breaking the law in the process.

It’s federal law – the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 mandates that Congress present a budget every year. Got that? A Democrat Senate is breaking their own law. (House Republicans, since taking the majority, followed the law in 2011 and 2012, and their new No Budget, No Pay Act may finally force Senate Democrats to do their job.)

So, next time your Liberal buddies claim government spending is good, ask them…

…if that’s true…why are Democrat Senators hiding those ‘great’ spending details?

And, why have they been willing to break federal law to do it?

You can’t make this stuff up.

In an orgy of acronyms…courtesy of the Anointed One…Barack Obama’s blaming the latest bad round of economic news on House Republicans.

(After all, there’s only 40 House GOP bills festering in the Democrat Senate…)

Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) wrote an article that explains why he felt compelled to vote against the House Republicans’ common sense ‘No Budget, No Pay Act’.

The bill simply stated that – until Senate Democrats passed a budget (required by law to be done every year, but not done for the past 3 years) – they wouldn’t get paid.

Rep. King argues the Act contravened the 27th amendment of the Constitution: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened”.

He thinks the ‘intervening election’ requirement is the deal-breaker.

With all due respect to Representative King, it might behoove him to note that the amendment doesn’t read “…varying the compensation for the NON-services…”

We’re not legal scholars at BlueCollar, but it’s our opinion that, until congressional members actually perform ‘the Service’ deserving of compensation, logically, those Democrat Senators aren’t protected by the Constitution they’ve trampled…

…unless of course, there’s some hidden amendment we’re not aware of that states trampling the Constitution is what their ‘Service’ now entails…?

Common sense dictates not doing their sworn job (in this case, not passing a lawfully required budget) can be defined as ‘non-service’…wouldn’t that justify non-payment?

But Democrat Senators can relax…our decision isn’t legally binding…

(Besides, what self-respecting American would want to withhold something you Congressional types believe you’re entitled to…?)

Set aside all the arguments against women serving in forward combat situations.

And, with apologies to Rush Limbaugh, it ain’t about what the ‘Femi-Nazis’ want…

There’s one HUGE reason why Left-wing Libs like Obama want to push this issue.

It would justify revoking the law exempting women from signing up for the draft as soon as they turn 18 (which is what every American male is now required to do)…

…giving Democrats an annual, comprehensive list of all 18-year old American females ready to vote for their issues.

Or are we just being too cynical…?

An apartment complex in Salem VA notified a military vet to get that potted American flag off his patio, for the sake of ‘keeping (it’s) community one of the best in Salem’.

The letter advises they only allow patio furniture, 3 working bikes, and plants on patios.

In a healthy spirit of cooperation, BlueCollar recommends removing that potted flag…

…then install it (with 2 of its brothers) on each of the 3 ‘working bicycle’ handlebars.

Believe it or not, the Department of Homeland Security recommends bringing scissors to a gunfight…

The (older) DHS handbook and a just-released DHS video offer ‘tips’ on “how to survive an attack by a…shooter” with a list ranging from throwing items…to scissor-wielding.

“The DHS materials never recommend using a concealed firearm…” as a defense.

(Why would they? It’s the ‘gun violence’ causing the problem…not the assailant, right?)

Evidently, in the DHS world, using a gun to protect against a gun-toting assailant would be the equivalence of ‘two wrongs not making it right’.

Scissors.

Anyone remember the collective media fireworks over ‘duct tape’ a few years back?

Where’s Dan Rather when you really need him?

Only in America can clowns of this magnitude get elected to high office!

No sooner does the announcement come that the economy shrank in the 4th quarter of 2012 to a -.1%, than Senate Majority Liar Leader Harry Reid comes out spinning a story of continued economic recovery…(but even if it’s not, then Republicans are to blame).

No, wait, Reid says, “we are in a recovery…growth went down in the 4th quarter due to reduced government spending…”, even though compared to 4th quarter 2011 spending by the government was up $31 billion. (And compared to the previous 3rd quarter 2012, government spending was up $98 billion in the 4th quarter!)

Only in Harry Reid’s world can “growth went down” be defined as a “recovery”…

…and an increase of $98,000,000,000 in spending is considered a reduction.

But there are bigger idiots out there…the voters in a state willing to keep Reid in office…

Normally, one would have to hold a Job Fair to find fools of this caliber.

Nevada used an election.