Here at FedUp PAC we have long fought (and exposed) the fake news coming from the flagship newspaper of the D.C. Swamp, the Washington Post. And we have long warned about the leftist bias coming out of Hollywood. But now comes a veritable tsunami of fakeness: Hollywood fake history glorifying D.C. fake news.

We're referring to the movie now playing in a theater near you: The Post, directed by Steven Spielberg, with Meryl Streep as Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham, and Tom Hanks as the Post's editor Ben Bradlee.

Ostensibly it's about the Pentagon Papers, published in 1971, and the triumph of a free press over a corrupt and dictatorial president. In reality it's an attempt to rewrite history to denigrate Republican presidents (Nixon and Trump), shift the blame for Vietnam away from Democrats (LBJ and JFK, and their camp followers), glorify feminism, and whitewash the feminist actress icon Meryl Streep.

And, of course, if it can help the Democrats in the 2018 elections, that's another bonus.

Movies like this brainwash a public that has short-term memory, and especially the young, who don't know American history (what little they get in government schools is leftist propaganda). Here's how the movie The Post ambitiously seeks to further the leftist agenda, judging from the movie itself and advance interviews of the principals.

Make Nixon the villain of Vietnam, not JFK and LBJ

Nixon is the obvious villain of the movie, for his vain attempt to stop further publication of the Pentagon Papers, government documents showing how the White House had lied to the American public about the true nature and purposes of the Vietnam War. But as Peggy Noonan noted in the Wall Street Journal:

"Nixon did not start the Vietnam War, he ended it. His administration was not even mentioned in the Pentagon Papers, which were finished before he took office."

President Kennedy turned Vietnam into a major war, but Lyndon Johnson was the biggest liar, winning the Pinocchio contest. As the New York Times wrote in its initial story on the papers, they show that the Johnson Administration "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress."

Senator Barry Goldwater, the first conservative presidential candidate of the modern era, said of the publication of the Pentagon Papers:

"During the [1964] campaign, President Johnson kept reiterating that he would never send American boys to fight in Vietnam. As I say, he knew at the time that American boys were going to be sent. In fact, I knew about ten days before the Republican Convention. You see I was being called trigger-happy, warmonger, bomb happy, and all the time Johnson was saying, he would never send American boys, I knew damn well he would."

The Post makes just enough references to the lies of JFK and LBJ, but those are grouped with previous lies about Vietnam from Truman and Eisenhower, to soften the impact on the two liberal heroes. And, of course, Nixon remains the chief villain, hogging 90 percent or more of the attention.

In case you are too dense to have got the message, there is a totally irrelevant coda at the very end of the movie: A security guard notifying police that a robbery is apparently going on in the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate. Now do you understand?

Could there be another reason why the movie wants to make Nixon the villain?

You bet. Hollywood has never had any love for Nixon or Republicans, of course, but today it has a new ogre to denigrate: President Trump. The Left never passes up any opportunity to equate Trump with Nixon, and every night leftists have wet dreams about removing Trump from office as happened with Nixon. The parallel here is the antipathy of both Nixon and Trump toward the leftist press. That proves to them that Nixon and Trump are blood brothers.

The movie principals make no secret of this motivation. Spielberg, on why he rushed to get the movie done in a frenetic nine months: "We all felt this film was not going to fall on deaf ears, that there was an audience that had been listening to this kind of bully-pulpit discrimination against the free press for long enough that they might want to see that this all began with Richard Nixon." And Tom Hanks: "We made this movie about 1971, but it really is about 2017."

As the Times of London noted: "So The Post is an urgent reaction to Trump's bellowing about fake news. It's a movie with a message: all this happened before, but we survived, and this is how. Spielberg is once again being the finest cinematic flowering of the conscience of liberal America."

Those are the two main purposes of this movie, but there are other considerations.

Glorify the Washington Post

This may be a Left Coast thing. The Washington Post is now the plaything of mega-billionaire Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, based in Seattle. Bezos's main residences are outside Seattle (in the same neighborhood as Bill Gates) and in Beverly Hills, where he travels in the same Hollywood circles as Spielberg, Streep, and Hanks.

Anyone who actually knows some real history of the Pentagon Papers remembers that it was the New York Times, not the Washington Post, that first published portions of the Pentagon Papers and took the greatest risk. But the New York Times and its Sulzberger family owners are so staid and un- Hollywoodish, one can see why the movie's principals preferred to make the Post the hero of the Pentagon Papers, especially considering the other reasons given here.

For the record, not only the Post but 15 other newspapers published portions of the Pentagon Papers after the New York Times broke the story. And the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of allowing publication just 12 days after the Post began publishing portions, as depicted in this movie. So, at most, the Post saved freedom of the press for 12 days, and it shared honors with 16 other newspapers.

Glorify feminism

This is another big reason to glorify the Post rather than the Times. The Post's Katherine Graham was the first woman to be publisher of a major U.S. newspaper. The Sulzbergers of the Times, and before them the related Ochs, have all been reliably male. So while Graham bore scant resemblance to the strident feminists of today, this was a makeover opportunity that fits the pervasive politically correct narrative of feminism.

To drive home this point, we see repeated scenes of Katherine Graham being the only woman executive in a board room of aging white males and aging white play-it- safe lawyers. Then, after the Supreme Court decision allowing publication, we see a triumphant Katherine Graham leaving the Supreme Court, making her way through a throng of adoring young women, who have found their role model. The only males in evidence there are the cops policing the crowd.

Tom Hanks again: "How dare they [we] do this movie about the Washington Post when it was [the New York Times]?... They did not have Katharine Graham."

And, finally, Meryl Streep needed help with her credibility problem

Meryl Streep has been predictably feminist throughout her career in her public pronouncements. That's what Hollywood icons do. But when the Harvey Weinstein tornado struck (after The Post had started production), people started asking how she could have been unaware of his noxious deeds and lifestyle, or, if aware, why she kept quiet about it-and about the anti-woman culture of Hollywood in general. After all, she used to refer to Weinstein as "God." So her role as Katherine Graham fighting Nixon and Trump may help people forget that embarrassing episode in her life.

There is a delicious scene in which Graham confronts her good friend Robert McNamara about how he could have lied to her over the years about Vietnam. Until that time, she apparently had no idea that government officials (at least the ones she approved of) would lie to their influential journalist friends. It's Graham the innocent (re McNamara) played by Meryl Streep the innocent (re Weinstein). The message the movie wants us to go home with is that liberals are never part of the con, though they are only human and can sometimes be deceived.

The real power of Hollywood propaganda films like this is to make you feel you are witnessing the actual history rather than a fabrication. Steven Spielberg is a master at this. And on cue, when we saw The Post in a theater, the audience applauded vigorously at the end. Leni Riefenstahl must be proud of Spielberg.

As for the Washington Post and its Hollywood friends, no wonder they want to wallow in the glorious past of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. Today it is a reliable mouthpiece for the Washington Swamp and the Deep State, owned by a mega-billionaire who has a lucrative contract with the CIA. It is hard to imagine today's Washington Post publishing an expose of, say, major Obama Administration lies (take your pick). Unless President Trump filed an injunction to keep them from publishing the expose, of course.