—–

Here’s a link to Cherry Tree Media.

Politico:

Really? There’s a right to free birth control through your employer? Liar.

But what Moore is doing here is what Obama and his media minions are doing. They’re turning a government mandate that violates the First Amendment into a “rights” issue.

What Obama is attempting to do to the Catholic Church is no different than creating a federal mandate that would require every Islamic-run business to provide pork rinds in their vending machines — because people have a right to equal access to fat free foods.

—-

Note all the Catholic Church-bashing Moore’s engages in. Where is that coming from and what does it have to do with this debate?

It’s just hate, pure and simple.

A brief history of blood libels, courtesy of Wikipedia:

• In England in 1144, the Jews of Norwich were accused of ritual murder after a boy was found dead with stab wounds in the woods. This was followed by similar accusations elsewhere, leading to massacres in London and York. In 1190, “the Norwich Jews were butchered in their homes.”

• In France in 1171, a similar accusation against the Jewish community of Bloise led to the massacre by fire of some 40 Jews.

• In Germany, a boy’s body was found in the Lauter river. Based on “miraculous” evidence that “proved” the Jews had hung the boy by the feet and had opened every artery in his body to obtain the blood, the Jews were executed.

• In Russia in 1820, a Jew in Zverki is accused of kidnapping a six year old boy, draining his blood for nine days and dumping his body. In 1997, “Belorussian state TV showed a film alleging the story is true.”

This is the gist of the blood libel: the belief that Jews kidnap children to drain them of their blood. It didn’t die with the Nazis. It is still in currency today. You have only to turn on Syrian or Egyptian television to see. But American TV? (Spoilers Ahead)

The Feb. 3 episode of “Grimm” began with the body of a teen being found in a river, the corpse drained of three-fourths of its blood. The culprit? A “Geier” named Dr. Levine, who has been kidnapping street kids to kill them for their organs and blood.

Does the name “Geier” sound familiar? Sometime toward the end of the 18th century, Central European governments required Jews to adopt surnames. So at a time when Jews were restricted to marginal occupations, some Jewish money-lenders and merchants were made to take the pejorative name Geier, or vulture: a term used then, as now, to reference avarice or greed.

And what does “Geier” mean in the “Grimm” world?

Here, via Wikipedia’s “Creatures of Grimm”: “Geier are vulture-like creatures. Highly sadistic almost on a satanic level, infamous  for harvesting human organs and blood, [they are] the most vile creatures of all.”

And, in case we don’t get the connection between blood and money, here’s this bit of dialogue from the episode to hammer it home:

Capt. Renard: “Well, whichever way you look at it, it’s cannibalism.”

Sgt. Wu: “Uh, I think it’s pronounced ‘capitalism’.”

Good one, Sgt. Wu. You go get those vulture capitalists. I’m sure you and the National Socialists will be great friends. But why rely on words when pictures will do?

Behold: a screenshot from “Grimm” of a cannibalistic “Geier,” left, beside an anti-Semitic cartoon of a cannibalistic Jew, right:

A “Grimm” drawing of birdlike Geiers tormenting a man, left, next to a detail of birdlike demons tormenting the damned, right. Note the clawed hands and feet in both images, and the claw-like hands in the cartoon above.

Medieval illuminations portraying both Jews and demons as rapacious and bird-like, left. Often Jews were depicted as demons, and demons as Jews, right.

And once again Grimm’s “vulture,” left, beside the Nazi’s Jew, right.

So: am I saying that the “Grimm” writers, rather than coming up with a fresh and unique twist on one of the Grimm Fairy Tales, instead recycled the most vile antisemitic tropes to come out of Europe?

Yes.

1) Based on the choice of the name “Geier,” a pejorative label of a name bestowed upon Jews in Europe, and the pointed reference to vile profit from others’ pain.

2) Based on how closely the appearance of Grimm’s mythical Geier hews to portrayals of demonic Jews in Medieval paintings, as well as to modern anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews.

3) Based on how closely the plot of the story parallels that of the blood libels, including the medieval blood libel of blood-draining, and the modern blood libel of Jewish surgeons as organ thieves (as seen in the anti-Semitic, anti-American Turkish film, “Valley of the Wolves: Iraq”)

4) And based on how, for no other reason, the doctor-who-is-a-Geier still bears the thrice-mentioned, explicitly Jewish name of Levine, in spite of a Latina (Valerie Cruz) being cast in the role.

Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

No matter how the writers will insist — up, down and sideways — that some of their best friends are Jewish. No matter how they or their employers insist that their skin color or heritage or gender or sexual preference or height or weight or allergies makes it impossible for them to have created an anti-Semitic display.

And no matter how they are shocked, shocked to learn that mean racist people, for at least nine hundred years, have used “vulture” as an epithet for “Jew.”

- Anonymous

Yes, it does sound like a “Bourne” movie, doesn’t it? But no, this is “Safe House,” with Denzel Washington taking over for Matt Damon, Sam Shepard replacing Scott Glenn as the steely Agency overseer, Brendan Gleeson in for Brian Cox as the dodgy controller, and Vera Farmiga stepping into the Joan Allen role as his straight-shooting subordinate.

The picture has a familiar swarming hand-held visual style, thanks to cinematographer Oliver Wood (who shot all three “Bourne” films) and editor Richard Pearson (who worked on “The Bourne Supremacy”). At one point, an agitated spook even yelps out a demand for remote surveillance with the words “I want eyes on this!”—a line previously yelped by David Strathairn’s agitated spook in “The Bourne Ultimatum.”

“Safe House” may be faux Bourne, but for those counting the moments till the release of “The Bourne Legacy” next August, it might seem better than no Bourne at all. Swedish director Daniel Espinosa has a flair for action staging—the one-on-one fight scenes, agreeably many in number and often set in confined spaces, are smashingly effective. And first-time screenwriter David Guggenheim has usefully adjusted the Bourne template. Here, Washington’s character, Tobin Frost—nominally the Jason Bourne figure—isn’t an unwitting innocent being set up by his shadowy CIA masters; he’s an actual traitor who has been selling Agency secrets for nearly a decade.

Read the full review at Reason.com

Denzel Washington stars as a rogue CIA agent who turns himself in to U.S. authorities, and before you can say “human rights abuse” his character undergoes a waterboarding treatment.

Had “Safe House” come out five years ago, the scene might have included jabs at the Bush administration, the War on Terror or both. Likely both. Instead, the scene arrives and leaves without any sermonizing to lessen the moment’s impact.

We’re supposed to learn that Washington’s character, the colorfully named Tobin Frost, is a certifiable bad-ass, and that the information he possesses is critically important to the story. And that’s it.

Nice.

Left unsaid is the notion that if an Oscar winner like Washington is willing to be waterboarded for a movie, perhaps the technique isn’t as torturous as Bush critics once claimed it to be?

“The decision to end the show now, or ever, is a painful one, as it risks putting asunder hundreds of close friendships that have developed over the last eight years,” said executive producers David Shore, Katie Jacobs and Hugh Laurie, “but also because the show itself has been a source of great pride to everyone involved.

The producers have always imagined House as an enigmatic creature;  he should never be the last one to leave the party.  How much better to disappear before the music stops, while there is still some promise and mystique in the air.”

Now’s as good a time as any for a post-mortem on one of the quirkiest, most interesting character shows of the last decade. “House’s” focus on a thoroughly unlikeable character was risky, and it paid off; the creators’ decision to make him a thoroughgoing atheist constantly at conflict with others subtly made the case for the bankruptcy of his ideology.  Or, at the very least, it offered philosophical contrast.

Most famously, “House” featured a very pro-life episode in 2007, “Fetal Position,” in which an unborn child reached out of the womb and touched House’s hand, mirroring the famous photograph. That was mirrored by a pro-choice episode that same season that made the case for abortion for a religious rape victim. That was House’s style.

When I interviewed Shore for my latest book, Primetime Propaganda, here’s what he told me about the abortion episodes: “As you can imagine, we’re in Hollywood, we’ve got our share of rabid left wing Democrats here. And … our writing staff has the makeup you’d basically expect of a Hollywood writing staff, and I remember when we were doing ‘Fetal Position,’ there is that image of that little finger of the fetus clasping Dr. House’s hand. And it was a powerful image. And we recognized at the time that’s going to go up on billboards and websites for pro-life organizations. But it was true, and it was accurate, and it was real. And the last thing I want to do is, I happen to be pro-choice, but the last thing I want to do is to give false information or convince people of my argument. I think that’s just not the way to approach things. It’s a difficult choice, and it is a difficult issue.  And I think treating it as anything different than that is dishonest and ultimately counterproductive.”

Shore’s honesty on politics meant that he admitted there was bias against conservatives in Hollywood. As he told me, “there is an assumption in this town that everybody is on the left side of the spectrum, and that the few people on the right, I think people look at them somewhat aghast, and I’m sure it doesn’t help them.” Those are the words of a truth teller. And in its own way, when it wasn’t burdened down with the typical hallmarks of leftist Hollywood (hot bisexuals, open marriages, and the like), “House” was a uniquely truth-telling show.

Some think her career is pure marketing and her fans believe she’s a real trend setter. There has always been a wide range of opinions about this woman, an entertainer who has enough monikers to be in the witness protection program. As her personal life has evolved through marriages, children and boyfriends, her songs are what are more familiar to people.

For the first time since she became famous, she got to be the star attraction at the Super Bowl Halftime Show. What aspect of her performance did people focus on? Her voice? Nope. What she wore? Not really. Her new song? Sure, a little. Her age? Bingo, report her to AARP, stat!

How dare she try to pull off that type of show as a woman who has experienced more than three decades on the planet? Perish the thought! She has some nerve being on that stage and lifting her leg up at the age of 53. Where are her Mom jeans with the elastic waist? How could she be in high-heeled, thigh high boots when she knows she should be in Easy Spirits? This is even more of an abomination than her performance in “Swept Away.”

Doesn’t she know that woman over 35, let alone 40 in this country, are considered older than Methuselah? You mean she has no clue that she should be referring to herself as “long in the tooth” “an old bag” and a “has-been.” Doesn’t she realize that she has to grow into her date of birth by talking about things she can’t do anymore? Where is her rheumatoid arthritis? COPD? High cholesterol? She should be punished for doing a jumping jack.

Just check the reaction to her performance on social media outlets if you think I am exaggerating.

It is amazing that in 2012, with the way racism and homophobia have been addressed – and rightfully so – that ageism rage against woman is on perpetual mute. Hello, media, I’m talking to you, too.

Let’s substitute Mick Jagger for Madonna at the same age doing the same moves. There would barely be a mention of his cumulative years. I remember when he was 53 and it was a blip, if that. Jagger is now approaching 70, and when he announces a new music project it’s applauded. Harrison Ford (69), George Clooney (51), Denzel Washington (56), Brad Pitt (48) are revered, immortalized and sought after for tons of opportunities without hesitation as to how their crow’s feet or beer bellies may look on the big screen. Regis Philbin got the “Millionaire” gig at almost 70.

TV executives would run over their Bishons before they would hand a new hosting gig to a talented woman in a similar age bracket. Please spare me that Meryl Streep or Helen Mirren still work. That’s because producers know these ladies can deliver no matter what crappy script they are handed. Betty White is getting a little attention now, and that’s because she is making fun of herself.

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone mentioned how old Jennifer Grey was when she appeared on “Dancing with the Stars.” When Susan Lucci wrote her autobiography last year every interviewer wanted to focus on her age and why she didn’t mention hot flashes in her book.

The realm of politics is no better. Hillary Clinton’s age is highlighted constantly as to how she would be too old if she were to to run for President, yet John McCain was how old and could barely communicate – I rest my case (this has nothing to do with who I would vote for).

This cuts across, race, income bracket and political persuasions. I thought liberal Democrats were suppose to be so open, so unwilling to judge. Ha! I have never seen so much judgment since my last family gathering. As for conservative Republicans, don’t be so full of yourselves. You’re just as bad. This isn’t a bi-partisan problem. This is a life problem.

We need to stop taking someone’s age and putting them in categories based on physical and emotional expectations. Everyone has different experiences, lifestyles, choices and genetics.

These judgments are printed and said out loud, and then they seep into people’s minds and become embedded in society. It halts opportunities and, let’s be realistic, at the rate we’re all going, our work years are increasing and we need to be open to all age brackets of people working and not just the twenty something crowd. There is no true price for good experience, no matter what the profession.

Similar to the opinions of Madonna on a more miniscule level, you will either like or dislike this article depending on what your mindset is. However, if I can get you to take a moment to think about your daughter, niece, mother or grandmother and think about the injustices, then I have communicated effectively. “Like a Prayer,” I hope things at the very least change for our girls who growing up now.

A few years have passed since Harold and Kumar escaped from Guantanamo or killed time hanging out together smoking their beloved mary jane. And sometime over the course of the last few years, the boys went their separate ways and became estranged. They’re now two completely different people who haven’t seen each other in over a year and probably wouldn’t become friends were they to meet for the first time today.  In fact, they would probably hate each other.

Harold now works in high finance. His is now THE MAN and even has to deal with Occupy Wall Street-types who protest outside his offices. Harold also enjoys an upper middle-class life in the suburbs with a nice car and an even nicer fiancée. Kumar, however, is still Kumar — an unemployed burn-out who smokes weed all day and avoids responsibility like he does a shower. Closing in on 30, sadly, the reefer’s become an escape for Kumar, a way to avoid coming to terms with the emptiness of his life and the loss of his girlfriend. What had been recreational and rebellious in his youth, is now a pathetic crutch.

It’s Christmastime and Harold’s smoking-hot fiancee’s rather large family has come to stay for the holidays. The most important thing to Harold’s future father-in-law (Danny Trejo), a man who’s crazy about Christmas and someone with whom Harold is desperate to make a good impression, is the perfect tree. Harold promises everyone that when they return from church, the perfect tree will be decorated and waiting for them. They leave. Kumar shows up. Mayhem ensues.  

The story is only sporadically funny. In-between bits that are truly clever, like a clay-mation sequence and Neil Patrick Harris riffing on his public persona, the jokes tend to be more miss than hit. The more vulgar (very vulgar) stuff meant to shock mostly falls flat, but some of the less politically correct moments involving race do hit the mark. It’s all good-natured and, in this day and age, pretty refreshing.

While this third chapter is definitely an improvement over the one-note Bush-bash that was chapter two, you can still sense The New Production Code at work. Some targets are safe. Some are not. Muslims and gays take no satiric hits and I still don’t understand a Hollywood that crusades against cigarettes but builds a trilogy around two sympathetic protagonists who, without any health consequences, love to smoke dope.

In the end, though, this is a story about two estranged friends who have gone their separate ways, grown apart, and are now uncomfortable in each other’s company. The emotional spine of the story involves them finding a way to become friends again, and this is something many of us can relate to. There are also some mature themes involving family and the reality that you actually do have to grow up eventually.

If you’re a fan of the genre or the first two, you’re going to enjoy the further adventures of… Others should probably stay away.

‘A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas’ is available at Amazon.

The Hollywood Reporter:

The Movieguide report rates movies using more than two dozen criteria, such as whether a title promotes capitalism or socialism or if it promotes or denigrates biblical principles. Violence, sex, political correctness, revisionist history, environmentalism, feminism, homosexuality and more hot-button political issues all are taken into consideration.

This year’s report concludes that seven of the top 10 films of 2011 scored high on Movieguide’s index and therefore qualify as films with “strong or very strong Christian, biblical, moral and redemptive content.”

Movieguide identified 91 movies in 2011 that scored high in “conservative/moral categories”; these earned an average of $59 million apiece. On the other hand, it identified 105 movies that scored high in “liberal/leftist categories”; each of those titles earned an average of just $11 million.

The average movie scoring four stars from Movieguide earned $53.5 million while the ones that scored just one star earned $10.6 million.

Exceptions abound, of course, notable ones being The Hangover Part II and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1, hit movies that earned $581 million and $702 million worldwide, respectively, but are panned by Movieguide as films that promote “fringe worldviews” and “obscene behavior.”

Now, the curvy star of “We Bought a Zoo” is carrying Obama’s water for his 2012 campaign.

Johansson announced she’s back on Team Obama, reading off the Celebrity Apology script while chatting to The Huffington Post about her return to the Hope and Change Express:

I think people are really in dire straits and they are very reasonably and understandably upset,” she said. “I mean Obama inherited a turkey, he really did, and he’s working to… he’s fighting a kind of uphill battle in a sense and he has these past four years. And he never ran his first term as that — he was always going to be a two-term election in that sense. And change doesn’t happen overnight, you know, we know that.

Change doesn’t happen overnight. He inherited a mess. Johansson doesn’t miss a beat, although she neglected to mention the phony, “those dern Republicans won’t let him get anything done” talking point.

There’s always take two, right?