I thought that perhaps it would be an interesting project to take an informal poll of Big Hollywood readers – conservatives, libertarians, and individuals who subscribe to other improper schools of thought – who work in the entertainment industry and feel out of sorts. We should keep it simple, so let’s start with something like this:

——

Industry: Publishing

Position: Author

Status: Just keep my mouth shut

——

Industry: Music

Position: Mixer

Status: Out of the closet and out of work

——

Industry: Art

Position: Sculptor

Status: Lost some friends, but feeling empowered

——

Please post in the comments section. I am especially curious about the percentage of people who feel they have no choice but to hide their political beliefs for professional reasons. If you want to email me a brief explanation, please put “Big Hollywood Poll” in the subject line and keep it as short and simple as possible. I have no idea what’s behind the floodgates that I’m prying open, so be patient with me.

Let the confessions begin!

—–

USA Today:

“We were in preproduction on this,”  [director George] Clooney says. “We were really getting close to starting up. But I remember sitting in a restaurant with (co-writer) Grant (Heslov) when Obama won, and we both realized we couldn’t make this movie right now. Everyone was so hopeful and happy. Now, the cynicism has come back around, so it’s time.”

Clooney, an outspoken critic of George W. Bush and a poster boy for liberal Hollywood among some conservatives, says the film “is more about process than platform.”

“The major issues are some of the major issues we face every day, including questions of morality,” he says. “We’re not trying to be polarizing.”

Still, Clooney can’t seem to help it. He says early test screenings have gone well, though “Republicans hate the beginning of the movie, Democrats hate the end. So we’re good.”

The movie is based on Farragut North, a play by former political aide Beau Willimon, who served as a screenwriter.

Full story here.

Why have so many mothers become so active?

Because motherhood is political.

I have two sons. One day they may hear the call of duty and enlist to fight for our liberty. One day they may be called upon to defend America’s shores. They may decide to enter business or take up a trade. They may decide to have families of their own someday. I want them to have every opportunity available to them and I will stand against that which impedes on their rights. It’s instinctual: my job as a mother is to raise up, nurture, and protect my children, to protect their interests, to protect the interests of my family. In a society where my first line of defense, my husband, has been compromised by the self-victimization of the female sex, I’ve volunteered to go to the front lines of this ideological battle and I do it for my children. I’m not the only one.

It’s unconscionable to me that I would protect my children from running out into a busy street but not protect their right to be free. A month after my oldest was born my husband and I spent an entire morning baby-proofing our house: placing plastic covers on all empty wall sockets, installing cabinet latches, covering all the sharp edges of the tables with adhesive cushions. Why wouldn’t I also rise to install barriers against that which harms my children’s future? We armed our children with the knowledge against “stranger danger,” we taught them how to dial 911 in emergencies, we’ve taught them how to properly handle and not handle firearms. Why wouldn’t I teach my children about their fundamental rights as an American? Their right to free speech, to assemble, the freedom of the press, the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the freedom of religion? Their right to pursue happiness but not the expectation that they are owed happiness from their fellow man?

We take them to the pediatrician to have them immunized, to inoculate them against disease. Why wouldn’t I also build up their knowledge of the Constitution, their confidence, and their courage so as to inoculate them against the ongoing campaign to break them down and render them dependent upon a swelling government?

Every Sunday morning we’re in the church pew and our children learn about the grace and love of their Creator. They’ve also been taught that their rights are inalienable, that these rights come from God, and though man tries he cannot co-opt those rights.They are taught that while our country was built on the Christian principles of freedom, one isn’t forced to subscribe to the faith to enjoy the rights born of it.

The nurture and protection of your children isn’t limited to monitoring their dietary needs, their educational needs, their emotional and spiritual well-being. I speak out because I don’t want my children saddled with debt. I don’t want my children’s generation to be the first generation that comes out of the gate with a lower standard of living because of our recklessness. I don’t want my children’s future squandered on entitlement and things non-essential to the operation of our basic Article 1 Section 8 government. I don’t want my children robbed of their ability to have effect in their communities because the power was sucked up and centralized at the federal level. I don’t want them to be demonized because they reject the socialist and humanist ideology which preaches against self-sufficiency and criminalizes faith and ambition in popular culture.

This is why mothers have been politically active these past few years and why more and more they are strapping the baby in the carrier before grabbing a diaper bag and a bullhorn on their way out the door. If you saw danger coming headfirst at your children you would intervene. Danger assumes many forms.

We’ve taken position against the reckless spending of our children’s future, against the many attempts by the establishment government to assume more parental rights and position our children as wards of the state in education, medicine, faith, diet, and wage. We reject the ideal that the government can be all and provide all because no government can be all, provide all and still reflect a free people. We reject the cultural vehicles through which this ideology is distributed: through the attack on men via feminism, through the cultural criminalization of our boys, and through the false empowerment via promiscuity and self-victimization of our daughters.

This is why motherhood is political. This is why mothers are turning out in force to protest, to petition, to run for office. Our instincts detected a threat to the well-being of their children and we are working to right it.

Old sayings never fail. The most dangerous place in the world is between a mother and her children. It remains true today.

And Happy Mother’s Day to my mother, who didn’t raise a victim.

“There’s really nothing of the same caliber from our side,” the openly conservative Dulis laments. Now, the Washington, PA. resident is trying to do something about it. Dulis’ musical career finds him alternating between protest music and odes to eternal love.

—–

His new EP “Politics, v. 1” uses crunchy musical riffs to roast the Obama administration and speak to a center-right nation that rarely hears music reflecting its core beliefs.  He also hopes to stretch the boundaries of political music while embracing its true counter-culture roots.

“I want to make music that can be enjoyed by someone who isn’t right wing. I’m trying to make it something that can last beyond an election season,“ says Dulis, who compares his music to acts like My Bloody Valentine. “We need to embrace an underdog status through that … and make something contemporary and immediate.’

Dulis, a videographer by trade, isn’t looking to drag the Left through the mud via his melodies.

His track “Barry’s Song” doesn’t demean the president – just the attitude that helped elect him and the “uncritical acolytes who fueled his campaign,” he says. Another track deals with Global Warming fears, a topic he treads on lightly.

“There are things to be said about stopping the current [Cap and Trade] legislation. It‘s very hard to do that without falling back on conservative clichés,” he says. The young musician couldn’t be happier when liberals applaud his music. For him, singing to the choir isn’t enough.

“I’ve had a couple of friends who lean to the left who enjoy particular songs. I hope to get that admiration out of people regardless of what they believe,” he says. It’s the only way I can convince someone is if they keep an open mind.”

His first-self produced EP back in 2008 focused on love, not ideology.

He created “Wedding Songs” in the weeks before his 2008 marriage, a time when a soon to be newlywed could be forgiven for getting lost in love.

“It did grow out of the emotions I was going through at the time,“ he says of the EP which has a much softer, more acoustic feel than his politically charged effort. “But I was also thinking about what I was getting into and the responsibilities, to show my wife I was being serious about it.“

When Dulis writes a love song, it’s more than just a toast to warm, fuzzy feelings. Songs like “Happy Homes” deal with his preoccupation with the fear of love running its course, and of couples staring down economic realities.

“I was trying to come up with something I could come back to … the basis of not just marriage but community,” he adds.

Dulis isn’t ready to tour the world just yet. He’s still learning to master multi-tracking tools that help him flesh out his musical vision. For now, he wants to see how far he can take his music career on the Web.

“These records were produced at zero cost to me. Anything I make off of it will be profit,” he says.

Dulis hopes his record will help “draw out other conservative artists from the woodwork,“ he says. “I want to establish a community of like-minded artists … I’m firing a flare into the dark night and see who responds.”

It isn’t an offer you’d expect to hear from the Democratic Party, especially after all of the caterwauling from liberals about Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. donation to the Republican Governors Association last month.  It certainly isn’t an offer you’d expect to hear from Comedy Central, which repeatedly strives to portray Jon Stewart as a relatively even-handed political basher who likes poop jokes.  And it most certainly isn’t an offer you’d expect from Stewart’s show itself – Stewart made hay out of the News Corp. donation in typical fashion, explaining “if anything, the Republicans should be paying Fox News millions and millions of dollars.”  But never fear: Democrats and liberals never shy away from hypocrisy when it meets their ends (think of Obama’s wailing about lobbyists, only to appoint them, or complaints about campaign funding, only to eschew public funding).  

On September 7, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a mass email inviting contributors to “click here to enter for a chance to meet President Obama and tickets to see The Daily show with Jon Stewart live.  We’ll pay for airfare and a hotel.”  And here’s where the click leads. We’ll see whether the DSCC reports the tickets as an in-kind contribution to the party, or whether Comedy Central does – if they don’t, they both might be in violation of federal election law.

Regardless of whether or not Stewart and/or Comedy Central are knowingly involved or aligned with this fundraiser (we’re still looking into how the DSCC got the hard-to-get tickets), this email is essentially the Democratic Party’s open endorsement of Stewart.  If Fox News decided to donate free tickets to a live taping of The Glenn Beck Show, it’s doubtful that the DSCC would see fit to hand those tickets out to lucky winners of its draw.  But Stewart’s on their side, so they’re fine with handing out tickets to watch Stewart make funny faces.  That’s the symbiotic relationship between Stewart and the Democratic Party: he makes a few funny faces about Democrats to preserve the illusion of balance, a lot of funny faces and snarky comments about Republicans to show where he really stands, and in return, liberals across America populate his audience so that he can have the nightly thrill of getting away with laughless laugh-lines. 

Viacom, for the record, owns Comedy Central.  And as OpenSecrets has reported, “Before it was purchased by National Amusements in 2005, Viacom gave just less than $2 million to political committees from 1999 to 2004.  In both cases, the money typically favored Democrats.”  The head honchos at Comedy Central are universally liberal.  

Can we all agree that corporations have a right to give political money at this point?  And can we further agree that Jon Stewart is liberal, and that he and the Democratic Party serve each others’ purposes extraordinarily well?  Or maybe we should just ignore this story altogether and just make funny faces.

—–

First off, David Letterman should never feel the need to remind us he’s ignorant.

And good for Donald Trump, who hits the nail on the head when he says that the Ground Zero Mosque builders would engender a tremendous amount of goodwill if they would, of their own volition, move someplace where — as Roger Ebert was good enough to remind us – the ashes of the dead don’t still lay.

Below the fold you’ll find a video of Letterman taking a shot at His One. This makes a total of two jokes (I’m aware of) Letterman’s told at the expense of chronic vacationer Barack Obama. Think about how divisive and biased Letterman is that the strange occasion of his making a joke about our sitting president is found worthy of a mention.

If memory serves, night after night, the great Johnny Carson was pretty scrupulous about making sure he went after Democrats and Republicans equally. The TV legend apparently understood that “The Tonight Show” wasn’t a political forum and that as an American entertainer his job was to make everyone laugh and not to grind his own personal partisan ax.

How far Letterman has fallen.  

You never get the sense Letterman’s heart is in the jokes told at Obama’s expense. He certainly doesn’t relish them in the same way he does ripping on Sarah Palin’s family. In the video below, Letterman appears to be warning the President as much as teasing him, offering up a little friendly political advice in the hopes of helping the poor guy out: 

—–

Everywhere online you’ll find script reviews for upcoming television and film projects. Big Hollywood won’t be breaking any new ground there. However…

Over the past few weeks, thanks to a courageous Whistleblower — a dedicated, savvy and patriotic individual — Big Hollywood has accumulated, not one, not five, not twenty… but nearly fifty television and film screenplays at various stages of development. Some of these scripts represent projects that have been completed and await release. Some represent projects that will never see the light of day.

But we have them. And we’re going to share them with you.

Not the actual screenplays. That would be wrong. But with the tireless help of a group of Big Hollywood contributors, we’ve created The Sucker Punch Squad. Their mission (and they have been kind enough to accept it) is to give you – the public tired of paying for the privilege of being insulted — a heads up in advance of  the political, social and otherwise obnoxious content Tinseltown’s artless propagandists thought they were going to get away with forcing on those of us they laughingly call The Unsuspecting Rubes.

As this site has pointed out for over a year now, Hollywood is above many of the laws that govern most mortals. Everyday, in their hiring decisions, these enlightened liberals openly discriminate. They call it demographics. In the real world it’s called racism. Everyday, these fighters for the common man relentlessly lobby to benefit from trickle-down economics even as their product and spokespeople savage anyone else who would like to keep more of their own money. And now with “Green Zone,” these despicables proved immune to yet another rule that governs polite society: truth in advertising.

Universal Studios sold two hours of anti-American revisionist lies as just another “Bourne” adventure film. To try and separate hard-working Americans facing tough economic times from the cost of a night at the movies, television ads and movie trailers put Matt Damon’s bitter vinegar in a fancy bottle and called it wine.

You can’t do that.

Well, at least wine companies can’t, but Hollywood does it all the time. Sneaking their bankrupt, nihilist agenda on us and our children is what they’re all about. It’s not like you and I can trust 99.9% of film and television critics to warn us, either. They’re nothing more than the Palace Guards. And since we’re not dumb enough to hold our breath waiting for the government to treat Hollywood like every other industry in America — to crack down on misleading advertising (and openly racist hiring policies), we’ve hooked up with a Whistleblower.

Before sexy, misleading advertising blurs our good sense, and dishonest critics carry the water of obfuscation, Big Hollywood’s newest mission is to get ahead of all that and get the word out. Times are tough and only getting tougher. You work too hard for you money to be conned by the next ”Green Zone.”

On the other hand, we might find something worthy, a pleasant surprise. We’ll let you know about those, as well.

Tomorrow we begin with a review of film already being touted as a 2010 Oscar contender. Not because anyone’s seen it and finds it really, really good.

They just think it’s “important.”

And we all know what “important” means in this town. 

P.S. If there’s an upcoming film or television pilot you’d like us to review, please make a request in the comments. We can’t get our hands on everything, but we did pretty well with our own wish list.

Wow. Going after Glenn Beck. What iconoclasts! How brave! How ballsy! How against the grain! How counter-culture!

If “The Onion” is so desperate to be liked by the establishment, why not just send certificates for free ice cream, or something?

The irony here is that Glenn Beck is everything the “Onion” thinks they are: funny, cutting edge, unafraid, and in the arena ready to mix it up. 

Imagine the horror if someone were to grant the “Onion” a touch of self-awareness and they woke up one morning to the fact that since Obama’s election they’ve devolved into nothing more than just another toadie for The Man.

In other tragic news, Glenn Beck is seen daily by 3 million viewers.

MORE:

Cowardly ‘Onion’ Ignores Obama, Ridicules Reagan’s Alzheimer’s

Onion Ignores Obama, Slams Rush

The Onion Can’t Bear to Mock The One