If you frequent the BigHollywood often, you’ve no doubt read about Glee’s recent jabs aimed toward Conservatives (more specifically, last week with Sarah Palin). Despite Sarah Palin having a legion of supporters (many of whom watch “Glee”), the people at Fox thought that it was a safe bet. After all, none of their Hollywood buddies would criticize them for it. That would require, shall we say… testicles? No, when it comes to speaking up against the popular opinion among their elitist peers, Tinseltown decided to lie themselves on the neutering bench a long time ago. It’s because of this that they travel in packs, making drive-bys and are more akin to acting like Cobra-Kais’ cronies than fighting the establishment a la Daniel Larusso. When “Glee” took a swipe at Ann Coulter this week, one could faintly hear the cries of their Hollywood lackeys screeching “Get’him a bodybag!” in the studio back lots and writers’ boardrooms.

In the most recent episode, when Emma Pillsburys’ character was listing the negative role models influencing young women in America today, she felt the need to name Ann Coulter. For the record, Ann Coulter was included after Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan. The show then went on to normalize promiscuous teenage sex between young harlots and cads. If Ann wants to be a more positive role model for young women, clearly she should be taking notes.

It seems that the creators of “Glee” don’t just hate Conservatives in general, but reserve an even stronger rancor for particularly strong Conservative women. Their disdain for Palin and Coulter is deeply rooted in their love for subjective morality. Whereas “Glee” tells young women that the entire sexual landscape is nothing more than a gray area determined only by what “feels” right to them, Coulter and Palin draw a clear line in the sand and dare to tell women that sex is a big deal. Remember that to a liberal, telling young women that sex should be reserved for their husband is cruel, archaic, and ultimately a manifestation of hatred for women as a whole, as well as their menstrual cycles.

An even bigger problem for Hollywood is that both of these women sell books. I mean, they sell a LOT of books. The folks in Tinseltown can’t get their heads around that. They surround themselves with so many yes-men and patsies for the higher-ups that they can’t fathom such a huge portion of the American public being in diametric opposition to their worldview. So what do they do? They attack… In packs.

Even worse, if they feel that their backs are against the wall, they’ll call up Sean Penn to curse you with rectal cancer.

That’s right. Watch “Glee”… Or you’ll die screaming of rectal cancer.

You’ve no doubt heard about Ann Coulters’ escapades in the Great White North. College leftists (who’d had no qualms with terrorist sympathizers speaking at their school in the past) were so offended with the idea of what Madam Coulter might say ,that they attempted to ban her from the premises. When that didn’t happen, the young Green-Day liberals decided to stage a protest. Of course (as is often the case with liberal protests) things got out of hand, with protesters becoming so unruly that the situation had become not only a safety hazard to Ann herself, but for the myriad people who were there to hear her speak. Woodstockers would be proud! So students thirsty for knowledge and debate have to deal with all of this hooplah because many Canadians forecasted that Ann Coulter might engage in –cue dramatic chipmunk– hate speech!

See, leftists will read that and deem the censorship completely appropriate. Liberals and censorship go together like Batman and Robin, milk and cookies or hockey and beaver pelts. Unlike canucks however, Americans are apprehensive towards the idea of censorship because of the “rugged individualism” that rests at the center of our cultural landscape. We gained our freedom by flipping the bird to the monarchy… Canada gained it by bending down, kissing the ring and making concessions. American leftists love to hold Canada in high esteem however, and often use it as a blueprint for what the United States should become (the silly accent notwithstanding).

Enter “hate crime” laws. For those of you who don’t know — those who buy into the idea of “hate crimes” believe that if you kill someone, a harsher sentence is merited if the victim happens to be a minority or gay. The laws are designed to place emphasis on intent, ergo criminalize thoughts in the process. See, I don’t think that murder needs a footnote. As a matter of fact, if leftists believed in harsher sentencing of convicted felons these policies wouldn’t be an issue in the first place. If only one of the four people that Tookie Williams brutally murdered had been gay, Clooney might have left his protesting shoes in the closet.

See how clever this little backdoor is? When you criminalize thought through hate crime legislation, you can ultimately criminalize speech based on the premise that the words are reflective of hateful thoughts. Combine that with leftists basing their arguments on the premise that conservatives are all bigoted, homophobes (mostly because we’re all secretly gay) and you’ve got one hell of a powerful tool in your hands.

You needn’t ask Ann Coulter. Just ask Stephen Boisson, a Canadian pastor who now faces fines and possible jail time due to his speaking out against homosexuality. No he didn’t beat any gay people up, no he didn’t use words that would incite violence, and no, he wasn’t even caught rejecting advances from Boy George in a Los Angeles porta-potty. He simply stood by the doctrine of his church and actively expressed himself. Canadian human rights tribunals were not happy.

Whether you agree with Boisson or not, one has to ask themselves if we want that kind of a cultural shift in America. Do you want the government to have the right to tell you what you can and cannot say? Should the folks in Washington be the ones to determine whether your dissent crosses the line into the territory of “hateful?” Should the “rugged individualism” of America be made a relic of the past, pushed aside to make way for more legislation that fosters “tolerance?”

But most of all… Does this mean that I can go to jail for calling Sean Penn a wiener?

There’s only one problem with all of the following examples: there is no evidence that any of those events have occurred.

Ever.

Firstly, let’s examine the claim that Glenn Beck called James Cameron the Antichrist. To hear the story in mainstream media, Glenn Beck came face-to-face with Mr. Cameron and proceeded to accuse him of being the anti-Christ. The rock-solid source for this one was none other than the blue-man-group fetishist himself. If James Cameron says it, it HAS to be true!

It should be noted that later, in the same interview, James Cameron did go on to use this “incident” as justification to call Glenn Beck a “f*cking a*shole.” He in no way believes that this hurts his credibility as a reliable source. As it turns out, James Cameron was mixing two completely separate stories: One in which he met Beck personally, another in which Glenn Beck made a joke about the awful, repetitive Celine Dion track (from Cameron’s film “Titanic”) as being “evil” and used the word “anti-Christ” to abstractly and comically target the man responsible for its reaching the airwaves. It would seem quite the far cry from Cameron’s original tall tale.

Note: I would like to publicly apologize on behalf of french-Canadians for “My Heart Will Go On.” There is no darker time in our history books, and we pray that time will heal any wounds we’ve inflicted on our fellow man.

Then we have the “racist teabaggers” where, again, the only proof that we have is from Mr. Congressman Clyburn’s very own mouth. He claims to have been called the N-word, and “faggot” by protesters with “deliberately lispy” screams, one of whom proceeded to spit on him. How one would “deliberately lisp” a word void of the letter “S” remains to be seen, but rest assure that all conservatives are homophobic racists (and possibly rapists).

Not only were no charges filed, nobody was arrested (spitting as a means of harm is legally classified as “assault”), but there are no pictures or videos of the events mentioned. Keep in mind, that you are not dealing with an isolated sucker-punch (where if you blink it could be missed), but a several-hour long protest where both sides of the aisle were armed with video cameras and consistently taking pictures (not to mention any local and/or national news cameras) to document the unraveling. You are talking about one of the most heated, crowded and nationally covered events in modern history, yet the closest thing to a legitimate source for the left’s claims is … The Huffington Post picture gallery of signs with slogans such as “Kill the Bill,” “Save Babies” or “I Didn’t Vote for Socialism.”

There you have it, the leftists clear-cut proof for racially aggravated assault.

See liberals don’t understand the concept of the “burden of proof.” When James Cameron accuses Glenn Beck of calling him the Antichrist, the burden rests squarely on his shoulders to prove it. The problem lil’ Jimmy has here is that there is none. There is however, documented proof of him calling Beck a “f*cking a*shole.” The same applies to Sean Penn. Some critics very well may have verbally assaulted him with a veritable medley of profanities, but we have no evidence of it. We do however, have the obvious recorded proof of Sean Penn claiming that he wished they would all “die screaming of rectal cancer.”

We have no proof of the Tea Partiers being violent. As a matter of fact, all Tea Parties combined don’t even come close to the number of felonies committed at the singular “Woodstock ‘99.” Rape, drugs and looting (all staples of the leftist-protesting experience) are virtually non-existent at conservative gatherings. Also, in my brief attendance at college, never once have I witnessed a single liberal speaker require the services of a bodyguard. On the flip side; Every conservative speaker was forced to travel with a security entourage that would put Diddy to shame (provided that they were even allowed to speak in the first place). Noticing a pattern here?

Conservatives are such docile activists in comparison to their liberal counterparts that leftists at the Huffington Post have in fact, now accused them of “using coded language” to incite racism and violence.

No lexicon was provided.

At the end of the day, when one looks at the facts, it’s easy to see that liberals and Hollywood elitists are simply the scum of the earth. They call people names, regularly commit acts of violence against both each other and outsiders, all the while demeaning anyone burdened with the task of expressing a dissenting point of view. The only straw at which they can grasp is that of, “They did it first!”

Even if there were a shred of proof to back up their claims, it would still be pathetic (albeit not as much). Of course, there isn’t. There never is. It is becoming increasingly apparent that in Hollywood however, proof is not needed to justify vulgar hatred aimed against anyone different from red-carpet coke-buddies.

Which reminds me Mr. Penn, lay off the Colombian gold.

No, I’m not making it up, you can even view the video here. O’Reilly, feel free to examine his body language, though to be fair, there isn’t much of a body to work with. For those too lazy to watch the video, let me recap it for you: **Spoiler alert!** Sean Penn has decided to take the life-plunge and go full-retard. Honestly, I don’t even know what to say anymore. Clearly, his statement was made in the poorest taste possible. Even more appalling however, is that the media doesn’t seem upset about these remarks in the slightest.

Is it just me, or do the “outrageous” quotes from Limbaugh, Coulter, and Beck that send the mainstream-media into a tizzy pale in comparison to the vitriolic hatred of Penn?

If Sean Penn were to tell his detractors to take a hike, that would be fine. If he suggested that they jump off a bridge, I’d be cool with that. But to describe in vivid detail, a torturous, agonizing death (one from which many cancer-sufferers were likely suffering while watching the interview from their hospital beds) in which his detractors should perish, is evil, pure and simple. The worst part about it is that we all know Sean Penn isn’t quick enough to think on his feet, which leaves no doubt that the man had spent “a lot of energy on it” in order to craft the graphic mental imagery beforehand. What a sick, twisted, vulgar, knee-high little minikin.

Listen Sean, I don’t like you. Really, I don’t. Yet you’ve never heard me wish upon you the most agonizing of cervical cancers.

Would I love to pummel you? If I could cut five or six weight classes, yes of course I would. Better yet, I’d rather just let any of the photographers or women you’ve assaulted in years past line up to womp you one by one, a la “Airplane.”

Would I like to see you shunned from your Hollywood brethren for hate speech? Sure, why not? He who lives by the politically correct sword deserves to die by it.

I don’t, however, want to see you die a horrible, excruciating death. Not only because you’re undoubtedly going to hell, but because it’s just not my style to wish that on anybody, nor is it for most conservatives. We tend to be decent people. See, we call you and your ilk elitists, you call us scrotum-suckers (i.e. teabaggers). We point out your misguided ideals, you call us racists. We make fun of your cable networks pathetic ratings, you call us propagandists. Is anyone else noticing the pattern here?

This isn’t just about Jeff Spicoli. Sean Penn’s recent comment is the epitome of all that is wrong with Tinseltown. They can hurl the most vile, angry, hateful insults at middle-Americans because they know that the press will cover for them. On the flip-side, conservatives constantly have to play defense because they know that any marginally offensive comment they make will be blown-up into hate speech of epic proportions and played on a never-ending repeat circuit in the mainstream media. Who else is sick of it? In the spirit of honesty, I ask you conservatives, what would you say if someone like Rush Limbaugh wished all of his detractors “died screaming of rectal cancer”?

As for Sean, you disgust me. Yet, I would never hope to see you die an agonizing death, screaming from uterine cancer. See how that works?

For those of you who don’t know, Sean Penn has been “making the rounds” to keep the public awarene about Haiti. By “making the rounds” I mean scoring Hollywood elbow-bumping points by appearing on Tinseltown’s golden fanboy show… Larry King Live.

“One of the most important aspects of that will be that I’ve never asked to be on television before in my life, with the exception of unintelligible. I asked to be on your show today and you said yes. That’s what’s important, to keep the eye on Haiti. …The eyes of CNN and FoxNews and everybody else, the New York Times stays on this disaster…”

Reall,y Sean? The most important aspect of all of this is that you’ve asked to be on Larry King Live? I would have guessed food, water and infrastructure would top the list but hey, I’m a simp! No matter, as it seems to me that you want to raise public awareness in regards to the Haiti tragedy as much as possible. On the surface, that sounds noble enough. However, if that were the case, it seems that you would have “asked for the first time in your life” to be on one of the following…

1. The O’Reilly Factor (Often reaches nearly 9 times Larry King’s viewership with 3,348,000 viewers to LK’s 383,000)
2. Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity (over 6X Larry’s audience)
3. Fox Report W/Brett Baier ( over 5X)
4. Fox Report W/Shep Smith ( Nearly 5X)
5. On the Record with Greta ( 4.5X)
6. Fox&Friends ( over 2.5X)

As a matter of fact, if reaching the widest audience possible (ie: CHARITABLE DONORS) was your goal, “Tales from the Crypt with Larry King” wouldn’t have even cracked the top 10 list of programs on which you would choose to make your plea.

Of course, there’s also the fact that the center-right audience of FoxNews would statistically be more charitable, as well (according to extensive studies by both John Stossel and Arthur Brooks). But that’s neither here nor there… Not when your goal is to score PR points. Sure Sean, we know that you care. You just don’t seem to care enough to take some flack from your Hollywood buddies for appearing on those dreaded (and highest rated) cable news programs. Who can blame you? I hear George Clooney’s got a mean right-cross.

I know that you’ve appeared on Geraldo Rivera’s show. That’s cute. I’m also well aware of the fact that appearing on a show whose host you and your buddy Chavez have consistently slandered would require an actual pair of testicles. Considering that this is “beyond any devastation anyone has ever seen” however, one would expect you to sack up, put your personal political vendettas aside and do the right thing.

… Or you can always just ask Hugo to make the rounds on one of his shows. I hear he has an “in” with the networks over there.

… You punk.

No, I don’t say that in the same way that RINO’s say it in an attempt to move towards the center and line their Brooks Brothers’ pockets. I say it in that the political landscape today has changed drastically and we need to do more than look to one transcendent figure as the leader of the conservative movement. Future generations will be won on the cultural front, and never through “politics.” Politicians are boring, plus they smell funny.

Say what you want about leftists; Sure they act a little crazy, wear pointy shoes and spit when they talk, but they are incredibly effective with planting cultural seeds. Avatar, plants a seed. Family Guy, plants a seed. SNL plants a seed. All of Comedy Central plants seeds. On the flip side, the sad fact of the matter is that conservatives have planted little to nothing in the cultural landscape.

Listen, you will never win the young masses through politics or a politician. The only way to win them over is through taking an active role in the culture. This is displayed by the fact that anytime a conservative steps foot into that arena leftists go insane (a kind of “Paula Abdul’s not taking her meds again” insane). One needs look no further than CPAC. The heavy-hitters weren’t the GOP politicians, but people like Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Andrew Breitbart. Notice how agitated the mainstream media has become. Lefties are hoping that we’ve given up on Hollywood and mass media as a whole.

See when it comes to the fight for American culture, leftists aren’t looking for a knockout punch (not with their limp wrists). They want to Larry Holmes this thing and flick the jab non-stop so that over time there is a serious cumulative effect and the masses become punch-drunk.

See, conservatives don’t flick the jab, which is why in the 15th round (election time) we find ourselves down on the scorecard and try to crank out a haymaker by finding some supernatural Reagan-like savior in a Sarah Palin or Scott Brown. The problem is that conservatives are fighting like Max Baer when we should be fighting like Cassius Clay.

Ronald Reagan worked in a generation brought up with traditional principles able to observe conservatism at work. Having also observed liberalism at work first-hand, and through critical thinking they decided to overwhelmingly revert back to conservatism.

The problem is that not only has this generation never seen TRUE conservatism at work, but they’ve been raised in a world of situational ethics. When you’ve been weaned on the teat of subjective morality, logic begins to play a smaller and smaller role as facts become subjective. Since we haven’t been planting the necessary cultural seeds with a younger generation, we can’t expect them to follow the logical path of conservatism.

Folks don’t expect politicians to ever step up to this plate either. The D.C. crowd often considers it “beneath them” to address mass media because in doing so they acknowledge that they watch it. After all, we all know that they don’t partake in such indulgences.

Case in Point; Barack Obama. Barack Obama the politician was never elected. Barack Obama the celebrity, on the other hand, was ushered in successfully by the Hollywood elite. It was never the Washington machine that made Obama merchandise the “it” fashion item of the season, but people like The Black-Eyed Peas, Scarlett Johanssen, P. Diddy, GreenDay, Steven Spielberg, Tina Fey, Seth McFarlane… Well I think you get the point.

My question to you is: if offered the power of Hollywood/the entertainment industry or Washington D.C. which would you choose?

I think that if you choose Washington you should seriously consider a CAT scan.

Should you decide to get one, I hear Sean Penn knows a guy.

Let’s examine some of his “politically incorrect” shenanigans from Maher’s latest HBO special, “… But I’m not wrong,” shall we?

Set Up: Early on, he comments on how he loves the South because they are “politically incorrect.” Throughout the remaining hour he continually accuses the South of being racist and dumb along with confessing his hatred for any area of the country that is not a bustling metropolis. Confused?

Spoiler Alert: It doesn’t start making any more sense as we continue.

Bill Maher then talks about his adoration for “Bill Clinton” and playfully says “I love this guy,” when referring to John Edwards. Coming from a guy who drills porn stars to convince himself that the idea of traditional relationships is out-dated… Is this really a surprise? He’s the real life “Alfie”… If Alfie were unattractive and void of boyish charm.

On George Bush: Eleven minutes into it, Bill Maher pulls out the “blame Bush” card to much applause. He’s treading new politically incorrect territory here, as displayed by him revisiting this theme throughout the rest of the evening.

Note: Bill Maher’s smirk reflects that he genuinely believes he’s the first man to call George W. Bush a “retard.” Quick, someone get him a Russell Brand DVD or any Green Day interview ever recorded.

Double Note: The smirk returns when Bill Maher recycles his “I dropped the Bible that I was using to masturbate into my gun,” line. He really likes that line…. I mean, REALLY likes that line. Even the audience groans as he repeats it for the umpteenth time.

On Stupid Americans: Bill Maher digs his heels in deeper and defends his claim that America is stupid.

“You’re like my dog. Dumb as a post, but you make me laugh.”

He does explain that when he says stupid, what he REALLY wants to address is America’s misplaced sense of patriotism. He attacks conservatives who “act” like they support the troops: “We treat our troops the way Michael Vick treats dogs.”

He goes on to say that if we really supported them, we’d withdraw them from battle completely. I silently thank God that Bill Maher has never served… Despite what his pseudo-combat shirt would tell you.

Note: Someone tell Bill Maher that 3:1 of our armed forces backed McCain over Barack Obama. ’twas 4:1 for Bush over Kerry.

On Religion: This is where Maher really gets “politically incorrect.” The comedian displays his fuzzy pair by going after Christians. I know, I know, he’s taking his life into his hands. It’s not like Lenny Bruce did it. It isn’t even as though Bill Hicks did it more proficiently. Bill Maher is truly the first man to cross these boundaries and enlighten the American public on the scourge of silly evangelicals, and the country thanks him for it.

To be fair, he does take a couple of potshots at Islam, but I would estimate that the anti-Christian material vs. all other religions combined would be somewhere around 3:1. Also, while he downplays the threat of actual terrorism, he pulls no punches in displaying the historical harm caused by Christians.

Of course Bill Maher pokes fun at Palin and sexually repressed Christians. If only the rest of us could be so enlightened as Maher and sustain ourselves on nothing but a diet of psychotropic drugs and porn-star sex with “ho’s,” the world would be a much better place.

One notices when watching Maher for an hour and a half, that he is the most self-absorbed stand-up comedian you’ll ever see. I don’t say that in the sense that his material revolves around personal experiences or stories (as with most comics), but in the fact that he constantly tells his audience about what a great show he’s giving them. He’s always aware that he’s performing, and he constantly wants his audience to know that they’re lucky enough to be able to witness it.

The most striking part of Bill’s performance however, is when he makes the public plea for people to be forgiving of him should he ever joke about Obama. A joke about Obama is not a “joke about all black people” he cries. See, the thing is that Bill Maher doesn’t want to die by his own sword. He has openly decried all detractors of Obama as racist tea-baggers, but wants to be free to make his own ethnically charged jokes.

In Bill Maher’s world opposition to this administration’s policies = racist.
Crafting jokes about how Obama needs to “black it up a little more”… Now that’s just good TV.

No wonder Sean Penn likes him.

It seems that over the past several decades, we haven’t been able to avoid having the “moral relativism” mantra pumped into our brains. Sometimes it’s subconscious (being planted in our minds from under-the-radar messages in the talkies of Tinseltown) and sometimes it’s less subtle than Johnny Depp’s awful pubic-hair goatee. How does this resonate with the American people, however? Do most of us believe that a majority of the worlds issues are really just shades of grey?

Well, if you look at the movies that have had great success in our country (The Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.) it would appear to be just the opposite. All of these movies have a very clear-cut right and wrong, good and evil. As it would seem, most Americans actually really like to see the good guys… Beat the bad guys! What a nation of simps!

The truth is that evil is a part of human nature. Not only that, but it’s a part that most decent folk like to see conquered as early and often as possible. Sure there are plenty of murky films that blur the lines of right and wrong in a “study of the human condition.” They’re practically released weekly… But they hardly end up being box-office smashes.

Why? The whole moral relativism shtick is tired, old and Americans aren’t buying it anymore. One needs only look to Hollywood’s domestic abuse, divorce, and drug addiction to see that it doesn’t work.

What really chaps my buttocks though, is when a Hollywood high school drop-out tries to paint middle-American conservatives as simple-minded for putting some “cut and dry” issues on the shelf. Listen, Tinseltown, we understand the complexities of life and examine our moral dilemma’s just as as in-depthly as you do. The only difference is that at the end of the day, we have the testicular fortitude to decide where we line up. The only reason one wouldn’t would be due to one of two things:

1.) You lack a fuzzy pair.
2.) You lack the common sense to understand how the real world works.

Take your pick.

Now Hollywood, I know that making a decision using a moral compass and better judgment may feel foreign, perhaps even painful to you, but you may want to give it a shot. At the very least, you’ll be able to produce more financially viable moving pictures that resonate with the American people.

And Sean Penn, if it doesn’t work out, you can always get another divorce.

See the one point that liberals miss when they read the story of Robin Hood was that the man never stole from “the rich.” Leftists like to vilify the wealthy, but the tale of Robin Hood vilifies a corrupt government. Robin Hood was stealing from an oppressive monarchy/administration and giving the wealth back to its rightful owners. He was essentially re-distributing wealth by removing it from the initial re-distributors. Confused? Let’s break down the story of Robin Hood for a second:

• Members of the monarchy are born into positions of power without having been elected.
• Peasants are born into a life of poverty; all of their acquisitions are taken from them by aforementioned monarchy.
• Robin Hood sees the injustice in hard-workers living in squalor while corrupt government officials “be livin’ likes pimps” (this is a quote from the original text, of course).
• Robin Hood says “enough” and takes on the government.
• Government loses control in an elaborate sword-fight (Errol Flynn wears tights).
• The people take back what they’d rightfully earned in the first place.

Hmmm… I’m still not seeing this as any sort of socialist crusade. Where in the story does Mr. Hood steal from small business owners or entrepreneurs? If there’s a sub-plot where Robin Hood professes the necessity of “equal outcomes,” I haven’t read it. Perhaps it’s my mere fourth-grade reading equivalency getting the best of me, but nowhere in the book do I see the Prince of Thieves even SUGGEST any sort of higher or additional taxes.

So again, I’d have to ask: Why do liberals so often use Robin Hood as a Marxist parable? Have they not read the story, or have they only watched the Disney version?

Come to think of it, I thought it was weird when Sean Penn started quoting “Robin Hood the Fox.”

It’s no secret that Hollywood considers themselves to be much more “open-minded” about sex than the average bear. I’m sure they’d have no problem with the GLSEN endorsing the act of inserting one’s fist into a partners orifice to a group of 14-year-olds. Afterall, everybody does it… Right?

As a matter of fact, Hollywood rarely ever gives the evil eye to any sexual practice, no matter how freaky it may be. It seems that to the Sean Penns of the world, the more perverse the sex, the better. They’ve sauntered so far down the “freaky sex dungeon” trail that “fisting” has literally been left in the rearview mirror as mere child’s play.

When I really think about it, it seems as though the only kind of sex at which Hollywood will ever choose to poke fun… is the kind that occurs within marriage.

Don’t you watch the movies? Haven’t you listened to the stand-up comedians?  The day you tie the knot is “the day your sex life ends.” According to sitcoms and romantic comedies, it’s a scientific impossibility for married couples to enjoy playful romps in the bedroom.

Correct me for being naïve, but isn’t married sex supposed to be the best sex of your life? Shouldn’t your life-partner provide you with the most sexually gratifying experiences you’ll ever have the pleasure of knowing? Afterall, your wife or husband is supposed to be the person you love more than anyone on the planet. Given that mutual appreciation and (hopefully) an unparalleled level of communication, how could the sex NOT be amazing? What is marriage, if not an institution designed to cultivate bonding/closeness on every level, including physically?

Considering that Hollywood lampoons the institution so much, what does that say about their views on sex? It would almost make it seem as though their practice of it is animalistic and void of… dare I say it… love. Surprising, isn’t it? The industry that prides themselves on being at the cusp of all things “true love” has no real comprehension of it for themselves.

Sliding down the slippery slope of perversion seems only natural for leftists. Many of them have a moral void in their souls, so they try to fill it with anything else they can. Not only that, but they try and appoint/surround us with people that will cause us to do the same. Rather than reach to anything greater than themselves, folks like Sean Penn clasp at more fame, excess and beautiful women. Or in some cases… It’s just a fist.

Now doesn’t that sound fun?