This one goes out to New Blacklist-denier Patrick Goldstein of the L.A. Times….

PopEater:

Known around left-leaning Hollywood for her conservative stances on weighty issues like abortion and stem cells, ‘Everybody Loves Raymond’ star Patricia Heaton is happy to explain how important her Christian faith is to her and how it shapes her views and career choices. …

Telling me that she has many gay friends and doesn’t oppose gay marriage, Patricia gets frustrated being automatically lumped together with other conservatives, a characterization she says has cost her possible work.

“We know for a fact there are some people who have said they wouldn’t want to work with us because of our politics,” she said, with her husband David Hunt adding, “We get lumped in with lunatics.”

Who but the worst kind of ideological bigot wouldn’t want to work with Patricia Heaton, one of the most talented actresses to ever star in a sitcom? If an iconic Emmy winner is losing work over her perfectly reasonable right-of-center political positions, what’s life like for those just trying to break in or the 99.7% who live hand-to-mouth in this business of show.

(more…)

 A favorite tactic of the political left is to declare an opponent racist. Take the recent controversy surrounding Senate nominee Rand Paul. He was attacked as a racist after describing a libertarian view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. He did say he objected to the end of abhorrent racial segregation and persecution – he simply identified how the Act diminished the rights of private business owners. 

Hollywood politics are no exception to racial attacks. Recently Chris Lee of the Los Angeles Times wrote a piece about “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” and “The Last Airbender,” listing them as recent additions to Hollywood’s “rich history” of casting white actors in ethnic parts, giving the example of John Wayne playing Genghis Khan. 

Quickly, before I delve further into why Lee’s article is ridiculous, let me point out a double standard. In Tom Clancy’s book, “The Sum of All Fears,” his villains are Muslim extremists. In the film, they are neo-Nazis. No one complained about that swap, especially the Times, as their review ignores the change.  (more…)

Over the past 15 years or so our side has done a truly fantastic job outing the mainstream media as the corrupt leftist propagandists they are. As a business model they’re nearly bankrupt and the stigma of dishonesty they’ve worked so hard to earn in their kamikaze missions for the Left has pretty much ended their national influence.

As bad as the MSM is though, the entertainment media is much, much worse. Just the other day someone asked me where they could find a left-wing film site. Without a hint of irony, I replied, “Any film site that’s not Big Hollywood.” If someone would simply enforce California’s laws against incest we could easily put this disgusting pile of unholy inbred love out of business. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. And maybe that’s good thing. Without them, where would we get our chuckles?

Today’s hilarity arrives courtesy of this L.A. Times Big Picture blog sporting the following headline and intro: (more…)

James Cameron kids about his blockbuster “Avatar” being “Death Wish for environmentalists” (kind of). But in one of those unique L.A. Times’ interviews only leftists enjoy — the kind where they can spout all the craziness they want without fear of being challenged — Cameron touches on a number of controversies surrounding his Best Picture nominee, including the charge that his anti-military film is anti-military.

“Remember, you are bad security types. Very, very bad.”

This interview was done over dinner at a Hollywood Cafe. And it shows. [emphasis is mine throughout]

“I think there’s something amazingly satisfying when the hammerheads come out of the forest and start mowing down all the bad security enforcers,” Cameron says, referring to the movie’s climactic creatures-versus-humans battle sequence. “Nature gets to fight back. It’s ‘Death Wish’ for environmentalists. When did nature ever get to fight back in a movie?“

Notice how Cameron’s now using the term “bad security enforcers.” Next we’ll hear about how they’re on a “overseas contingency operation” to create “man-made disasters.” This new language is baffling. Just a few weeks ago Cameron told Jay Leno that “Avatar” was meant to ”honor” the Marines. What is he doing now? Honoring “bad security enforcers?” 

A little off-track here, but the last part of Cameron’s statement is too bizarre to ignore: (more…)

In an editorial bashing conservatives, U.S. Marines, and businessmen on Jan. 19, the Los Angeles Times admits that James Cameron’s “Avatar” has a radical leftist agenda. But, either out of disingenuousness, deception, or stupidity, they then contend, what does it matter?

“We’ll stipulate,” the Editorial Board of the Times wrote, “that ‘Avatar’ promotes a liberal worldview. The question is, why does anyone care?”

The editorial goes on to say, “People are smart enough to separate fictional morality tales from reality.”

If it doesn’t matter what people communicate, then the L.A. Times should stop writing editorials and endorsing candidates, every student should be allowed to read the Bible aloud in class, Christian business men and women should be able to use Bible references in their product serial numbers, and “Triumph of the Will” by Adolf Hitler’s favorite filmmaker should be lauded along with “Birth of a Nation.” (more…)

Over at the L.A. Times today, art critic Christopher Knight went after Big Government for reporting on the White House Christmas trees ornaments and the man, Simon Doonan, tapped to oversee the decorations for the White House.  Knight’s objection to Big Government’s coverage of the administration’s decision to inject left-wing politics into the White House Christmas tree begins and ends with the fact that Andy Warhol was the artist behind the particular image of the murderous Communist dictator Mao Zedong featured on one of the ornaments we brought to your attention.  Knight’s article is excerpted below followed by Breitbart’s take downs and Knight’s response.  Jump in the comments here or head over to the L.A. Times article and join the fray.

“A Warhol Christmas at the White House”
By Christopher Knight, L.A. Times

When it comes to art, the right-wing anti-Obama crowd hasn’t had a very good year. Repeated efforts to gin up outrage in a manufactured culture war have either fallen flat or proved downright embarrassing. (You can see some of them here, here and here.)

The latest fiasco is the Great Christmas Ornament Scandal.

On Tuesday, Andrew Breitbart’sBig Government blog got its knickers in a twist over one of the Obama White House’s myriad Christmas trees. (Big Government is a sibling to Breitbart’s Big Hollywood blog, which cranked up a paranoid fantasy about the National Endowment for the Arts a few months back.) The blaring “EXCLUSIVE” led with a blurry photo of a decoupage Christmas ornament adorned with the face of Chinese Communist dictator, Mao Zedong.

“Of course, Mao has his place in the White House,” Big Government wailed about the GCOS, taking the Obama-as-socialist meme out for a yuletide spin.

Except, it wasn’t exactly Mao. It was Andy Warhol’s “Mao.”

(more…)

“Even World War II is cast as a false model for American military domination.”

Los Angeles Times:

“Class division is a drumbeat throughout “The People Speak,” which is a primer of liberal ideology with a decided bent toward socialism; no one’s reading a few rousing passages of Ayn Rand’s, for instance. The letters and journals and speeches selected cover the American timeline, from the abolitionists through AIDS activists, but the theme of personal and political enfranchisement, tolerance, peace and American humility is the consistent theme. Equal rights, protection of workers, protection of children, even rent control are celebrated while concepts such as patriotism — the last refuge of scoundrels, according to pacifist and anarchist Emma Goldman — and national security are portrayed as the whip and cattle prod used by the power elite. Even World War II is cast as a false model for American military domination.”

At the UCLA event, producer Chris Moore said something about “The People Speak” being “two hours of anti-WWII programming.” (more…)

First off, kudos to Patrick Goldstein at the L.A. Times who yesterday proved capable of criticizing Big Hollywood without making a whole lot of stuff up. We trust and hope this is the start of a new relationship, a turning over of a new leaf… 

Bygones Patrick, and Happy Thanksgiving.

Not to steal any of Big Government’s thunder, but in that massive ACORN dumpster dump a Leftist Decoder Ring was found that translates Left-speak into what the rest of us call The Truth. Mike Flynn was kind enough to let me use it in order to translate Goldstein’s write up…

Goldstein: It used to be the liberals who loved to play the victim. But now it’s conservatives who just can’t enough of that warm and cuddly feeling of being an oppressed minority.

Decoder Ring: Uh,oh, they’re starting to fight back. (more…)

The other day, the L.A. Times’ Patrick Goldstein responded to this post of mine with a beauty of a headline: 

“New Muhammad biopic drives the anti-Hollywood crowd nuts” 

You know, sometimes you just have to put politics aside and take a moment to admire the tactics of your opponents, because no matter how you slice it, that is one gorgeous humdinger of a headline.

At a glance, the headline intentionally furthers the whole “conservatives are intolerant” narrative with the inference that I somehow have a problem with a big-budget biopic about the prophet Muhammad. Later in his piece, Goldstein doubles down on that smear with this:

But as usual, the news has aroused a storm of derision from conservative bloggers, who always find a way to be offended by any high-minded Hollywood project.

Odd… Especially when the very first sentence – the opening line — of my piece says the exact opposite: (more…)

The man behind the “Rally ‘Round the Child Rapist” movement spoke this howler out loud for the L.A. Times:

“In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He’s not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said. “We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”"

(more…)

Critics love David Letterman. They love him because he’s mean and liberal and does everything they demand: further the leftist agenda through the brutal use of humiliation to target any public figure (or their child) who might derail Leftist causes.

And contrary to conventional wisdom, Letterman’s not edgy. In fact, he’s just the opposite. Doing exactly what those who can criticize you want you to do is not edgy. Kissing the big Manhattan/Los Angeles bi-coastal ass of the elite is not edgy. He’s their jester; their puppet; their bitch. Worse, he’s about as funny as watching your old, half-deaf Uncle intimidate, humiliate and demean your Aunt and then smile at the rest of the family as though he’s just reaffirmed his manhood. Letterman reminds me of the Jason Robards character in “Parenthood” in more ways than you can imagine. In other words, he’s a jerk, but in a sad end-of-his-life kind of way.

Oh, and how the elite critics resented nice ole’ Jay Leno for cleaning Letterman’s ratings’ clock all those years. And now that Jay’s back eating up primetime, they couldn’t wait to jump all over him with sniffing disapproval fed through a filter of wrist-flicking dismissal.

After exactly one show the knives came out: (more…)

“You do your homework, you do your research, we always did, whatever you think of my work. Even going back to ‘JFK,’ I’ve always done as much research as we could. And there’s mistakes made, but there’s a lot of truth, you know, as much as we can put into these movies.” – Oliver Stone, as quoted in the L.A. Times.

Irony is what happens when a Hollywood director (Oliver Stone) goes to Latin America, produces a film favorable to one of the most maniacal and politically obnoxious figures in the region (Hugo Chavez), and then returns to the States to tout what he sees as his own astounding “research” skills. In what world would legitimate research on Chavez result in any favorable representation in film or any other venue, for that matter? (more…)

In an interview earlier this week with the L.A. Times, director Oliver Stone said counter-programming the image of Hugo Chavez as a “bellicose dictator-cum-comic opera figure” was one of the goals of this documentary, which makes one wonder if Stone isn’t some kind of right-wing sleeper agent. The score that hits at the 40-second spot is reminiscent of Laurel and Hardy and pretty priceless over the shot of a tubby, middle-aged Socialist clumsily riding a little kid bike straight for a brick wall.  (more…)

In today’s L.A. Times director Oliver Stone discusses his upcoming documentary “South of the Border,” about the “warmhearted” Hugo Chavez. [emphasis added]:

Oliver Stone is shown warmly embracing Hugo Chávez, nibbling coca leaves with Evo Morales and gently teasing Cristina Elizabeth Fernández de Kirchner about how many pairs of shoes she owns. …

“I think he’s an extremely dynamic and charismatic figure. He’s open and warmhearted and big, and a fascinating character,” … ”But when I go back to the States I keep hearing these horror stories about ‘dictator,’ ‘bad guy,’ ‘menace to American society.’ I think the project started as something about the American media demonizing Latin leaders.

Guys like Stone are forced to rationalize that the American media is right-leaning in order to avoid their head exploding due to an acute case of FacingTheTruth-itosis. But maybe the doc will be more critical than we’re led to believe in this article. During their warm embrace, it’s possible Stone whispered hard-hitting questions in Hugo’s ear about reports such as this from the not-so-conservative Human Rights Watch. (more…)

This week, as the buildup to the upcoming movie “G.I. Joe” continues, the L.A. Times claimed that…

Yet overseas, where big action films often earn 60% or more of their ticket sales, rah-rah American sentiment doesn’t play well. So those references have vanished from the advertising.

Big Hollywood’s John Nolte gave that theory a thorough fisking, providing numbers showing that while “rah-rah America” movies aren’t guaranteed big foreign box-office returns, they aren’t automatically guaranteed to fail. He also points out that many “anti-rah rah” movies have even less appeal.

Oh, is it still okay to say “foreign?” Just checking, seeing as many schools are replacing “foreign language” departments with World Language departments. We’re all just one, big, happy World Family, right?

Okay, back to the topic at hand. John’s post got me to thinking. If anti-war movies such as “Rendition” and “A Mighty Heart,” despite the hype and the A-list star roster didn’t bring in the beaucoup bucks, how about anti-American movies made by one of the biggest anti-Americans on the planet, Michael Moore? (more…)

If you think the national news media is biased, spend some time rummaging through the world of entertainment news. Today’s L.A. Times piece about the marketing of “G.I. Joe” has an especially priceless whopper:

Yet overseas, where big action films often earn 60% or more of their ticket sales, rah-rah American sentiment doesn’t play well. So those references have vanished from the advertising.

The Great Lie told by Leftist Hollywood and the media who shill for them is that in order to make money the likes and dislikes of an “international” audience must be considered, and international audiences loathe Americanism.

Let’s see how that’s working out with some overseas numbers for a few “big action films.” (more…)

Hollywood’s neo-blacklist against mainstream conservative values and those who believe in them isn’t an actual list. It’s worse. It’s nothing tangible you can point to, but rather a bullying peer pressure system like a high school in a John Hughes film. And it works something like this…

The big stars and directors are the cool kids – the jocks – the preppies – James Spader in “Pretty in Pink.” They own the school, strut the halls and decide who’s in and who’s out based on one’s ability and willingness to conform into one of them.

The Motion Picture Academy is the Student Council packed with James Spaders who game the system in order to keep the pecking order ordered and to their liking.

Variety and the Hollywood Reporter are the school paper. Both are staffed with wannabes and once-weres who protect the myth and clothe the emperor living for those moments when James Spader gives them a taste of the inside where they can bask in his glow. (more…)

 
“Holy Rollers”

“Oh dear…” Elizabeth Snead over at the L.A. Times laments in her headline upon learning Miley Cyrus is, thanks to her boyfriend Justin Gaston, “closer to the Lord”:

Miley Cyrus says she’s gotten much holier since she started hanging out with her God-fearing underwear-model squeeze Justin Gaston.

“I’ve never been closer to the Lord since I met him,” she says on on the “Rachel Ray” show that airs Friday. “He’s really made me read my Bible.”

We’d have to agree with Miley about feeling all holy roller. Because every time we see Justin, we say to ourselves, “Oh, thank heavens!” (more…)

Most 12-step programs start out by requiring that people understand that they’re powerless over their addiction and that only by turning their lives over to a Power greater than themselves can they be restored to sanity.  Far be it for me to suggest that I am that Power, but clearly someone has to step in and try to rescue these poor liberal souls.  Even the most harebrained among them deserves that much.

First, though, they have to acknowledge that Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Dick Durbin, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid and Charles Schumer, are not moderates, but, rather, leftists with a Socialist agenda.  Furthermore, they must recognize that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, CNN, the three major networks, the news magazines and the New Yorker, are not objective in their reporting of political events, and neither are Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher, in their commentary.  If these entities and individuals are not on the payroll of the DNC, they certainly should be.  They certainly put in longer hours than Howard Dean. (more…)

My wife and I argue about once a year. It comes from nowhere and starts for no reason. It’s a cleansing of sorts where we burst into a litany of long held grievances: You live in the bathroom! You leave dirty dishes in the sink! You have the TV too loud at night! You drive too fast…! Anyone listening to this little rock throwing contest would think we were crazy, and this kind of “crazy” is what came to mind while reading the L.A. Times own Patrick Goldstein’s burst into a fit of rock throwing at Debbie Schlussel. (more…)