“Hey what’s up with you Neo-Cons?! Didn’t you get the memo that the Cold War was over?”

No, we didn’t.

The Department of Justice:

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today announced that a scientist and his wife, who both previously worked as contractors at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico, have been indicted on charges of communicating classified nuclear weapons data to a person they believed to be a Venezuelan government official and conspiring to participate in the development of an atomic weapon for Venezuela, among other violations.

The 22-count indictment, which was returned yesterday by a federal grand jury in the District of New Mexico, was announced by David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Kenneth J. Gonzales, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico and Carol K.O. Lee, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Albuquerque Division.

The defendants are Pedro Leonardo Mascheroni (Mascheroni), 75, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Argentina, and Marjorie Roxby Mascheroni (Roxby Mascheroni), 67, a U.S. citizen.  Both were arrested by FBI agents this morning and made their initial appearance in federal court in Albuquerque today.   If convicted of all the charges in the indictment, the defendants face a potential sentence of life in prison.

Now might be a good time to revisit Ron Radosh and Joyce Milton’s The Rosenberg File.

Keep you eye on how The Nation responds to this story — if they even bother to.

Oliver Stone is basically Michael Moore on Slimfast (or maybe some other white powder.)

(Then again, given today’s revelations, maybe that should read “Mel Gibson without the Tourette’s…”)

When it comes to Stone’s on-again, off-again relationship with the facts, don’t get me started on JFK (no, seriously: don’t).

Now Stone has a new film out called South of the Border, and I hesitated to even bringing it up because, well, more people will read my post about it than will ever view the actual film.

But when a “cultural reporter” for the New York Times accuses Stone of  peddling inaccuracies, I pay attention.

Larry Rohter explains:

One month ago, I incurred the wrath of Oliver Stone for stating the obvious in an article I wrote:  his new movie South of the Border, ostensibly a “documentary” about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and a group of supposedly like-minded South American colleagues, is so riddled with errors, misrepresentations, fabrications and fraudulent statistics as to be useless except as an example of over-the-top propaganda.  At the screening for the movie that I attended, I counted more than two dozen assertions that are demonstrably incorrect, but chose, in the limited space available to me, to focus on but a handful.

Rohter places much of the blame on the film’s co-screenwriter, Mark Weisbrot:

Weisbrot is an economist, not a historian, and apparently not a very good one.  Either he is so incompetent that he can’t read a simple table or he is deliberately manipulating the numbers.  The latter seems more likely, since reputable economists have chastised him for such lapses in the past.  For example, Francisco Rodriguez, a Venezuelan who once was chief economist for the Venezuelan Congress and now teaches at Wesleyan University, has written a scathing paper called “How Not to Defend the Revolution:  Mark Weisbrot and the Misinterpretation of Venezuelan Evidence.”  (…)

South of the Border is riddled with other errors and misinformation like this, but Stone and Weisbrot refuse to acknowledge them.  They continue to insist, for instance, that Chavez’s main opponent in the 1998 election was not Henrique Salas Romer, the former state governor who got 40 percent of the vote, but Irene Saez, the beauty queen who received a mere 3 percent.  By that novel and bizarre standard, George Bush’s main opponent in the 2000 election was not Al Gore but Ralph Nader, and Ronald Reagan’s main opponent in the 1980 election was not Jimmy Carter but John Anderson.

Oh, dear.

It gets better, as Rohter takes up that “Carter” ball and runs with it, slamming the former President at length.

Rohter’s article is long and may try the patience of anyone not passionate about South American politics and history, but it is worth reading as a righteous takedown of Stone, Carter and Chavez. Read it: it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Stone manipulates history in an attempt to promote his socialist buddy, Hugo Chavez.

Did you know that deep down inside (when he’s not silencing his opposition, supporting the FARC, sponsoring drug trafficking, and courting Hezbollah and almost every other enemy of the West) Hugo Chavez is a good, admirable man? Yup, he is—according to Leftist filmmaker Oliver Stone.

The filmmaker, along with the upcoming release of his “Wall Street” sequel, has a new documentary called “South of the Border” that praises Chavez, Castro, their allies, and highlights other South American leaders. But, apparently the Venezuelan people aren’t as hot on the near-dictator as Stone is: The documentary is bombing in the country.

Personally, I expect it to get a much bigger reception in the U.S. There will be controversy as well as more people interested just because we aren’t overexposed to him—and that’s the problem.

Chavez will quickly win supporters among impressionable viewers in America with Stone’s film—whose objectivity is best exemplified by this quote from Stone in a recent interview:

But I like the guy because he means and does what he says. He operates for the people. The guy is not getting rich, he’s living very austerely, and he busted his old friends who became corrupt. He’s delivered the goods, said he would give the oil profits back to the people, and no one I know has kept his word like he has.

Is this really a guy we should respect? I’ll let this excellent analysis speak for itself:

No wonder the government is convinced it now needs to obliterate the remnants of free expression. Chavez already controls 72 television stations, 400 radio stations and 18 newspapers, and has inflicted more than 1,000 hours of verbal torture on the people through addresses to the nation that every outlet is obliged to carry. But this is not enough. An independent Globovision, a relatively small outlet that has become a giant in the eyes of millions of Venezuelans, is unacceptable in a state intent on becoming a second Cuba.

Yeah, that sounds like a guy Hollywood would embrace.

HUGO CHAVEZ

By Karen Northon

In Hollywood, it all comes down to how well you can deliver a line, which is perhaps why so many in the land of make-believe adore the dictatorial drama queen Hugo Chavez. The whole world truly is a stage. The man is a compelling orator to those whose ideological cataracts prevent them from seeing through Chavez’s persuasive rhetoric to the underlying persecution complex that directs his every move.

Hollywood is flooded with such visually-impaired, self-proclaimed foreign policy experts who believe Chavez just wants to hold hands with everyone and sing We Are the World.  Socialist-dictator groupie Sean Penn spent some quality time with Chavez in 2007 and again in 2008, calling him “a fascinating guy.” In Penn’s defense, I will admit I find documentaries about serial killers fascinating – though I don’t think I’d care to spend time cozying up with one and waxing intellectual about the politics of their brutality.

Then we have everyone’s favorite conspiracy-theory movie director, Oliver Stone, who undoubtedly steps up the controversial aspect of his projects as he feels the limelight fading on him. (By the way, Oliver – Girl Scout cookie sales funding coup to oust Castro? Could be.)

Stone recently premiered his poor-misunderstood-dictator commumentary about Chavez, remarking of the Venezuelan dictator, “[he] is an extremely dynamic and charismatic figure. He’s open and warmhearted and big, and a fascinating character.”

Yes. Fascinating. Got that.

It gets better/worse. Rumor has it former rocker and former(?) drug addict Courtney Love has a crush on the big, cuddly socialist dictator. She thinks he’s a “sexy dawg.” Now THAT is your brain on drugs.

Beyond the bizarro adoration of the Hollywood subculture, Chavez made an appearance on Larry King Live while in New York City for last month’s meeting of the U.N. General Assembly – kicking off King’s dictator trifecta that included interviews with Chavez’s BSFs (Best Socialist Friends) Muammar Qadhafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Once again, Chavez performed his dictator Two-Step, answering every question with a jab at U.S. foreign policy. He accuses the United States of backing a coup d’état to oust him, apparently having forgotten that he had organized and attempted a military coup to overthrow the Venezuelan government in 1992.

Why can’t we be friends? Why can’t we be friends?

There is no doubt – Chavez is a shrewd strategist. He understands that more power and influence are gained by appealing to the poor, restless masses and celebrities. And he knows just how to manipulate them into unquestioning devotion to him. As for world leaders, Chavez has extended his unwavering loyalty and support to every dictator and despot who presents any sort of threat to the United States.

And to the rest of the world, the peace-loving Chavez slings insults, openly calling George W. Bush a “donkey” and “the devil,” Condoleezza Rice an “illiterate,” former Mexican President Vicente Fox a “lapdog of imperialism,” Peruvian President Alan Garcia a “rotten thief” and a “crybaby.” More recently, he called President Obama an “ignoramus” and said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is “just lost.” My six-year-old could explain to him why he’s not making many friends.

Of his frequent verbal attacks against the United States, Jerrold M. Post, Director of the Political Psychology Program at George Washington University, says “his [Chavez’s] outrageous and confrontational rhetoric” increases in frequency and rancor “during times of internal instability” in his home country, and when he feels he’s put on the defensive.

Post wrote of Chavez in a 2007 analytical report for the U.S. Air Force Counterproliferation Center:

“Chavez is an authoritarian narcissistic leader who has dreams of glory, and can be overly sensitive to criticism. The arrogant certainty conveyed in his public pronouncements is very appealing to his followers. But under this grandiose facade, as is typical with narcissistic personalities, is extreme insecurity. When under stress, his defiance becomes more pronounced, as does his tendency to blame others for his own shortcomings.”

Chavez is like the boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse you just couldn’t confront, because as soon as you questioned or expressed negative feelings about something they did or said, they turned it back on you – questioning, in that defensive, incredulous tone, something you did x number of years ago that they didn’t like.

Despite his appeal to the impoverished of Venezuela, his fiscal policy has had a devastating effect on his country’s economy – though he finds ways to blame the United States for that as well, citing the North American Free Trade Agreement or some other policy of which he was not key in devising.

If failing economic policy doesn’t bring about his fall from power, his attempts to squash dissent may. Chavez recently ordered the permanent closing of 29 more radio stations that have been critical of his administration. And in response to a student protest/hunger strike, Chavez ordered the imprisonment of a 22-year-old college student for “attempting to incite civil war.”

In an editorial last month for The Huffington Post, Robert Amsterdam (an international Lawyer on emerging markets, politics of business, and rule of law) wrote:

“…the existence of more than 50 hunger striking students on the steps of the OAS [Organization of American States] headquarters [in Caracas] blows the smoke off the myth that Chávez is still some sort of social democrat who cares about his people.”

The question is, how long will it take for his base supporters to see Hugo Chavez for what he is – a malignant narcissist clinging to power?

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez cozies up with director Oliver Stone for the screening of his film 'South of the Border' at the 66th Annual Venice Film Festival on Sept. 7. (AP Photo/Joel Ryan)

Just when you think Hollywood liberals can’t get any dumber, Oliver Stone premiers another film.

Don’t get me wrong – Stone has the capacity to make an entertaining flick. But to mistake his work for thorough, credible and thoughtful coverage or analysis of geopolitical dynamics is like seeking relationship advice from Jessica Simpson or Jennifer Aniston.

With the release of South of the Border, a documentary focusing primarily on Venezuela’s communist dictator Hugo Chavez, Stone has created a new anti-American, conspiracy-theorist, plight-of-the-misunderstood-dictator film genre I’ll call a Commumentary. It’s the kind of portrayal of Chavez that could only come from the mind of an extreme left-wing filmmaker like Stone – or maybe his corpulent, anti-capitalism cohort Michael Moore.

Incidentally, Moore also premiered his latest film in Venice – Capitalism: A Love Story, which received a standing ovation for its declaration that “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil.” Yes – the same multimillionaire Michael Moore who once said that people who resent his wealth are not generally “working-class stiffs” like himself who have moved into the upper class:

“When one of us succeeds, we’re happy about that. We don’t begrudge that.” — Michael Moore

Yes indeed, Michael. Damn that capitalism!

In Stone’s latest installment of Hollywood’s series on socialist adoration, he depicts Chavez as a champion of the poor and of democracy. Hugo Chavez, he says, is “an extremely dynamic and charismatic figure. He’s open and warmhearted and big, and a fascinating character.”

Stone is right on one point – Chavez is big.

The filmmaker admits – though we can hardly expect liberals to appreciate the weight of his admission – that his intention was not to make a documentary that conveys all sides of Chavez. Nor, he told the L.A. Times, does it “address the ongoing criticisms of his [Chavez’s] incendiary rhetoric, his frequent dust-ups with Venezuela’s opposition media (which supported a 2002 coup against him), or his disputed role in aiding leftist rebels fighting the government of neighboring Colombia.”

It’s unfortunate that so many people will fail to see South of the Border for what it is – Stone’s jaundiced vision of his beloved dictator; no more credible than the propaganda pumped out by Chavez’s state-run media.

Liberal media in America does much to propagate Stone’s cinematic distortions by failing to deliver penetrating questions of his work. Instead, we get the kind of “news” coverage CNN’s Anjali Rao delivered in her discussion with the filmmaker, which seems less like a news interview and more like a televised therapy session with good lighting.

South of the Border also shows Stone sharing his man-crush love for other controversial South American leaders, as he nibbles on coca leaves and plays soccer with Bolivian President Evo Morales, leader of a nation notorious for government corruption and a flourishing new trend dubbed ‘cocaine tourism.’

On MSNBC’s Way Too Early, host Willie Geist took another approach, describing the entire affair with the incredulity and sarcasm it deserves:

But, far be it from liberals the world over to let political and humanitarian realities stop a good party. (Now would be a good time to grab the little paper bag from the seat pocket in front of you.)

The Christian Science Monitor described the scene at the Venice red carpet premier in all its ethereal, misguided glory –

He [Chavez] threw a flower to the crowd, touched his heart, and even grabbed a photographer’s camera to take a photo of himself as he strolled the red carpet with American filmmaker Oliver Stone. Mr. Chávez was on hand to be feted for the premier of Mr. Stone’s new documentary “South of the Border,” which aims to portray Chávez and other Latin American leftist leaders in a positive light.

“You can’t get a fair hearing for Chávez. It’s an outrageous caricature they’ve drawn of him in the Western press,” Stone told Variety.

Reuters depicted the pomp and pageantry of the slobbering socialist love-in with equally nauseating detail –

The biggest star at this year’s Venice film festival has arguably been Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Sure, George Clooney and Matt Damon have got the crowds going and can cause a minor media scrum with little effort, but Chavez and his large entourage of aides and guards is another matter altogether.

Chavez, looking every bit the movie star, was all smiles and charm, shaking hands with onlookers and reporters who wanted to meet him. Little wonder he looked happy — he will presumably be delighted with Stone’s overwhelmingly positive portrait.

The adoring crowds must have missed the headlines leading up to the film festival. Surely if they had known what Chavez was up to the preceding days, they would not have extended such a warm welcome to the Venezuelan dictator.

Just two days prior to the premier of South of the Border, Stone’s benevolent champion of Venezuelan democracy struck a deal with Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to export 20,000 barrels of petroleum a day to Iran at a time when the West is considering sanctions against the Middle East nation.

After sealing the deal, Chavez told Iran’s Press TV that his long-term goal is to build a “nuclear village” with Iran’s assistance, but gave no details on what that entails.

And the very day of the movie premier, Chavez ordered the permanent closing of 29 more radio stations in his country that have been critical of his administration.

Three cheers for Democracy – Chavez style.

Hillary Clinton: "Yes sir, Mr. Zelaya, Sir!"

In all the excitement over Van Jones’ resignation, people missed President Obama supporting Communists abroad, as he did at home. Late last week, SSINO (Secretary of State In Name Only) Hillary Clinton met with ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and cut off all remaining funds for Honduras’ government: $30 million now, and $215 million over four years. Leftists are pushing for the IMF to follow suit.

In addition to being part of the Castro-Chavez axis, Zelaya sought to subvert the constitution — and he stands accused of running drugs. Honduran Foreign Minister Enrique Ortez told the press, “Every night, three or four Venezuelan-registered planes land without the permission of appropriate authorities and bring thousands of pounds” of cocaine and cash. Which Zelaya wants to legalize. Last October, he said, “Rather than continue to kill and capture traffickers, we could invest in resources for education and training.”

The drug link is not news to the Obama administration. In February, the Obama-Clinton State Department declared “official corruption continues to be an impediment to effective law enforcement” on narcotics. The Wall Street Journal further sketched his supporters’ ties to South American narcoterrorists FARC.

No wonder Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez says, “With Obama, we can talk…He’s intelligent, he has good intentions, and we have to help him.”

Contrasted with Zelaya, the new, cash-strapped Honduran government has broken diplomatic ties with Venezuela and Argentina. Argentina is headed by President Néstor Kirchner, a leftist the Communist Party USA‘s house organ, Political Affairs, calls “a central player in the hemispheric drift…towards a socially conscious and state-centric model.”

Yet Obama and Hillary entered discussions with Zelaya only to emerge following his orders. Shortly after the constitutional crisis (which he provoked), the administration followed El Presidente’s “suggestion” they get tougher with the Roberto Micheletti government. What did they get in return? One of Zelaya’s top aides accused the United States of staging the coup.

Of MSNBC’s crack pundits, Rachel Maddow mentioned the Hillary-Zelaya summit — for just over one minute. Her analysis included discussing Zelaya’s cell phone and joking about the words “bull puckey.”

Obama again rewarded bad behavior through Hillary. As at home, the president is comfortable with radical leftists, Communists, Islamists and extremists while he remains hostile to traditional U.S. allies. But you’ll never learn about it from the “mainstream” media.