It is quite ironic that Hollywood Leftists would rail people for wanting to own firearms and yet will gleefully feature said firearms in their own movies, getting to play around with them as much as they want. It is this irony that brings the sad truth that, were Hollywood Leftists like Alec Baldwin at all knowledgeable of standard gun safety, two people would not have been shot on the set of the Western “Rust” last week, with one of them being fatally wounded.
Given the fake news media is full of fake news, there are many contradicting accounts and stories about it, usually to try and clear Baldwin of any blame whatsoever. But here is (roughly) what we know about the event so far:
There is also a report that Baldwin went on an anti-Trump rant while waving the gun, but that hasn’t been confirmed and is largely irrelevant to the story, even if true.
Two people were responsible for what happened last week: The armorer, for failing to do her most basic job and assuming she was just handing a cold gun (movie jargon for “safe”) to Baldwin, and Baldwin himself for the numerous reasons I just gave. But the most responsible one here is Baldwin, of course.
Again, he was not only the lead producer, but also the most experienced person there. The safety of himself and the crew rested on his shoulders and he routinely failed them, given there were multiple firing incidents prior to the one that took a young woman’s life.
He cut costs and combined two jobs which should not be combined, he failed to be responsible for clearing the gun after the person HE HIRED to ensure gun safety failed to do so as well, he failed to follow proper procedure to use either a rubber gun or something that is guaranteed to NOT kill anyone during rehearsal, and he failed to follow the most basic gun safety rule by aiming a gun at someone even if he thought it wasn’t loaded.
Absolute best case scenario for Baldwin here is that he is found to have been criminally negligent and slapped with such a charge, but more realistically, he might be charged with involuntary manslaughter, given the prior gun discharges on set and New Mexico’s laws regarding such a crime.
There are those who think we should feel bad for Baldwin here. I don’t. I feel bad for the woman he killed, seeing as she was in her early 40s and was a wife and a mother. I feel bad for the director who was also wounded by Baldwin because he had to go through that. But I don’t feel bad for Baldwin.
Obviously, I don’t think he meant to hurt, let alone kill, anyone here. But I have no obligation to feel bad for a guy who would make fun of a political opponent if they had done what he did. How do I know that he would make fun of such a person? Because he did.
Back in 2006, then-Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot his friend during a hunting trip (nonfatally). Baldwin wrote an entire HuffPost article in which he called Cheney a terrorist, who “terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately. Who ever thought Harry Whittington (Cheney’s friend) would be the answers to America’s prayers? Finally, someone who might get that lying, thieving Cheney into a courtroom to answer some direct questions.”
He also made a joke about Cheney shooting Scooter Libby: “Cheney’s the guy who told Libby to out Valerie Plame. The rumor I heard is that someone yelled, ‘Look out! Shooter!’ and Cheney thought he said Scooter and fired in that general direction.”
Following that, he offered a non-apology to Cheney: “How about something more measured, then? How about… a lying, thieving oil whore. Or, a murderer of the U.S. Constitution?”
Now, I don’t like Cheney at all either. But Baldwin consider(ed) Cheney to be a political opponent and had no mercy or decency when Cheney accidentally shot his friend. So why should he receive any mercy or decency for accidentally shooting two people and killing one of them? Why should we be at all sympathetic to him and consider him a VICTIM in this circumstance when it was his own ignorant negligence regarding any semblance of gun safety that claimed the life of one and could have claimed the life of another?
I feel bad for the woman he killed and the man he almost killed. But I feel nothing for Baldwin at all. He deserves to face the criminal consequences of his actions. He’s a killer, even if he didn’t want to be one. And I have no intention of being nice to him when he had no mercy for his own political opponent of the time.
Of course, I do hope he comes to learn from all of this and the possible consequences of his ignorance and negligence and thus comes to understand the importance of gun safety. I will always root for my enemies learning from their evil ways and coming to the light. I hate God’s enemies, but my enemies might not necessarily be God’s enemies. If Baldwin comes to the Lord following this, I will be very happy and shout God’s praise, and I do hope Baldwin does come to the Lord. But he is not owed mercy or grace, either for this or anything else.
I will particularly not be merciful if he refuses to come to God. Let him receive the punishment that is due him.
“Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.”
In Hellywood, it is extremely rare that we would see or hear of a major actor being unapologetically Christian and/or conservative. It isn’t because there aren’t any, but because the town is so owned by radical Leftists who have only grown more and more violent and vitriolic towards differing schools of thought that one could risk their careers being utterly ruined if they were to speak out against the things that they support or even not do things that the Left is supportive of.
As a result of such intolerance, Christians and conservatives usually opt to remain in silence about politics or religion, at least until they get so big they are basically uncancellable.
In some way, this is the level that Matthew McConaughey has reached, as he is such a major star that he could probably hit Leftist Hollywood like he did and not suffer greatly in his career moving forward.
During an interview with famous podcast host Joe Rogan, McConaughey recalled some times when fellow actors whom he has prayed with would sit in silence as opposed to clapping whenever the A-lister would thank God following an award win.
“I have had – and I won’t throw any people under the bus – but I have had moments where I was on stage receiving an award in front of my peers in Hollywood, and there were people in the crowd that I have prayed with before dinners many times, and when I thanked God, I saw some of those people go to clap, but then notice that ‘bad thing on my resume’ and then sit back on their hands.”
“I’ve seen people read the room and go, ‘whoa, that wouldn’t bode well for me in the future,’ if for getting a job or you’re getting votes or what have you. I have seen that; I’ve witnessed that… I don’t judge them for it, I just wish, you know – that it seems like a silly argument.”
It is not only a silly argument; it is a sad state of affairs that one’s very career in Hollywood could be in jeopardy if they were to CLAP when a fellow actor thanks God for his or her award win. But it is the reality in far-Leftist Hollywood, where the Left owns just about everything there. They own the studios which employ the stars. If a star is a conservative, they can get blacklisted for their beliefs. It happened to James Woods, after all, and perhaps even to some others as well.
Off the top of my head, here are the following actors whom either are conservative or whom I believe are conservative but have not really made any notable political statements that would indicate they would be a Leftist:
Chris Pratt, Matthew McConaughey (largely because of this on its own), Renee Zellweger, Vince Vaugh, Rob Schneider, Jon Lovitz, and Adam Driver (mostly because he keeps his private life more private and doesn’t really talk much about politics, as far as I have seen, which is usually a conservative trait in this hellish town).
Now, there might very well be others that I am missing, but this is the list of actors that I could think of that either are definitely conservative or strike me as fairly conservative (at least in relation to the rest of Commiewood).
Suffice to say, the list of far-Left radical actors is far bigger than this. And since they all have to work together in order to make a living, the more conservative actors have to keep a tight lid on what they say or do, and even that is beginning to not be a viable option, seeing as Chris Pratt was attacked for not attending a Biden fundraiser (though fairly liberal colleagues of his did come to his defense, including Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, whom I know to be far-Left people).
So while I won’t excuse those actors and actresses’ hesitation in clapping whenever McConaughey thanks God when receiving an award, seeing as Jesus was perfectly clear when He said: “But whomever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven,” in Matthew 10:33, and doing so is extremely dangerous, I can at least explain why it is that they do this. In my opinion, it is better to forsake one’s acting career than one’s soul (and I do hope those people repent for their sins following such an action).
Now, one could make the argument that they are not necessarily denying Christ, only not clapping when someone else thanks God but still acknowledging Christ as their Lord and Savior, but it’s a bit of a moral mess, if you ask me. They demonstrate a feeling of embarrassment about acknowledging God, or at least, demonstrate prioritizing their career over acknowledging God. Even if it doesn’t go as far as to denying Christ, it does still present a problem for the soul of anyone who does this, in my opinion. It is better for all Christians to appease God, even if that leads to making enemies of men, than to appease Man, if that leads to making enemies with God.
At any rate, McConaughey did not end there. He also hit the “illiberal” Left as being “condescending and patronizing” to half of the world.
“One of the things that… some people in our industry, not all of them, but there’s some that go to the Left so far – as our friend Jordan Peterson [says] – that go to the illiberal Left side so far that it’s condescending and patronizing to 50% of the world that need the empathy that the liberals have.”
Frankly, that is just about the only thing I slightly disagree with him on. Not the part about the far Left being condescending and patronizing, he’s right on the money there. I’m talking about the part about liberals having empathy. Some of them might, but for the most part, liberals have taken the word “empathy” and forced it to mean something else entirely.
Empathy is the ability to identify with or understand another’s situation or feelings. It’s a feeling all humans can have, even liberals, but liberals have largely taken it to mean “tolerance and supportiveness of something that is anti-Christian or anti-conservative.”
We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the transgender who is trying to rape a kid in a bathroom because we don’t know exactly how they feel. We’re supposed to feel “empathy” for the homosexual man because, despite the fact that the Bible is perfectly clear about it being a sin and that one who embraces sin and does not repent of it is not regenerate, we don’t “know how they feel” being so marginalized. We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the illegal immigrant who killed an American girl while playing around with a gun he is not legally allowed to have. We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the black thug who attempted to kill an officer with a car door or with a taser or even with a gun. All because each of these people is “marginalized”.
The Left has taken the word “empathy” to mean we have to be tolerant of their actions when their actions are as egregious as that. We can feel empathy for these people (not for the child rapist) without attempting to excuse their actions or even justifying them as somehow being correct. Isaiah 5:20 says: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter.”
You can feel pity for those who commit wrongdoing without justifying the wrongdoing. What liberals have done in the last few decades is justifying wrongdoing, but that’s not the definition of empathy whatsoever.
One might try and argue that I’m a bigot because I *correctly* pointed out that homosexuality is a sin, but that is not a true statement whatsoever because, unlike the Left, I actually DO care about these people and do not want them to sin any more. Much as I do not want the prostitute or the adulterer to sin no more, I want the homosexual to sin no more.
This is about one’s salvation. Jesus justifies the person, not the sin. He justifies the person in spite of the sin, only if the person repents of their sin. This is not a popular take anymore in part due to the fact that many “Christians” would try and push back on this, but there isn’t a single homosexual person today who is regenerate. They may be conservatives and Trump supporters, ardently so, which is great. They might even acknowledge God and Christ and call themselves a Christian, but the full embrace of sin does not justify anyone.
We are all sinners, that is true, but we repent of those sins, even of the ones we are not aware of. A homosexual fully embraces a sin which does not lead to one’s salvation. The liberal has always pushed back on this idea because he hates God (while claiming he does not believe in God) and wants to be perfectly free to sin as much as he wants. He twists the definition of words like “empathy” and “tolerance” to mean things that they never meant purely for political gain.
The liberal is considered “tolerant” even if he venomously hates those who do not share his political view point, which as we all know, is the exact opposite of tolerance. The liberal is considered “empathetic” if he supports transgender bathroom laws or open borders. They give us sob stories about “poor migrants just trying to achieve a better life for themselves and their young ones” when talking about an illegal immigrant who has illegally crossed the border dozens of times and is on trial for murder.
The idea that these people are “empathetic” is a complete lie. They support whatever is good for their own political side. They hate this country and illegals vote for Democrats, so they support illegal immigration. If illegals voted for Republicans, Democrats would make a wall at the southern border and make the illegals build it before kicking them out.
At any rate, with that little tangent out of the way, McConaughey also hit the Left for cancel culture, pointing out their arrogance and hypocrisy, and noted that his openly Christian faith did not hinder his career.
At one point, Rogan and McConaughey got into a bit of a discussion about science and religion, with the award-winning actor noting that he is a believer and also believes in “science”, and pointing out that there is no contradiction between the two which is perfectly correct.
God would not reveal in nature something which contradicts what He says in scripture, and vice versa. The complexity of our universe, as scientists have discovered the smallest of subatomic particles and the biggest of galaxies, denotes that the only possibility for things existing is intelligent design.
The idea that the universe is a cosmic accident or that it created itself defies logic, as for something to create itself would require that thing to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship, which is a logical impossibility. Nothing can’t do something. Ex nihilo, nihil fit, or out of nothing, nothing comes. So the universe could not have come into being by itself. If anything exists, there has to at the very least be a being which exists within itself and is eternal.
No scientific discovery that has ever been made argues against the existence of God. Not even the theory of evolution argues against the existence of God, as the existence of that first amoeba – the first living organism – could not have come from nothing, as that defies logic, and could not have created itself. We also know it was definitely not eternal, as there used to be no Earth a long time ago, and it initially was a massive rock of lava before it cooled down; an environment which no living organism can survive in.
The only reason people believe there is a divorce in religious thought and scientific thought is because of the enlightenment era belief that “the God theory” was no longer necessary to explain the origin of the universe, which itself is a theory which has not been proven (and can more easily be disproven).
Atheists took that and ran with it, saying “see? Scientists don’t think God exists, so clearly He doesn’t exist.” But religion and science are not at odds with one another, as again, God would not reveal something to be true in nature which contradicts what He reveals in scripture, or vice versa.
I am glad that McConaughey pointed this out in his exchange with Joe Rogan, who is himself more liberal.
I just wish more people in Hollywood had the guts to say these kinds of things and be more open with their Christian faith and conservative beliefs, even if it goes against the mainstream of Hollywood and even if it could potentially cost them some amount of employment.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
It’s an utter shame that one Hollywood celebrity giving thanks to the United States military is so rare as to be fairly newsworthy, but this is where we are right now, given the communist hellhole that is Hollywood. But when it does happen, even despite the current situation in Hellywood, credit must be given where it’s due.
With the Oscars having happened last Sunday night, actress Renee Zellweger did something controversial: avoid attacking Trump, the country, white people or political dissenters. Matter of fact, she did three things in particular that are rare for the Hollywood crowd: thank the military, thank police (as well as firefighters and other first responders, but there is good reason I’m focusing on police) and take notice of the American dream that people, even immigrants (who are coming here legally and do not intend on being a financial burden for American taxpayers), strive to accomplish.
Renee Zellweger won an Oscar on Sunday for Best Actress for her role in “Judy”, a movie about acting icon Judy Garland, who is most famous for her role as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz. This is what she said in her acceptance speech:
“Thank you to the Academy. Thank you for inviting me here alongside one of the most special collaborations and meaningful experiences of my life. My immigrant folks, who came here with nothing but each other and a belief in the American dream, how about this? Thank you to you. And I have to say that this past year of conversations of celebrating Judy Garland across generations and across cultures has been a really cool reminder that our heroes unite us – the best among us who inspire us to find the best in ourselves. They unite us.”
“When we look to our heroes, we agree. And that matters. Neil Armstrong, Sally Ride (an American astronaut), Dolores Huerta (a labor leader and civil rights activist), Venus, and Serena, and Selena (not sure who she is referring to here), Bob Dylan, Fred Rogers, Harriet Tubman, we agree on our teachers. And we agree on our courageous men and women in uniform who serve. And we agree on our first responders and firefighters. When we celebrate our heroes, we’re reminded of who we are as one people, united.”
She also went on to talk more about Judy Garland and the fact she was snubbed from getting the same award Renee had just won and mention that Garland was also a hero to her, after which she ended her speech.
But the speech, while fairly brief, is not bad at all, especially considering the communist garbage the other award winners gave (with one Oscar winner literally quoting the Communist Manifesto in her speech).
Now, this isn’t the first time a Hollywood celebrity has chosen to thank our servicemembers for their sacrifice or overall didn’t give a negative message about America in recent time. Chris Pratt has also done this, thanking servicemen and women, and Gary Oldman thanked the opportunity this country has given him to succeed at the Academy Awards almost two years ago. But given the utter vitriol one sees come from Hellywood on pretty much a daily basis and given just about each movie that has political subtext basically brought to the forefront, it is nice to hear at least one person in one of these award shows give the virtue-signaling a rest.
It is appreciated that some people actually do still seek the American dream without crapping all over the concept and the system that allows for people to achieve it. It is appreciated that someone would thank first responders (though she didn’t outright specify cops) due to the fact that many on the Left view police with utter disdain, believing them to all be racists and people who kill black and brown people for fun or for sport. It is appreciated that someone would thank the servicemen and women who choose to lay their lives on the line so that we can enjoy our freedoms and our safety from foreign adversaries due to how the Left often believes this country to be an imperial menace to the world, itching to go out and invade any small country and strip it of its resources, leaving behind dead bodies and people driven to poverty.
I doubt I am exaggerating in the way the Left, particularly those in Hollywood, view this country, the economic and political system in place, and the police and military members. The values you and I hold mean absolutely nothing to many of these people at best and are viewed as outright demonic at worst (which is richly ironic, considering their demonic pagan practice of sacrificing children for a golden idol). I don’t think Renee has the same values altogether that you and I do, as much of the speech still contained semblances of secularism (hero-worship was practically all over it and worshipping fellow human beings is, of course, idolatrous), but the fact that she at least gave thanks to those who sacrifice their lives for our freedom is worthy of recognition and praise.
The biggest headlines and stories won’t be about her speech. They will be about the “ultra-woke” messages given in the speeches of other Oscar winners. They will be about the same idiotic and erroneous environmental and communist messages that help no one and stand to heavily harm more people than help (as evidenced by literal history that these people refuse to learn from).
But Renee taking the time of her speech to thank servicemembers is, like I said, worthy of praise and recognition. She won’t make headlines in places like Vox or Time, etc., but this gesture is appreciated, even if it goes largely unrecognized by people who often hold contempt for those who serve in our military.
“The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.”
As I was reading financial and technology news I came across this article from Fox Business News. I have to admit that I felt a little sick to my stomach when I read this report of Hollywood bringing James Dean back to life….to give him a role and a career! Can you believe it?
Here’s what Fox Business recently reported:
“The men bringing James Dean back to life for a forthcoming film are aiming not just to give his digital likeness a role, but a whole new career.
Dean’s planned appearance in the Vietnam War movie ‘Finding Jack,’ and the possibility of future parts, comes as digital de-aging and duplication of real actors has tipped from cinematic trick into common practice. And it's giving new life to old arguments about the immortality and dignity of the dead.
‘Our intentions are to create the virtual being of James Dean. That's not only for one movie, but going to be used for many movies and also gaming and virtual reality,’ said Travis Cloyd, CEO of Worldwide XR, who is leading the design on the Dean project. ‘Our focus is on building the ultimate James Dean so he can live across any medium.’”
If you’re feeling uneasy about what these people are trying to do, it’s because God put in you His morality so that you can discern right from wrong.
You see, these people are justifying their actions by what some of their predecessors in other movies did:
“’This is disruptive technology,’ Cloyd said. ‘Some people hear it for the first time and they get shaken by it. But this is where the market is going.’
The revival of the dead, often done clumsily, has been happening for much of Hollywood's existence.
Footage of Bela Lugosi, combined with a double holding a cape over his face, was used in 1959’s ‘Plan 9 From Outer Space,’ released after the horror star's death. Bruce Lee’s film ‘Game of Death,’ left unfinished before his 1973 death, was completed using doubles and voice overdubs and released five years later. ‘The Fast and the Furious’ star Paul Walker died in 2013 before shooting was done on ‘Furious 7.’ His two younger brothers and others acted as stand-ins so his scenes could be finished.
Even Lennon, and many other dead historical figures, were digitally revived in 1994 in ‘Forrest Gump.’
But the technology of recreation and resurrection has taken a major leap forward in quality and prestige, with the extensive de-aging and re-aging used in Martin Scorsese’s ‘The Irishman’; a young Will Smith digitally returning to play opposite the current version in last summer's ‘Gemini Man’; and Carrie Fisher, whose younger self briefly returned digitally in 2016's ‘Star Wars: Rogue One’ and appeared again after her death, in ‘Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.’
Let me decode this for you. What they mean to say is they’re going to push for this “new normal” in technology until you accept it as normal as if normal meant “right”.
So what if Bela Lugosi was brought to “life” by a double in 1959 to finish a project? So what if Bruce Lee’s “Game of Death” film was completed by doubles after his death? So what if Lennon appeared next to Forrest Gump? In the first two cases, doubles were used for one particular purpose: to finish a film, and the practice stopped there. Nobody else brought Bela Lugosi or Bruce Lee back to life to give them careers. Even Lennon appearing with Forrest Gump (or any other doctored video of actual people, such as JFK, for that matter) is not really a moral problem when it’s done this way.
Doctoring a video to place yourself in the swearing in of, say, JFK or Donald Trump as President, can be artistic, but not morally wrong. Even making yourself look younger or older in a photo or video can be artistic but not morally wrong (unless you’re using it to fool people into thinking you’re younger or older than you are for a larger purpose, such as fraud). The key is: what’s your motive? Vanity? Just trying to look better? Or fraud where you’re actually trying to steal something from someone?
But let’s face it, bringing a dead man to life for PROFIT is EVIL. They’re doing this for MONEY. Not to mention the idea that they’re going to CREATE a digital image of James Dean, not use old footage as was the case with John Lennon in Forrest Gump, is morally wrong.
Morality cannot be based on what's normal at the moment! Slavery was normal, but it was wrong. Abortion is somewhat normal, but it’s still wrong. Transgenderism is also somewhat normal (or they’re trying to normalize it), and it’s still wrong. Having males compete against women in sports is being pushed as normal, but it’s still wrong. And bringing people back from the dead, pretending they’re alive and giving them a role in a movie is as wrong as talking to dead people, or the Ouija board game, which attempts to contact dead people and having them talk to you!
What I find fascinating is what Pablo Helman said:
“Pablo Helman, the visual effects supervisor behind the de-aging of Robert De Niro and others in ‘The Irishman,’ said he considers that moral dilemma in his work.
‘The main question that you need to ask yourself is why do it?’ Helman said. ‘You know, just because you can do it doesn't mean you should, you know? That would be one thing that I'm always questioning: Is it in service of the story?’”
Why you do it, is the question. “Is it in service of the story?” HA! So now morality is based upon a certain action being in service of the story? Slavery was definitely in service of the Southern economy. Was it right? So what if a few make hundreds of millions of dollars, in service of the story out of this?
The question of morality is not decided by the majority and it’s not decided by economics or arts – it’s decided by God Himself.
In Deuteronomy 18:10-12 we read: “anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD”.
By doing these things – creating digital beings of people who have died so that these images assume a role in a movie (not even acting as self!) is an abomination to the Lord. There’s a reason people have a negative reaction to these things, as Cloyd confessed. It’s occultism. It’s Satanism. They don't need to do any of this - they can just hire a real, living actor. So why do this unless you're working knowingly or unknowingly for Satan himself!
God has written His law in our souls. It’s wrong what Hollywood is doing. People know it. The authors of this evil know it. You know it and I know it. It’s simply wrong. And it’s always wrong to do wrong.
1 Chronicles 10:13-14:
“So Saul died for his breach of faith. He broke faith with the LORD in that he did not keep the command of the LORD and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance. He did not seek guidance from the LORD. Therefore the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.“
We all know that the Left lives in a perpetual state of anger, outrage and offense, where they look for any and all reasons to be angry at something or someone and feel like some sort of tragic victim who is due some sort of justice. But recently, Leftists have been outraged at something particularly odd: the fact that an openly conservative Hollywood star shows that he is openly conservative.
You see, recently, President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended the College Football National Championship game between LSU and Clemson University, where he received great cheers and standing ovations from the crowd, with the crowd also chanting “USA” upon seeing him.
However, that is not what the Left will choose to cover (can’t show that Trump is popular, because that would go against the narrative that the vast majority of this country hates and detests him). Also in attendance of this game was Hollywood star Vince Vaughn, who got the opportunity to have a conversation with the President of the United States and First Lady during the game and even shake the president's hand as shown above.
A camera recorded this occasion and sports “journalist” Timothy Burke tweeted out the video with the caption: “I’m very sorry to have to share this video with you. All of it, every part of it,” as though he was mourning the fact that a Hollywood celebrity who is not shy about his conservative beliefs was holding a civil conversation with Trump.
Of course, I do actually know why he and other Leftists were outraged. Hollywood is supposed to be THEIRS. At every awards show, in every movie, Leftist ideology must be not only shared but shoved down our throats and any contradicting ideology must be pushed down and obliterated. Hosts who make jokes at the expense of the woke celebrities must be lambasted (such as Ricky Gervais) and celebrities who dissent from the Leftist ideology in any way must be blacklisted and publicly shamed.
The “journalist” appeared to be mourning because he essentially was. Vince Vaughn is a beloved actor in Hollywood, having appeared or starred in many great comedies like Anchorman, Dodgeball, Wedding Crashers, and other movies. He is still working as an actor and producer in various films to this day, so his open conservatism hasn’t derailed his career like it has for other actors.
Vince Vaughn is still popular and beloved, so it apparently hurts the snowflake Left when they see him amicably and civilly speaking with the POTUS. You see, in their mind, even if you are a conservative, you should hate Trump. Even if you are a conservative, right-winger, you should still be on the side of the Left, at least when it comes to Trump, and given the opportunity, you should be seen yelling and screaming like a madman at Trump or cursing him out, or at least, actively avoiding him and/or trying to embarrass him. No one is allowed to like Trump, no one is allowed to have a dissenting opinion. Everyone is supposed to hold the same views as the Left, or they should be cancelled.
Of course, Burke got blasted for his inability to believe that someone, particularly someone like Vince Vaughn, would actually have the gall to be civil in the presence of Trump:
“You’ve successfully proven that Vince Vaughn is a Republican, that thing he has taken no effort to hide,” wrote Alex Griswold. He followed that up by saying: “DM me dude, I have a GIANT scoop about Jon Voight,” who is also another prominent conservative in Hollywood.
Marc Thiessen tweeted: “OMG the humanity! This is terrible! We must all hate Vince Vaughn! You would have done great under Stalin.”
Carpe Donktum, a known conservative meme-maker whose memes often get retweeted by conservatives and sometimes even by the President, tweeted: “Man, I just can’t believe how bold some of these Hollywood people are becoming, first Ricky, and now Vince. If this keeps up people might realize that they live in a free country, and it’s ok to have different opinions than the ones shouted at you on TV.”
If you remember, I recently wrote an article showing us just how few liberals there actually are in this country, with that number being just below 25%. In Hollywood, one would assume that at least 90% of the people there are liberal, so it can be rather rare to see a conservative Hollywood celebrity or star, but they do exist. And in the Left’s mind, that is horrible. As I said in the article about the number of liberals in the country, they are few in number so they have to be loud to pretend to be the mainstream opinion.
Virtually every Hollywood movie and every TV show produced today must bear a hyper-liberal message. A new Star Trek is being made? It should tackle Trump and Brexit (even though it’s literally set hundreds of years in the future, but I guess Trump is still going to be president in the 2360s and Britain will still be trying to leave the European Union) and point out how both of those things are not only bad, but are dangerous and violent for literally everyone. Trump is president and he continues winning electorally? Let’s make a movie about hunting and killing conservatives. More people tend to be okay with homosexuality as time goes on? Good, let’s overrepresent gay people as much as possible in films and tv, even though they are about 5% of the population, if that, and have “gay rights” organizations yell at us for not representing gay people enough anyway.
Movies that present a different ideology, or even just don’t shove the Leftist ideology down people’s throats, are labeled as “problematic”, “controversial” or “irresponsible”, such as the movie “1917”, which is about WWI but it doesn’t feature transgender military generals ordering a sufficiently marginalized, foreign, strong and independent woman of color to singlehandedly beat the Nazis (I know Nazis are from WWII, but the enemy would be treated as Nazis, as we generally are) all while flying the rainbow flag and denouncing white privilege and the United States and a president who wouldn’t be born for roughly another 30 years, so it’s labeled as “irresponsibly nationalistic”.
Any semblance of dissent must be culled, in the Left’s mind, and this has been the modus operandi for ages. The Chinese do it to this day. The Iranians do it. The Russians do it and did it often when they were the Soviet Union. In any dictatorship, where there is dissenting opinion, there are mysterious disappearances and killings. The American Left wishes they could be the dictators of the U.S., as dictators rule harshly in other countries. (Project Veritas recently released a video showing Bernie Sanders campaign staffers wishing to send Trump supporters to “reeducation camps” to “de-Nazify” us, so these people are no different from the commies in the USSR).
For Vince Vaugh to not only be conservative but also to be civil in the face of Trump, it is to be treated as a tragedy. Which is a little odd because, again, he is openly conservative. Back in 2013, he gave an interview where he said: “I think that… as you get older, you just get less trust in the government running anything. And that you start to realize when you really go back and look at the Constitution and the principles of liberty, the real purpose of government is to protect the individual’s right to sort of think and pursue what they have interest in. And that when you start drawing the lines, saying, as a society, we think this is inappropriate, we’re going to pass laws to protect them from themselves and/or take things away to protect themselves or move money from here to there, that you realize that you wake up with corruption and… you’ll wake up with a lot of problems that didn’t exist prior.”
It really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that Vince Vaughn is a conservative, but again, the tragedy, I suppose, is that he didn’t yell at Trump like a decent human being would… or something dumb like that.
Thankfully, considering so many people already know that Vaughn is a conservative, and considering he still gets work in Lefty Hollywood, to the dismay of this particular sports “journalist”, I doubt he will be cancelled over this. Someone might get angry with him and lambast him or bash him on the internet, but he will be fine. But this does, sadly, go to show just how valueless basic civility is nowadays when being seen holding a conversation with someone the Left hates is considered some sort of devastating tragedy and when the expectation by the Left is that the President would be verbally assaulted.
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
The economy is doing fantastic and the President is enjoying great unemployment numbers, so much so that he even created a job opening for Iran’s Major General last week. Unfortunately, one should expect there to be one less job out there because whoever thought of making comedian Ricky Gervais the host of the 2020 Golden Globe awards has probably been fired at this point.
What am I talking about? Well, while I did not care to watch the actual award show (largely because I don’t much care for what 99% of these celebrities were going to say on them, which ended up proving Gervais’ point), many on Twitter shared videos and clips of Gervais hosting the award show and absolutely throttling the Hollywood elites that frequent such events.
Gervais slammed the Hollywood elites for politicizing absolutely everything, saying “You know nothing about the real world.” He also went on to say: “Apple roared into the TV game with ‘The Morning Show,’ a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing, made by a company that runs sweat shops in China. So, well, you say you’re woke, but the companies you work for – I mean, unbelievable, Apple, Amazon, Disney. If ISIS started a streaming service, you would call your agent, wouldn’t you? So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech, right? You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So, if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your god, and f**k off. No one cares about your views on politics or culture.”
As I said, Ricky Gervais told the Hollywood elites present at the event what the rest of America wishes we could tell them (though with less swearing, for some of us, but the sentiment is about right). These are the very people who openly wish to harm the President of the United States (look at George Lopez replying to the Iranian’s offer of assassinating Trump for $80 million by saying “we’ll do it for half”, or look at Robert de Niro often expressing how he would like to punch Trump or throw feces at him) and who believe any belief in the God of the Bible is an affront to “human progress” and is inherently racist and bigoted and hateful by nature. They believe that if you love this country, you are an ignorant fool at best and a racist fascist at worst (often the latter) and someone who either ignores or agrees with the injustices of the past (while they themselves both profit off this country’s system and ignore the injustices of other countries, such as the fact that Iran publicly executes, often in a gruesome manner, homosexuals aka the people these dinguses are supposed to be supporting).
No one watches a movie hoping to get lectured about a topic the people making the movie have no clue about. Entertainment is supposed to offer some sort of escape from the troubles of the real world, not bring those troubles to the forefront and accuse the viewer of wittingly or unwittingly contributing to them.
And yet, these people do not heed these words, not even on the actual award show. One actress, who ironically was visibly pregnant, gave a speech about a woman’s "right" to choose to kill her own baby and that she wouldn’t have made it in Hollywood if she hadn’t had an abortion, which is total b.s., but signifies the heartless and selfish nature of these people. Another one tried to lecture people about climate change and about how her home country, Australia, was on fire because of climate change (the fires were caused by arson, not climate change, but what’s the truth to stop anyone from getting the opportunity to feel self-righteous and lambast people for “not doing enough” about climate change, despite the fact that she, herself, most likely doesn’t do diddly squat about it either, even if something actually could be done about it?)
But regardless, Ricky Gervais didn’t stop there. As the host, he got plenty of opportunity to speak and he took full advantage. He said the following:
“Tonight isn’t just about the people in front of the camera. In this room are some of the most important TV and film executives in the world, people from every background, but they all have one thing in common: they’re all terrified of Ronan Farrow.”
To refresh your memories, Ronan Farrow is a journalist (the son of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow) who helped uncover the sexual abuses of Harvey Weinstein against actresses and other women in Hollywood, which sparked the “#MeToo” movement (before it, too, quickly got heavily politicized and taken over by the Left to attack any and all men, regardless of any wrongdoing or lack thereof having been committed).
He continued: “He’s coming for you. He’s coming for you. Look, talking of all you perverts, it was a big year, it was a big year for pedophile movies, Surviving R. Kelly, Leaving Never Land, Two Popes. [audience groans] Shut up, shut up, I don’t care, I don’t care.”
“No one cares about movies anymore, no one goes to the cinema, no one watches network TV. Everyone’s watching Netflix. This show should just be me coming out, going ‘Well done, Netflix, you win everything. Good night’.”
“But no, we drag it out three hours, you could binge watch the entire first season of ‘Afterlife’ instead of watching this show. That’s a show about a man who wants to kill himself because his wife dies of cancer and it’s still more fun than this. Okay, spoiler alert, season two is on the way, so in the end obviously he didn’t kill himself – just like Jeffrey Epstein.”
While some in the crowd laughed at the joke, there were audible groans at that, to which Gervais replied: “Shut up, I know he’s your friend, but I don’t care. You had to make your own way here, your own plane, didn’t you?”
At one point, he also took some jabs at the celebrities present and those who could not make it there: “You all look lovely all dolled up, you came here in your limos. I came here in a limo and the license plate was made by Felicity Huffman. It’s her daughter I feel sorry for. That must be the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to her. And her dad was in ‘Wild Hogs,’ so…”
Gervais also added: “Leonardo DiCaprio attended the premiere and, by the end, his date was too old for him. Even Prince Andrew is like, ‘Come on Leo, mate. You’re nearly 50.’”
In essence, Gervais points out not only the utter ignorance of Hollywood and their hypocrisy, but also the disgusting pedophile and sex slave ring that exists in “tinsel town”. Of course, this prompted SJWs who idolize and practically deify these celebrities to think of Gervais’ actions as “controversial” or him being a “jerk” for it.
Think of the guy what you will (he’s a Leftist, so I have my own reasons not to particularly like him, or at least, agree with everything he ever says, but to his credit, he is a prominent supporter of free speech for all, which is more than I can say for most other Leftists), but he told these people something no one has ever dared to tell them: the truth. They don’t know anything of what they talk about. They oppose the killing of Soleimani and support Iran in this, despite the fact that Iran kills its own citizens on the regular and executes homosexuals, as well as generally treats women as second-class citizens at best and have been since the revolution in 1979 that installed the current dictatorship system.
They lecture people about “doing the right thing” while accepting tons of money from China. They lecture people about climate change from the comfort of one of their many, often massive, homes that make up massive carbon footprints, or from the comfort of their private jets as they fly to one of these events or to a different country or state to film some scenes. They lecture people about “women’s rights” and “women’s liberation” despite the fact that there is nothing more enslaving than living life based on your carnal desires and avoiding as much responsibility as possible by committing acts of murder that are, for some reason, considered not only legal, but morally right by many in this country.
They lecture people about “women’s empowerment” while being complicit in or, at best, complacent about the sex trade that exists in Hollywood, as well as the pedophile rings that exist. They lecture us about being “tolerant” of others while they openly mock and display hatred towards anyone they disagree with, to the point where they consider such dissenters to be sons of Hitler, traitors to their race or traitors to their gender, or any combination of the three.
These people are as fake as the movies they star in and Ricky Gervais took them to task over such phony self-righteousness and utter hypocrisy.
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
These last couple of weeks have been absolutely fantastic for the pro-life movement. First, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law a bill that would ban abortions once a heartbeat has been detected in a fetus (around 6 weeks into the pregnancy), soon after that, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed into law the country’s most pro-life law, banning abortions outright, and criminalizing the act of performing an abortion (not receiving one, which is what Leftists often lie about) and the Missouri House of Representatives and Senate passed their own heartbeat bill.
Naturally, Hollywood and the Left went absolutely nuclear regarding these great news, though primarily on Georgia, considering how often movies tend to be filmed there thanks to the state’s fairly low tax on production (in other words, it is cheap to film there).
Hollywood Leftists decided to boycott the state, citing the heartbeat bill as the reason for it:
“This law would make Georgia an inhospitable place for those in the film and television industry to work, including our members,” the Writers Guild of America said in a statement.
“It should instead be called a ‘forced pregnancy bill’ – because it would outlaw abortion before a woman even knows that she is pregnant,” C-list actress Alyssa Milano said. “It’s the most anti-woman bill of its kind in the country, and it sends the exact wrong message about the kind of state Georgia’s leaders wish to create. In short, HB 481 (the official name of the bill) would make Georgia the most regressive state in the country.”
I personally have an awful lot to say about these things. First, regarding the Writers Guild’s statement, how exactly is outlawing the murder of an unborn baby creating an inhospitable place for the film and television industries? Not being able to kill a child makes the state inhospitable to these industries? Perhaps, then, it’s the industries’ problem, not the State’s, if they literally cannot live or work in a state where killing children in the womb is deemed illegal.
Second, regarding Alyssa Milano’s statement, half of the victims of abortion are women, or girls. Why isn’t that taken into consideration when discussing how a bill is “anti-woman”? And this is without even taking into consideration how truly heartless (pun not intended) you must be to understand that a fetus has a heartbeat, a rather strong indication of its viability, and still think it is okay to kill it.
Third, as far as “regressive” goes, I would think that the slaughter of the innocent for literally no reason is more regressive and barbaric than the pursuit of saving and preserving a life, one of the inalienable rights given to us by God as detailed in the Declaration of Independence.
But regardless of what Hollywood Leftists will say, claim and think, the vast majority of America actually disagrees with them, at least when it comes to the heartbeat bill.
According to a Hill/HarrisX survey, most voters think that six-week abortion bans are either “just right” or “too lenient”.
34% of voters said they believe six-week abortion bans are “just right”, while 21% believe they are “too lenient”, with 45% of voters saying the bans are “too restrictive”.
In other words, 55% of voters support these types of bans while 45% are against them, a 10-point difference.
What is interesting is the fact that younger voters are actually more supportive of these bans.
The Hill reports that 52% of “respondents 65 years of age and older said they believed that six-week abortion bans are too restrictive. Thirty-one percent said they were just right while 17 percent said they were too lenient.” That’s a 52-48 split, and a 4-point difference.
“Among voters between the ages of 50-64, 41 percent said the new laws were too restrictive, 38 percent said they were just right, and 21 percent said they did not go far enough.” That’s 59% of voters in that age range who support such a ban, while only 41% oppose it, an 18-point difference.
“A 45 percent plurality of voters between 35-49 said the laws were too restrictive, 36 percent said they were just right and 18 percent said they were too lenient.” That’s 54% in favor of the bans and 45% against it, a 9-point difference.
“The youngest voters polled, those 34 and under, were most likely to say the abortion bans did not go far enough, although far less than a majority – 27 percent – said this. Forty-three percent said the laws were too restrictive while 30 percent said they were just right.” That’s 57-43, a 14-point difference.
I cannot imagine how hard a pill this must be to swallow for the Left. Ignoring the fact that a majority of voters polled said they supported these types of bills, the younger generations all had considerably bigger gaps between those who supported these bills and those who did not support them.
Younger generations are the ones the Left most want to get their hooks on. It is often said that “children are the future”, so it stands to reason that the Left wants younger voters siding with them on such issues than they would care about older ones. After all, they’ve already cast out old, white men from their voting bloc. They don’t care about getting their votes, only younger generations’.
Why do you think the Left is so adamant about lowering the voting age to 16? Because a young person is more likely to believe the bull crap the Left spews than someone who has been alive for a long while, has life experience, and understands that what the Left is spewing is bull crap.
Winston Churchill is often attributed (though has never been confirmed) for saying: “If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.”
The quote (whether or not it’s Churchill’s) speaks at the fact that young people are often more emotionally-driven rather than intellectually-driven. Take climate change as an example. Young people are indoctrinated since Kindergarten now-a-days to believe we are destroying our planet. Obviously, that would not be a good thing if that were true, but because young people are TOLD what to think and will not often challenge such deeply-engrained beliefs, they go through life believing this sort of thing. After all, you would have to be a monster to be okay with killing our planet… if that were actually what was going on.
But as people grow older and garner more life experience and start to develop their own line of thinking, they will come to challenge things they’ve been told in their youth and seek to find out if those things are actually true. That’s not to say that is what always happens, of course. Bernie Sanders was around when fire was discovered and he still thinks socialism is a great thing.
But what is expected of people is to learn basic truths about the world and shift from an emotional liberal to an intellectual conservative – going from believing we are killing our planet to using logic and reason to understand that we could do no such thing, at least with the methods described as being the culprit of such fabled destruction.
However, as we find in the aforementioned poll regarding six-week abortion bans, those who are younger actually take the more pro-life stance than the boomer generation, which saw the 1973 Roe v. Wade case essentially legalize abortion.
And even the boomer generation’s statistics in the poll find that there is a slim majority of boomers who are against these types of bills. 52-48 is considerably closer than the Left would want.
But in any case, I am thankful to God that so many people are aware of the fact that there is a life growing inside the woman and that no “my body, my choice” argument seems to be effective in the least bit. After all, what we are talking about is not a woman’s body, but the body that grows inside a woman. A separate entity with its own genetic code that is its own individual, will have its own name, life, and everything else that is attributed to humans once it is born. The general understanding here is that life is growing inside the womb, something even some (rather evil) Democrats understand.
While the fate of these bills in court is not exactly certain (let’s just say I don’t trust Kavanaugh any more), it is clear that a good number of Americans do not fall in line with the Left’s barbaric thinking that women have the “right” to slaughter their own children growing inside the womb.
Thank God for that.
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
I have largely avoided talking about the whole college scandal story going on with actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin because I could not care less about the problems of Hollywood Leftists, but I felt it necessary to say a little something here because of some of the comments that Loughlin’s family has made about the entire fiasco.
To summarize the entire thing as best I can, Loughlin and Huffman face charges for bribing the University of Southern California (USC) into letting their kids attend the school. Obviously, it was wrong and the two are paying the price for their illegal actions, but I do not care all that much about that. College, for the most part, is a cesspool of Left-wing garbage, so I couldn’t care less about the incestuous relationships that are present between Leftist schools and Leftist Hollywood elites.
But the comments coming from Loughlin’s family are something that I think I should take note of, to some extent.
According to HotAir.com: “’Lori is used to getting what she wants,’ says the family source. ‘This is why she got in trouble in the first place. She got fixated on getting her girls into USC.’… ‘For her, there was no other way… They needed to be at USC. It was very important for her to be able to say that her girls were at USC.’ For Loughlin, 54, ‘it was absolutely a status thing’ for her daughters to attend the elite Los Angeles university, where the admission rate was 13 percent in March 2018, the family source says. ‘And the fact that she wanted the girls to have things that she never had growing up.’”
Well, I guess getting a bad reputation is something Lori did not have growing up, so I’m sure her daughters appreciate it.
Jokes aside, I really just want to focus on that whole “it was absolutely a status thing” comment. I, for one, am not really surprised at all about that sort of mindset. Of course it was a status thing! For the Hollywood elite, sending their kids to college is not so that they can get an education (God knows colleges don’t offer that anymore). It’s about prestige. It’s about being able to tell people “Mmm, yes, my son is studying at Hhhhhaaaaaarrrrvvvaaaaarrrrdddd.” (Just imagine saying that in the most obnoxious and snooty voice possible while holding a glass of wine or champagne). It’s about being able to tell people “my child is better than your child”. Basically, it’s the adult, yet still very childish version of “my dad can beat up your dad.”
These people are incestuous, as I’ve established. In this case, that means they are entirely codependent on one another and on one another’s approval and satisfaction. Why do you think people like Harvey Weinstein would so often champion women’s rights while simultaneously doing unspeakable things to them in private? It’s because they seek one another’s approval and sending kids off to prestigious colleges is part of acquiring some bragging rights, at least for the ones who are old enough to have children going to college.
To these people, it’s shameful if their kids don’t go to an elite school. It’s shameful if, as with the case of Lori Loughlin’s daughter, their child has a YouTube channel about make-up tutorials that draws in millions of people and can be a legitimate source of income. That’s not elite; that’s not special. Her parents need to be able to tell their friends that their daughter attends a highly exclusive and prestigious university, studying the various genders of a tree and getting barely passable grades.
If they can tell other people that sort of thing, they feel special and prestigious themselves. It is, as the family source says, a status thing.
But it’s petty. Even if Loughlin and Huffman had gotten their children legitimately enrolled into her school, the reasons behind it all are still insanely petty and sad. These are people that depend entirely on what others think about them. If there is someone out there who MIGHT make fun or gossip about their child not going to a prestigious school (which highlights Loughlin’s and Huffman's narcissism that she might think people think about them all the time), they can’t possibly take it and will go to any means, even illegal ones, to avoid being shamed about it.
Well, despite what prestige or status you get out of telling people your child goes to an elite school, there is no greater status or more prestige than in being able to call yourself a follower of Christ and a child of God.
All the Loughlins and Huffmans of the world get out of bragging about where their child is being indoctrinated is just that: bragging rights. In reality, no one honestly cares about that. Why would they? The people the Loughlins tell this stuff to are just as self-centered and narcissistic and incestuous as they are, so why would they be impressed by such a thing? If anything, they might get envious (which honestly might also be what the Loughlins and Huffmans sought, which makes it even more petty and sad), but certainly not impressed.
But that is all they can get out of that. If, however, you are a child of God and a follower of Christ, your rewards far exceed that of “bragging rights”.
Namely, what you get is access to the most prestigious and hard-to-access place in all of existence: Heaven. I might not be able to get into Hhhhaaaarrrvvvaaaarrrddd, but I know I can and will get into Heaven due to the only requirement for doing so is to receive Christ as your Lord and Savior. I’ve done that, and I continuously do my best to obey the Lord, so I know I’ll get into Heaven. But I can’t say the same for these people.
All that is required to enter the most coveted area in all of existence is the receiving of Christ Jesus into our hearts, that He would forgive our sins and redeem us in the Eyes of the Lord.
And yet, not everyone does it. Now, I won’t go much into that, since that’s a topic on its own and I know full-well why people don’t do it, but it should be pointed out that the most logical thing anyone can do is to follow Jesus Christ.
But in any case, the sort of reward you get out of being a Christian is eternal life at the side of God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. There is no greater status than that of being a Christian. And I do not mean an earthly status. Of course, being a Christian will lead people into a life of persecution by wicked people, so it is not an earthly status where one can receive the benefits of it immediately. However, the status, the rewards, come in the form of a rejoicing Father who welcomes His lost sheep.
Personally, I’d much rather appease the Lord than brag to Man about what I can do or have done. I’d much rather follow Christ than receive any form of status from Leftist Hollywood.
“For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Moving away from the hot button issue of the Kavanaugh accusation, I feel it is important to share some feel-happy news in a world that constantly tries to take away your joy. (Not that the Kavanaugh accusation has me down, knowing that it won’t derail Kavanaugh, but the Left tries their best to take away people’s joy).
The feel-happy news, if you really want to call it news, is that recently Chris Pratt had an interview with The Associated Press in which he discussed a number of things ranging from fitness to who his actor role model is (Tom Cruise, surprisingly, but mostly because Cruise does his own stunts), and the topic we’re focusing on particularly: his unabashedly Christian faith.
The interviewer for the AP said the following: “At recent award show appearances, you went out on stage and talked publicly about your faith. Is it an especially important time to do that?”
Personally, I find the phrasing of the question intriguing. He’s not asking if Pratt thinks it’s especially important for him to do it. He’s asking if it’s especially important to do that in our current time. I do not know who the AP interviewer is, but they might have a good eye for what is happening in today’s world and the impact of Christianity.
Alas, I likely will never know if the interviewer is a Christian him/herself and that that was the reason for phrasing the question in that manner, so let’s move on to Pratt’s answer.
“I don’t know that I am so much more motivated by where the world is or if it’s just what I’m feeling called to do right now. I think it’s a combination of both things… That kind of a message, it might not be for everybody. But there is a group of people for whom that message is designed. And nothing fills my soul more than to think that maybe some kid watching that would say, ‘Hey, I’ve been thinking about that. I’ve been thinking about praying. Let me try that out.’ That’s like the only way I feel like I can repay what has essentially been a giant gift in my life.”
A good answer, in my opinion. Obviously, it becomes increasingly important to spread the Word of God in a world that is adamantly rebellious against Him, a world that defies Him at every given opportunity and treads closer and closer towards the devil.
The Kavanaugh accusation alone is proof of this. The Left seeks to destroy him using a letter detailing, with flawed accuracy, events that happened sometime 30 years ago somewhere in the Northeast United States. The accuser brings up no evidence to support her claim, no witnesses to corroborate her claims, has refused to attend a hearing where her story would be heard, and when she agrees, she sets up “fairness” terms where likely she gets to decide what is fair and what isn’t, and demands the FBI investigate an issue they have twice said would not investigate and an issue that really falls under local law enforcement jurisdiction, not federal, not to mention an issue that would have come up during the vetting of Kavanaugh soon after his nomination if it had happened.
And even with all of these facts, the Left, the media and Hollywood celebrities are treating that one letter to Feinstein as gospel and the truth, seeking to destroy the career and livelihood of someone just because he poses a threat to the evil Supreme Court decision of 1973: Roe v. Wade.
Not to get too much into the actual topic, since everyone and their grandmother is talking about it, but it does offer a good example of a world that is getting closer to the devil. A world where the life of a man can be ruined by flimsy accusations that no one should believe, but somehow many do.
But the other part that is important is that spreading the Word of God and thanking the Lord at every given opportunity is something we are called to do no matter what the circumstance. Pratt does well in answering his question by saying it’s a combination of the state of the world today and the fact that he’s called to do it.
Then, the AP interviewer asks the following question: “Does it feel like a risk sometimes in Hollywood?”
To which Pratt answers: “No, not at all… I think that there’s this narrative that exists out there that Hollywood is anti-Christian or anti-religious, but it’s just not the case. They are kind of not anti-anything. They are kind of pro- whatever is authentic to you. And I like that. Because it’s authentic for me to be pro-Christian, pro-Jesus. That’s my thing. I like it. And I’ve never had anyone try to shame me, to my face. Maybe they go say it behind my back. But if that’s the case, go ahead. You can say whatever you want about me – to my face or behind my back. I’m not going to change.”
Interesting answer he gives here.
And there might be SOME truth to what he says. At this point in time, just about everyone, particularly people in Hollywood, knows that Pratt is a Christian. Despite this, he still gets to have lead roles in huge blockbuster movies such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World. He is enjoying pretty great success thus far, even with people knowing he’s a Christian.
However, that is where my agreement with his response ends. I’m not a Hollywood star like Pratt, so it’s not like I have inside knowledge on what happens there regarding this topic, but I know for a fact that Leftist Hollywood is anti-something. They are unabashedly anti-Trump.
Beyond that, they tend to be anti-God as well. Pratt may never have had someone try to shame him over his faith in the past, but we know very well that Hollywood, both in their movies and in their celebrities’ actions, are anti-God.
No, they may not necessarily come out every single day and shout that they hate God, but their actions show these types of feelings.
In their movies, time and time again, they try to shove Leftist messages down people’s throats. Messages such as “there is nothing wrong with being gay” (homosexuality is a sin. Sin is wrong.) or “it’s okay if you have an abortion, it’s just a blob of cells” or “all cops are racists”, etc.
That’s not necessarily every single movie, but we often see these messages in the big screen.
And that’s just mentioning the actual films. This is without mentioning the undoubtedly millions of dollars these Hollywood celebrities donate to organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and others that are all inherently evil.
I’ve already explained why the #MeToo movement is evil in a previous article, so no need to repeat myself here. It’s fairly obvious why Planned Parenthood is evil and have written a multitude of articles detailing how and why they are evil. And with BLM, the reason it’s evil is because its leaders try to make every case where a cop shoots a black person strictly about race. Yeah, there are occasions when the officer definitely was out of line in killing someone who was not a threat. Such cases exist, but for the most part, cops shoot to kill someone who is an obvious threat to their lives or the lives of others.
So while Chris Pratt may have never been subject of persecution regarding his faith (at least in person. Social media might be a different story), it’s not entirely accurate to say that Hollywood people aren’t anti-anything. Everyone has an opinion, and they have the right to said opinion.
Hollywood Leftists have the right to promote filth, to support evil organizations, etc. But to say they are not anti-anything is not entirely accurate. These actions show me the kind of people they are: people who do not have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who do not follow His commandments, who do not obey the Lord and go out of their way to defy Him. The actions that I have listed above are proof of this.
Again, they might not come right out and say they hate God, but their actions speak louder than anything they could say.
In any case, I want to focus more on the fact that, regardless of what Pratt thinks is the way Hollywood acts (again, I can’t claim to have more knowledge than him), he himself will not be deterred in his faith in Christ.
That’s what I believe is the most important thing to take away from this and the most important thing to keep in mind. It’s great that Pratt is so open about his faith in Christ and wants to share it with the world. It’s great that he thanks God as often as possible and seemingly, that he prays whenever he can. Beyond all other opinions we may have on this world: whether or not Trump is a good President, whether or not socialism works (it doesn’t and that’s a fact), whether or not we are being finessed by other countries regarding trade deals, what is important is having faith in the Lord.
That’s why I don’t mind that Pratt is not political. That he doesn’t necessarily show favoritism towards one candidate or another. Aside from the fact that he’d effectively be committing career suicide if he were to say he’s a conservative (though I imagine people gather that, knowing he’s a Christian), he knows that it’s more important to focus on matters of Heaven than of Earth. That the Lord comes first and everything else comes last.
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It’s a compilation of the week’s articles composed in a single email, and it also gives you easy access to our online store. And unlike the “socialists” at the New York Times and other publications that ask (or force) you to pay for a subscription, our publication is 100% free.
Today’s Hollywood and media culture is chockfull of pandering, virtue-signaling and politically correct b.s. What with the recent trend of remaking every movie into a women’s only film to even having Batwoman, a canonically straight female, be turned into a lesbian superheroine.
So, it’s not surprising that unhinged Leftists attack other unhinged Leftists who are not “woke” enough. Gay rights groups GLAAD and 5050by2020, led by Jill Soloway, who created the show “Transparent” about a transgender woman, encouraged Hollywood to better represent the Transgender community in their films, saying that she got “four dozen production companies, talent agencies, film studios, and advocacy groups” to show “support for expanded LGBTQ representation”, according to Variety.
This comes relatively after Scarlett Johansson received backlash for being cast as a transgender man despite her being what these nut-jobs describe as “cisgender”, or someone who identifies with the gender they were born as aka a normal and mentally-stable person.
Soloway says that “cisgender actors portraying transgender individuals is harmful because of the message it sends to non-trans people who may believe transgender people are merely dressing in costume”, despite the fact that she herself has cast a “cisgender” man to play a transgender woman.
Now, while I typically never side with Hollywood on anything given that they themselves are out of their darn minds about everything to the point where at least one of their more prominent figures legitimately did not know there were people who were against abortion (*ahem* Mila Kunis *ahem*) and the fact that they go along with every socialist narrative out there, despite the fact that such policies would ruin the country and would eventually ruin the very people pushing for such policies, I always side with reasoned thought and logic.
Do you want to know why there is so little representation of transgender people in Hollywood? Why actors and actresses feel compelled to play transgender people even if they themselves are not transgender? BECAUSE TRANSGENDER PEOPLE COMPRISE ONLY 0.6% OF THE POPULATION!
And before any liberals reading this, if there even are any, try to challenge that number, know that that statistic comes from the Left’s version of the Gospel: the New York Times. Of course, this being the New York Times, I myself am fairly skeptical of what they tell me. However, considering the narrative that there are a lot of transgender people out there, seeing such an incredibly low number from a Leftist source who routinely lies and has employed an open bigot, I will trust that number for the time being.
This means that current Hollywood representation of transgender people might be on par or might even be over-representing them (can’t say for certain because I have not seen a Hollywood movie, in theaters or otherwise, in years, and simply refuse to watch anything new they release, knowing it will be filled with garbage).
But, of course, such a thing cannot be allowed to remain. The Left simply must push for more transgenders to be in movies, even if that creates an over-representation of transgenders. And this is all in the name of “equality”, even if it creates a glaring inequality.
The problem, of course, with what Soloway wants is that it is, as of now, relatively impossible. If 0.6% of the population in America is transgender, you will be hard-pressed to find that many transgender people to play a transgender person. Granted, this is Hollywood and it makes sense if many transgenders live in California, the land of insanity. And according to that same New York Times article, there are 1.4 million transgenders in the U.S., so you could, theoretically, find transgender people out there, but that does not necessarily mean they all want to be actors.
What I’m getting at is the fact that, if Hollywood really wants to represent transgender people in movies, they’ll have to “settle” with “cisgender” actors playing that role. It’s a bit of a stretch, considering those people would have to do something called “acting”, but I think they would be able to do it.
Of course, this all points to the larger problem: they are pretending transgenderism is a perfectly natural thing, at least for humans, and that there is nothing wrong with it. There is.
I’ve repeatedly quoted the World Health Organization having diagnosed transgenderism as “gender dysphoria”. Of course, since everything has to fit the Left’s agenda, the W.H.O. had to declassify gender dysphoria as a disorder in order to appease their fascistic overlords who wish to rip apart the fabric of humanity (all-the-while also classifying video game addiction as a mental disorder, which is ridiculous).
Hollywood, Soloway, and the entirety of the Left all promote the idea of being transgender and disregarding science itself. They all promote the idea of telling these people that there’s nothing wrong with them, even if the evidence is self-evident.
They also promote the idea that believing transgenderism is a disorder is wrong and that people like me, who call out the Left for this and call out the fact that this is, indeed, a mental disorder, should not be allowed to point it out.
Like I said in my previous article, they only want their ideas and their thoughts to be shared, not ours and no one who can realistically and honestly claim to be logical and sane.
What this all culminates to is a society that has long-abandoned not only the Creator, but even science and logic. A society that is 180 degrees backwards. A society that the Left dominates because it’s just as crazy as they are.
One can only pray that people recover their sanity and, thus, repent of this.
1 John 1:9
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...