“Obviously yesterday we made some news,” President Obama told a captivated audience of Hollywood A-listers who were assembled at a recent fundraising event held at the home of George Clooney.

The president was referring to the statement he had made on same-sex marriage, which he and his campaign strategists had designed to inject energy and enthusiasm into the Democrat base in general, and the Hollywood community in particular.

A few months ago, not only did members of the entertainment community appear to have cooled to Obama, some celebrities were openly voicing their displeasure.

Actor Matt Damon, who had supported the president’s 2008 campaign, said at the end of last year that Obama had “misinterpreted his mandate.”

Sean “Diddy” Combs told Source magazine, “I just want the president to do better.”

In 2008, Black-Eyed Peas rapper-singer William James Adams, Jr., better known by his stage name “will.i.am,” created a video that went viral entitled “Yes We Can.” The video ended with the word “HOPE.” However, by December 2011 he was singing a different tune. He said, in reference to Obama, “I don’t want to hope anymore.”

Evidently, the carefully crafted words from the president have made a world of difference in Hollywood circles.

Andy Spahn, a political adviser to entertainment mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, told the Associated Press that the president’s newly enunciated position on marriage “will certainly add to the enthusiasm behind the president’s campaign. It translates into more energy.”

Chad Griffin, a former political adviser in Hollywood and gay rights leader, is now a member of Obama’s National Finance Committee. Griffin said that as a result of Obama’s televised remarks the crowds at upcoming fundraisers “will be more energized, more enthusiastic.”

Energy and enthusiasm can turn into huge campaign dollars. In fact, the president’s “evolving” views have loosened up potential donors who had previously vowed to stay on the sidelines.

Television producer and activist Norman Lear, who earlier had withheld his support for Obama’s reelection, announced on the day of the president’s televised remarks that he and his wife would immediately write checks for $40,000 each.

Academy Award-winning screenwriter Lance Black wrote a column in the Hollywood Reporter in April 2012, indicating that he would not give donations to, or vote for, Obama. After hearing Obama’s enunciation, though, Black told the AP, “Now I can do all I can to help him financially. I am going to go big, and I’m not alone there.”

“He [Obama] blew me away. I walked around for the first time in three years thinking, `Yes we can,’” Black added.

Openly gay singer Ricky Martin is hosting a New York fundraiser on May 14.

“I believe Barack Obama has shown a deep conviction to help those most in need, even if their voices are not always the ones heard the loudest in Washington,” Martin said in a statement quoted on the Broadway World website.

Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage prompted “Glee” co-creator Ryan Murphy, who is also co-creator of FX’s “American Horror Story,” to hold a dinner at his home on the same evening of a June 6 concert to be held for the gay and lesbian community. Pink is one of the scheduled performers, and according to organizers, tickets will range from $1,250 to $25,000.

Murphy and David Miller, Murphy’s fiancé, are slated to co-host the dinner that is expected to bring together entertainment industry supporters willing to pay $40,000 per couple, or $25,000 for those attending on their own. Guests will have the opportunity to be named additional co-hosts by pledging to raise $250,000 for the Obama campaign.

Perfectly synched with Obama’s newfound position, fundraising appeals were sent out by the White House and the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees, following the media coverage of the president’s remarks.

The Democratic National Committee instantaneously modified the landing page of its website to feature a slogan that read: “Same-sex couples should be able to get married. Stand up with the president.”

The president sent out mass e-mails to supporters, informing them of his decision to “affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.”

The messages ended with the words, “Please donate today.”

President Obama’s upcoming fundraising event with George Clooney is shaping up to be one for the record books.

On May 10, the 150 guests who are slated to show up at Clooney’s home are expected to drop $6 million into the president’s campaign war chest, all to try and keep the keys to the White House in Obama’s hands for another four years.

In an effort to really ramp up the cash flow, though, the Obama campaign has come up with a gimmick crafted to squeeze some money out of lower income folks and perhaps even unemployed ninety-nine percenters.

The scheme is expected to raise an additional $6 million, according to the Hollywood Reporter, doubling the expected original take. If all goes according to the Democrat plan, the resultant $12 million take will catapult the fundraiser into the category of the largest presidential campaign finance event in history.

Here is the design: The Obama campaign came up with an idea of a nationwide contest, dubbed “Obama, Clooney and You,” where for a donation of 3 bucks participants are entered into a raffle, and the ultimate winner of the contest is going to get to meet Clooney at his home.

Obama supporters were sent a slew of e-mails, texts, and tweets about the fundraising contest, urging them to make donations and take a chance on a Clooney glance.

An e-mail sent by the campaign asked the following question: “Want to meet George Clooney and Barack Obama — at Clooney’s house?” It went on to say that “he’s [Clooney’s] saving seats for two grassroots supporters like you and their guests. It’s just not a chance most people get — well, ever.”

All that “grassroots supporters” needed to do was to write a check for the suggested amount of $3 and they would get “a chance to hang out with President Obama at George Clooney’s house…”

If we go down Memory Lane, we can still see Obama, the fierce campaign finance reformer, decrying the evil influence of money and even saying that lobbyists would not be allowed to contribute to his presidential campaign.

However, according to the New York Times, the president repeatedly gives lobbyists extensive access, particularly when brought in by a big donor.

The Times noted that Obama “has made a point of not accepting contributions from registered lobbyists, a review of campaign donations and White House visitor logs shows that special interests have had little trouble making themselves heard. Many of the president’s biggest donors, while not lobbyists, took lobbyists with them to the White House, while others performed essentially the same function on their visits.”

Obama took the unprecedented step of criticizing the Supreme Court during a State of the Union speech over the Justices’ decision on the Citizens United case, which held that the First Amendment barred the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.

The president subsequently declared that he would not allow Super PACs to assist his campaign but later abruptly reversed himself on his no-SuperPAC money promise, letting it be known that Super PACs friendly to his reelection could be utilized by donors.

Even supporters have noticed that Obama has morphed into the fundraiser-in-chief, using Air Force One to transport him to more than 130 fundraising events.

The number of campaign cash-seeking events in which the president has participated exceeds the combined total of the five last White House predecessors during their first terms. Obama also appears to be scheduling his appearances in locations that will in one way or another benefit his reelection bid.

Now, with the goal of collecting a record sum of cash, the Obama campaign is using Clooney as the bait and encouraging people to give online betting at try.

In June of 2011, the president said, “There are days where I say that one term is enough.”

Obama apparently hasn’t had one of those days in a very long time.

As the entertainment industry seeks a greater presence in China’s ever-increasing movie market, the Obama administration is investigating some of the major Hollywood film studios for possible inappropriate payments to Chinese officials.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has sent letters of inquiry, seeking to obtain answers about whether or not some major Hollywood movie studios tried to buy their way into what is quickly becoming the world’s largest entertainment market.

Reuters, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times, all of which are citing anonymous sources, have reported that the SEC sent inquiries to 20^th Century Fox, Disney, and DreamWorks Animation.

However, it now appears as though the SEC may be in the midst of an industry-wide probe. Recent reports indicate that letters from the agency were sent to all six major Hollywood studios, and additionally to DreamWorks Animation, in an apparent effort to search for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with regard to the studios’ dealings with Chinese officials.

Paramount, Sony, Universal, Disney, 20^th Century Fox, Warner Bros., and DreamWorks Animation are all members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The entertainment companies played a significant role in recent trade negotiations, which resulted in some dramatic changes taking place with regard to the rules of access that China had imposed on Hollywood.

The state-owned China Film Group had previously limited film imports to a maximum of 20 foreign films per year; however, in February 2012 restrictions were abruptly eased.

China’s Vice President Xi Jinping, who next year is expected to succeed Hu Jintao as president of China, traveled to the U.S.

After the Chinese leader’s visit to Washington, D.C., Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk announced that China was going to permit 34 films to be shown annually as long as the additional movies utilize either Imax or 3-D technologies. Hollywood will be allowed to keep about 25 percent of the box-office as well, which is an increase from the previous 15 percent.

Xi Jinping also made a visit to Los Angeles, where DreamWorks Animation made the announcement that a $2 billion breakthrough deal had been made to build a production studio in Shanghai with some of China’s biggest media companies.

Hollywood movie studios have for a while now been seeking to loosen China’s restrictions on foreign films, which the entertainment industry has viewed as potentially fueling the demand for pirated materials.

U.S. box-office sales in 2011 had taken a drop of about 5 percent, landing at approximately $10 billion, while Chinese movie revenues had grown to $2.1 billion, an astounding 35 percent increase. The number of movie screens in China had doubled in five years to 10,700 at the end of last year, and are expected to reach 13,000 by the end of 2012, according to the MPAA.

This kind of growth is extremely attractive to Hollywood studios, and consequently the entertainment companies have rushed into China to take advantage of the situation. “Avatar” brought in $207 million, “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” $159 million, and “Titanic 3-D” so far has grossed more than $100 million in Chinese box-office revenues.

Disney recently announced that “Iron Man 3” will be co-produced in China with DMG Entertainment in Beijing.

Filmmaker James Cameron, who did so superbly with “Avatar” and “Titanic 3-D,” has contracted to provide 3-D technology for a Chinese produced film, “The Art of War.”

As for the expectations of the Chinese government, film official Tong Gang told Xinhua, the official press agency of China, that the country’s long history could serve as a database for American filmmakers and could draw in huge audiences, if stories are properly developed.

The action of the SEC in probing the Hollywood-China connection appears to be part of the Obama administration’s increasing interest in the use of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, (FCPA) which prohibits the payment of bribes to officials of foreign governments.

Because of the accelerating growth of foreign markets, anti-bribery laws pose a threat to the entertainment industry particularly when federal investigators view Hollywood as a target-rich environment for potential probes.

The SEC generally maintains a focus on the provisions of the FCPA that pertain to accounting and, should violations be proven to have occurred, results typically involve the imposition of a fine.

If the Department of Justice were to join in the future with the aforementioned SEC-movie studio probe, the stakes would be raised to include possible criminal violations and more substantial penalties.

In 2009 President Barack Obama made history as the first sitting U.S. president to appear on a late-night talk show when he sat on Jay Leno’s couch as a guest of “The Tonight Show.” A return visit to the Leno show was made in 2011.

The president has continued to blur the lines between politics and entertainment and holds the distinction of having made a sizable number of television appearances as president, which include “The Late Show with David Letterman,” “The Colbert Report,” “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” “The View,” the “George Lopez Show,” and even the Discovery channel’s “Mythbusters” show.

Now Obama is set to appear on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” in a segment that has been scheduled to be filmed at the University of North Carolina.

With regard to the Fallon appearance, the campaign strategy of the White House is fairly transparent. It appears to be part of a concerted effort by the Obama campaign to tap into a younger demographic of voters. To this end, the president will use the Fallon television segment to announce a plan that will purportedly extend existing cuts of student loan interest rates.

The North Carolina venue has the additional advantage of enabling the president to tap into voters of a key battleground state.

Although the guest spot will be Obama’s first appearance on Fallon’s show, back in February First Lady Michelle Obama engaged in a “fitness challenge” at the White House with Fallon. In an official photo, Mrs. Obama is seen in a tug-of-war with the late-night host in the Diplomatic Reception Room. Michelle and Fallon also sported hula hoops, demonstrated push-ups, and went on a jog around the White House.

The first lady has actually appeared as a television guest on even more shows than has her husband. In addition to her guest spots on Letterman and Leno, she has also made appearances on “The Colbert Report,” Ellen DeGeneres’s show “Ellen,” “iCarly,” “Sesame Street,” “Rachael Ray,” the “Nickelodeon’s Kids’ Choice Awards” and “The Biggest Loser,” a show that the Obama campaign no doubt hopes is not a foreshadowing of electoral things to come.

Since the Obamas moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Michelle has made about 44 television appearances, approximately four times that of her predecessor, First Lady Laura Bush, during a similar period of time.

The Obama administration is using entertainment television for political purposes in an unprecedented way to the detriment of the Oval Office.

At a time when both the nation and the state of California are in dire need of an economic boost, George Lucas came up with an entertainment business plan that included the creation of hundreds of jobs.

Unfortunately, the employment enhancing idea that Lucas was contemplating involved building a complex, which was to be located in the liberal bastion of Marin County, California, a community just north of San Francisco.

The “Star Wars” filmmaker had been seeking to undergo a significant expansion of his media enterprise, Lucasfilm, in the form of a 269,000-square-foot entertainment complex that was to include a 51-foot-tall mission-style compound with two 85-foot towers, two indoor sound stages, and a large outdoor stage. Screening rooms, guest housing, a general store, and an employee cafeteria were also potentially in the works.

Now, courtesy of the environmentalists in the Marin area, the would-be Lucas jobs are headed elsewhere, along with all of the tax revenue that would have been generated.

Lucasfilm had planned to start construction of the production facility in 2013. However, some homeowners decided to join forces with environmentalists to stop the expansion.

Sympathetic to eco-concerns, Lucas’s company assured those who were opposed to the project that open space would be preserved and steps would be taken to minimize any adverse environmental impact.

Lucasfilm’s approach to the environment was apparently good enough for the Marin County planning commission that unanimously approved the new expansion back in February. Opponents, though, appealed the planning commission’s decision and in March took it to the county Board of Supervisors.

For Lucas, the appeal had evidently been the last straw, and he would no longer be delayed. Lucasfilm announced that it would take its project, along with the jobs that would have been produced, to a place other than the Lucas Valley, which for three decades has been home to what is known as the Skywalker Ranch.

“The level of bitterness and anger expressed by the homeowners in Lucas Valley has convinced us that, even if we were to spend more time and acquire the necessary approvals, we would not be able to maintain a constructive relationship with our neighbors,” Lucasfilm indicated in a statement.

The emotion described in the company’s announcement apparently goes both directions. Not only did Lucasfilm pull the project away from Marin, it intends to sell the historic farmland to a developer interested in constructing low-income housing, a use that the disgruntled residents of Marin are unlikely to appreciate.

“We love working and living in Marin, but the residents of Lucas Valley have fought this project for 25 years, and enough is enough,” the company revealed.

The statement went on to say that the company is seeking to locate in a community that will appreciate the economic benefits that Lucasfilm brings.

“We have several opportunities to build the production stages in communities that see us as a creative asset, not as an evil empire,” the statement read.

Lucas and his company have concisely stated what all entrepreneurs inherently understand: Viewing business expansion as a creative asset as opposed to an evil entity is beneficial for the jobs market as well as the general economy.

Jennifer Lawrence, the newly minted Hollywood superstar of the blockbuster film “The Hunger Games,” recently made some distinctly right-of-center remarks in an interview that appears in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine.

Lawrence, who in “The Hunger Games” plays archer warrior Katniss, spoke about a scene in “Winter’s Bone,” a movie in which she previously appeared, which has her gutting a squirrel.

Addressing the issue of whether or not the scene had been created by Hollywood special effects, Lawrence let her feelings be known about the animal rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

“I should say it wasn’t real, for PETA,” Lawrence said. “But screw PETA.”

To prepare for the “Winter’s Bone” role, the 21-year-old actress spent a month with a family in Missouri, living a rural lifestyle that included plenty of rifle shooting.

Lawrence’s “Games” co-star, Woody Harrelson, explains the actress’s independent spirit, referring to Lawrence as “the real deal” and describing her as someone “who’s not trying to be anyone she’s not.”

“She’s just this frickin’ amazing gal from Kentucky who hit it big,” Harrelson said.

During the Rolling Stone interview, Lawrence hinted at her plans following the completion of her next film project.

In atypical Hollywood language, she announced that she is “thinking about buying a house. And a big dog. And a shotgun.”

In the era of spin in which our society is currently immersed, political figures, celebrities, high-profile individuals, and corporate executives on behalf of their companies frequently attempt to alter public opinion and/or perception through use of borderline tactics, particularly when damage control is what is being sought.

NBC News recently found itself in the position of having to seek damage control and in so doing the network news division ended up making a dubious assertion to Reuters, which indicated that the precisely edited recording of a phone call from George Zimmerman to police prior to the shooting of Trayvon Martin was a mere “mistake.”

The incident is reminiscent of the controversy that CBS faced back in 2004, which in some quarters is still referred to as “Rathergate.”

Dan Rather reported on “60 Minutes Wednesday” that memos critical of then-President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service record had been discovered. However, the authenticity of the documents was called into question because they possessed modern typographic conventions that were unavailable on military typewriters of the 1970s.

Both Rather and CBS initially insisted that the documents were legitimate, claiming that they had been authenticated by experts. CBS later retracted the story.

NBC appears to be using a comparable playbook with regard to the edit of the Zimmerman tape.

Since the story hit the national media, the thrust of the Martin shooting has revolved around the assumption that race had been a factor in the incident. Protests in various locations erupted seeking the shooter’s arrest.

The edited recording that aired on NBC’s “Today” show was directly related in terms of newsworthiness to the question of whether or not Zimmerman’s actions were racially motivated. The tape was, in essence, a critical piece of evidence in an already volatile situation.

NBC News President Steve Capus told Reuters that the edit had been the result of “a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call.”

The edit redacted just enough of the conversation to leave listeners with the impression that Zimmerman’s motivation for assuming Martin was “up to no good” was based on skin color.

The following is the edited recorded segment, which was aired on March 27 by NBC News:

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good …”

Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

If the actual unedited recording shown below had been aired by NBC, it would have left listeners with a distinctly different impression.

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?”

Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

When a comparison of NBC’s edit and the actual recording is done, it simply stretches the bounds of credibility to expect people to believe that when a professional is editing a recorded conversation, he or she would not listen to the words on the recording prior to deleting sections of the audio, particularly the question that was posed by the 911 operator.

NBC News has offered a statement of apology for having made “an editing error in the production process” and has indicated that an internal investigation has been conducted.

However, the network is also indicating that it has no intention of releasing the results of the investigation to the public.

Along with Steven Spielberg, Gerald R. Molen has produced a string of successful and memorable Hollywood movies including the Oscar-winning “Schindler’s List.”

In contrast to Spielberg, who is a strong supporter of President Barack Obama, Molen has produced a new anti-Obama film, “Obama’s America: 2016,” which will be released at the kick-off of the general presidential election season.

Molen’s documentary is based on author Dinesh D’Souza’s book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” and features the following marketing slogan: “Love Him Hate Him, You Don’t Know Him.”

The film explores themes in D’Souza’s book that analyze the formation of the president’s underlying political philosophy and motivation for his policies.

After establishing and analyzing the perspective from which Obama views the world, the film offers an assessment of what is likely to happen should the president win reelection and secure another four-year term.

The primary source for Molen’s film, D’Souza’s book, distinguishes Obama from traditional liberals who seek redistribution of wealth, and portrays the president as one who is striving to diminish the preeminence of the United States and reallocate power to weaker nations around the globe.

As D’Souza did in “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” the movie uses as source material Obama’s “Dreams from My Father” book, noting that the president’s father saw America as a colonialist nation that needed to be downsized.

“Obama’s America: 2016” will be released nationwide this coming summer in a season that is likely to include fiery general election campaign rhetoric.

In a stunning turn of events, on Tuesday Katie Couric will take the anchor chair of ABC’s “Good Morning America” in a morning show ratings competition against Sarah Palin, who will guest host on rival NBC’s “Today” show.

The A.M. TV battle places the two public figures as guest hosts in the same time slot and will be the first time that their names appear in the media together since Couric’s infamous interview of then-GOP vice presidential candidate Palin.

Couric had been criticized by Palin and fellow conservatives for her line of questioning during the interview, charging that Couric was unfair, biased, and employed “gotcha” tactics. Following the dustup, Palin stated that there would be no further interviews with Couric.

The opportunity to go up against Couric in the TV arena was perhaps a motivating factor for the former Alaska governor. The back-story behind the morning show contest revolves around the major small screen measuring stick of success—television ratings.

ABC announced that the network would bring in Couric for a weeklong guest hosting assignment to fill in for vacationing “GMA” host Robin Roberts.

“Serious pressure filling in for the fab @RobinRoberts !” Couric tweeted. “Rise + shine! Excited to be back on morning TV next wk, guest hosting @GMA w/ @GStephanopoulos.”

A ratings war has been raging for decades between NBC’s first place “Today” show and ABC’s second place “Good Morning America” program. The ABC executives had hopes of Couric taking “GMA” to the number one position, since the ABC show, according to the network, is the closest ratings-wise that it has been to NBC in five years. There are only 137,000 viewers separating “GMA” from the “Today” show.

However, NBC made the decision to counter Couric’s hosting stint on the opposing show with a surprise host of its own, which materialized in the form of Palin.

“She’ll reveal a different side of her than you’ve seen before,” NBC Universal spokeswoman Megan Kopf said of Palin on the “Today” show’s website.

For years Hollywood insiders have talked about the possibility of Palin becoming a daytime television personality. For TV producers, Palin’s performance may be the equivalent of a daytime TV screen test.

As for Palin’s thoughts on her guest hosting duties, the former vice presidential candidate let it be known that she intends to use the show as a platform for her message.

“I see this as a good opportunity to bring an independent, common-sense conservative perspective to NBC. We’re ‘going rogue’ and infiltrating some turf for a day,” Palin told Breitbart News.

When asked specifically about Couric hosting on another network during the exact same time slot, Palin offered a pointed response.

“Game on,” she said.

Three prominent liberal feminists recently published an editorial on CNN, which lobbied for Rush Limbaugh’s show to be pulled off the air.

The trio carried on about the conservative talk show host’s “misogyny” over the Sandra Fluke flap and urged readers to contact Rush’s radio syndication company to convince the corporation to confiscate Limbaugh’s golden microphone.

Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, and Jane Fonda, co-founders of the Women’s Media Center, penned the hit piece. In it, they compare Limbaugh to Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels, criticizing him for using the term “femi-nazi.”

They additionally suggest that it might be “a fitting time to inquire of his [Rush’s] syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech.”

The writers opine that in the event that Clear Channel should refuse to “clean up its airways,” then it may be “time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh’s show in fact using their licenses ‘in the public interest?’”

Steinem, Morgan, and Fonda contend that Rush should be yanked from the air for what they refer to as “dehumanizing speech.”

The left is evidently putting in a great deal of effort to keep the Fluke controversy, and the three longtime liberal feminists seem to be quite willing to assist in the stoking of the anti-conservative fire.

However, using Fonda in an effort to stifle free speech is a tactic that drips with Hollywood irony.

Fonda is, of course, the individual who in July of 1972 made a celebrity stopover in Hanoi, and as our soldiers braved the battles of the Vietnam War, she sat with the enemy for a photo-op aboard an anti-aircraft gun.

While in Vietnam, Fonda made ten radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as “war criminals.” Disgustingly, when cases of torture began to emerge among POWs returning to the United States, Fonda called the returning POWs “hypocrites and liars.”

Fonda later expressed some regret about the enemy aiding photo, but not for the traitorous trip or the broadcasts made for our foes.

In September 2009, Fonda signed a letter that protested the Toronto International Film Festival’s presentation of ten films about the Israeli city of Tel Aviv. The protest letter said that the spotlight on Tel Aviv was part of “the Israeli propaganda machine.”

Rabbi Marvin Hier, who founded the Simon Wiesenthal Center, called the boycott “an attack on the heart and soul of Israel.”

About those who signed the letter, Rabbi Hier said, “By calling into question the legitimacy of Tel Aviv, they are supporting a one-state solution, which means the destruction of the State of Israel.”

The actress later expressed regret for some of the language used in the protest letter.

In contrast with Fonda and her partial mea culpas for her egregious speech and conduct, Rush has made a full apology for the on-air language that he used to describe Fluke.

Interestingly, while expressing disdain over the use of the term “femi-nazi,” Fonda and her cohorts have illustrated why Rush’s coined phrase for radical feminists has a ring of truth to it, since they are choosing to follow in the footsteps of totalitarian dictators who seek to silence those with whom they disagree.