Tag Archive for: Hollywood

Hollywood’s Secret Blacklist? Please. The Real Action Is on the White List.

Save your coffee money. You’ll need it. 

Every few months, some headline erupts out of Hollywood like a toaster fire.

This week’s crisis?

“Top Secret Actor Blacklist at Paramount.”

Stop the presses.

A blacklist? In Hollywood?

My goodness. Next, they’ll reveal that actors are needy, egotistical, blowhards.

The Daily Mail shouts that insiders have “blown the lid” off this hush-hush list, and people begin scrambling for their wallets like they’re buying front-row seats at the rapture.

Click.
Click.
Click.

Punch in the credit card number.
All for the chance to discover absolutely no names in the article whatsoever.

Not me.
I’m not giving up my morning coffee so a news outlet can buy more office K-Cups.

But if you really want a list?

If you truly crave names?

If you long to know who Hollywood cherishes, protects, elevates, and gently cushions with silk throw pillows?

Forget the blacklist.

Ask for the White List.

The Platinum, Red-Carpet, No-Audition-Necessary, Praise-Be-to-Our-Favored-Ones White List.

Who’s on it?

You already know.

Hollywood doesn’t hide the White List — it broadcasts it.

Just open your eyes and behold:

  • Nepo Hierarchy Royalty—Those whose résumés are genetically pre-approved.
  • Left-Wing Zealots—Shouting their politics from rooftops, but never from the unemployment line.
  • Identity Activists on Demand—The more hashtags, the higher the billing.
  • The Devout Congregation of “Christianity Is the Real Villain”—Always welcome. Always working. Always applauded.

The blacklist?

That’s the ghost story.

The White List is the cast list.

It’s who gets the roles.

The magazine covers.

The glowing profiles.

The PR rescues.

The second, third, and fifteenth chance.

Studios deny blacklists because they would make them look authoritarian.

But the White List?

They practically choreograph musical numbers about it.

And here’s the twist nobody writing these panic headlines will admit:

Whether it’s a blacklist or a White List, the public will never see a single official name.

Not now.

Not ever.

Because Hollywood doesn’t put bias into memos.

It puts bias into practice.

So save your money.

Don’t spend a penny to peek behind a paywall promising forbidden names.

Instead, watch who Hollywood keeps placing on pedestals, and you’ll know everything you need to know about who’s “in,” who’s “out,” and who’s sitting comfortably in that velvet-lined throne they call the White List.

Your coffee is better spent keeping you awake — not keeping someone else’s newsroom caffeine-addicted.

AUTHOR

Martin Mawyer

Martin Mawyer is the President of Christian Action Network, host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops HidingSubscribe for more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom.

©2025 . All rights reserved.


Please visit the Patriots Majority Report substack.

Robert De Niro’s Trump Obsession and Hollywood’s Hypocrisy

For over a decade, Robert De Niro, one of Hollywood’s most celebrated actors, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump, escalating his attacks from pointed critiques to expletive-laden rants. His disdain for the former president, whom he has called everything from a “punk” to a “clown,” has become as defining as his iconic roles in Taxi Driver and Raging Bull.

Yet, the irony of De Niro’s personal life — particularly his marriage to Grace Hightower, a Black woman who reportedly voted for Trump — underscores the contradictions within Hollywood’s liberal elite.

Let’s examine how the chronicles of De Niro’s 12-year campaign against Trump reveal personal irony and critique Hollywood’s sanctimonious culture, which amplifies such feuds while overlooking their flaws.

De Niro’s public attacks on Trump began in 2011, during Trump’s “birther” campaign questioning Barack Obama’s citizenship.

In an interview at the Tribeca Film Festival, De Niro called out Trump’s claims, saying, “How dare you? That isn’t very good. To go out there and say things you can’t back up. That’s crazy.” Trump responded on Fox & Friends, dismissing De Niro as “not the brightest bulb” and “no Albert Einstein.”

By 2016, as Trump campaigned for president, De Niro’s rhetoric intensified.

At a Sarajevo event celebrating Taxi Driver’s 40th anniversary, he called Trump “totally nuts” and a “national disaster,” expressing disbelief at his rise.

That October, in a #VoteYourFuture campaign video, De Niro unleashed a tirade, labeling Trump a “punk,” “pig,” “con,” and “bullshit artist” who “doesn’t do his homework” and “thinks he’s gaming society.”

After Trump’s election, De Niro told The Hollywood Reporter he felt as devastated as after 9/11, though he briefly tempered his tone on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, saying he couldn’t punch Trump now that he was president.

In 2017, De Niro’s attacks resumed with vigor. At a “United We Stand” rally, he mocked Trump’s social media rants and criticized his immigration policies.

By 2018, De Niro’s rhetoric turned profane. At the National Board of Review gala, he called Trump a “jerk-off in chief” and “f***ing fool” while introducing Meryl Streep. At the Tony Awards, he received a standing ovation for shouting “F*** Trump,” prompting Trump to tweet that De Niro was “punch-drunk” and a “very Low IQ individual.”

In 2019, De Niro called Trump a “wannabe gangster” and “total loser” on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, comparing him unfavorably to mobsters with codes of honor.

During the 2020 pandemic, he branded Trump a “lunatic” who “doesn’t care how many people die.”

In 2023, at the Gotham Awards, De Niro accused organizers of censoring his anti-Trump remarks while reading from his phone, criticizing Trump’s “30,000+ lies” and use of “Pocahontas” against Sen. Elizabeth Warren who falsified claims about Native American heritage to gain affirmative action privileges in hiring. Trump retaliated on Truth Social, calling De Niro a “total loser” whose “acting talents have greatly diminished.”

De Niro’s attacks peaked in 2024 and 2025.

In May 2024, outside the Manhattan Criminal Court during Trump’s hush-money trial, De Niro called him a “grubby real estate hustler,” “clown,” and “tyrant” who “will never leave” if re-elected. He narrated a Biden campaign ad. warning of a Trump “bloodbath.”

In September 2024, at a Megalopolis screening, De Niro said Trump “cannot do anything” and “wants to destroy the country.”

In October, he went on a “foul-mouthed tirade,” calling Trump a “piece of sh**.”

In November, at an Eagles tailgate, he likened Trump to Hitler and urged NFL fans to vote for Kamala Harris.

Most recently, in May 2025, at Cannes, De Niro accepted an honorary Palme d’Or and called Trump a “philistine president” whose 100% tariff on foreign films threatens art and democracy.

Amid De Niro’s relentless attacks, a striking irony emerges from his personal life.

De Niro was married to Grace Hightower, a Black woman, from 1997 until their divorce in 2021.

Reports suggest Hightower voted for Trump, a claim that, while unverified in primary sources, aligns with the complexity of political divides even within liberal circles. This alleged divergence highlights the disconnect between De Niro’s public persona as a progressive crusader and the private realities of his relationships. Their divorce, finalized after years of separation, underscores how political differences can strain even high-profile unions.

De Niro’s obsession with Trump is emblematic of Hollywood’s broader sanctimonious culture. The industry, dominated by liberal elites, often cloaks its moralizing in artistic virtue while ignoring its own contradictions.

Stars like De Niro decry Trump’s divisiveness yet engage in rhetoric that fuels polarization, alienating audiences who see their activism as out of touch with their values.

Hollywood’s selective outrage — condemning political figures while excusing its own history of misconduct, from Harvey Weinstein to labor abuses — reveals a double standard. De Niro’s Cannes speech, railing against Trump’s tariffs while overlooking the festival’s own controversies, like Gérard Depardieu’s sexual assault conviction, exemplifies this hypocrisy.

Moreover, Hollywood’s echo chamber amplifies voices like De Niro’s, rewarding them with applause while dismissing dissenting perspectives. The industry’s portrayal of conservatives as caricatures — think Trump as a “clown” or “Hitler” — reduces complex issues to soundbites, undermining genuine discourse. De Niro’s rants, cheered on by peers, reflect a culture that prioritizes performative activism over self-reflection while profiting from the very systems it critiques.

Robert De Niro’s extended vendetta against Donald Trump, from 2011’s measured critiques to 2025’s fiery Cannes speech, reveals a man consumed by political animus. The irony of his ex-wife’s alleged support for Trump exposes the personal contradictions beneath his public stance. More broadly, De Niro’s crusade reflects Hollywood’s sanctimonious tendency to preach while ignoring its own flaws. As audiences grow weary of celebrity moralizing, the industry should look inward rather than point fingers outward.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Celebrity Leftist Doubles-Down on Comey’s ’86 47′ Post, Gets Secret Service Wake-Up Call

Trump Moves To Punish Outsourced Film Productions With Massive Tariff, Citing ‘National Security’

President Donald Trump announced Sunday that he will impose a 100% tariff on all films produced outside the U.S., citing national security concerns and a desire to revive America’s “dying” film industry.

Trump authorized the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce to begin the process of levying the tariffs, declaring foreign film subsidies a “concerted effort” by other countries to undermine Hollywood’s global dominance.

“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A, are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!”

The president blamed a “grossly incompetent governor,” likely Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, for “Hollywood being destroyed” in a comment to reporters outside of Marine One on Monday morning.

“I’ve done some very strong research over the past week, and we’re making very few movies now,” Trump said. “Hollywood is being destroyed. Now, you have an incompetent, grossly incompetent governor that allowed that to happen, so I’m not just blaming other nations. But other nations, a lot of them, have stolen our movie industry. If they’re not willing to make a movie inside the United States, then we should have a tariff on movies that come in.”

Roughly half of all U.S. spending on film and television projects over $40 million in 2023 occurred outside the country, according to ProdPro, a firm that tracks global film budgets.

The Los Angeles fires in January further exacerbated the trend of overseas film production, according to FilmLA, a nonprofit that issues shoot permits in the city. The nonprofit’s first-quarter production report shows L.A. on-location production plunged 22.4% year-over-year, including a 28.9% slide for feature films and a 30.5% hit to television.

It is unclear whether the tariffs would apply to independent foreign-language films or joint ventures with American studios. The Motion Picture Association, which represents major Hollywood studios, did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Thomas English

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump to Impose 100% Tariff on Movies Produced in Foreign Countries: ‘We Want Movies Made in America Again’

Trump Makes Hollywood Activist Issa Rae Self-Deport From Kennedy Center Show

Mayor Says She’s Investigating Her Own Trip Abroad While Wildfires Destroyed Her City

Bessent Demands Europe Scrap ‘Unfair’ Regulatory Shakedown

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Death of Hollywood

The name “Hollywood” was once an emblem of creativity, ingenuity, and originality. The film industry was, for decades, the home of the daring and devoted, those who were willing to risk their reputations and fortunes for the sake of their craft, for the sake of telling a good story in a way no one had ever told a story before. In the pioneering days of the film industry, motion pictures were still a novelty, allowing for much experimenting: filmmakers explored new ways to construct narratives, new techniques to make the impossible seem possible, new methods of framing and ordering images to elicit certain emotional responses — but all of this was done in the name of telling a good story.

However, after watching Sunday night’s Academy Awards ceremony, one has to ask if Hollywood has simply run out of good stories. Top contenders for the once-prestigious Oscar statuette included “Anora,” a nearly-two-and-a-half hour-long tale of strippers, Russian crime lords, and sexual assault; the French crime musical “Emilia Pérez,” centered on a South American cartel captain who decides he’s transgender; and “Conclave,” which depicts the leaders of the Catholic Church as scheming, Machiavellian arch-politicians and imagines that the next pope might be transgender. Eventually, the coveted “Best Picture” title went to “Anora,” the heartwarming one about a stripper marrying a Russian gangster and trying to avoid being raped. A tale as old as time, they say.

Hollywood used to tell good stories. Recent years have seen only a handful of good stories told well — the World War I epics “All Quiet on the Western Front” and “1917,” the World War II dramas “Dunkirk” and “Hacksaw Ridge,” the exciting “Ford v. Ferrari,” and the oddly-charming “Green Book” stand out to this writer as examples acknowledged by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences over the past decade — but the film industry was, once upon a time, a behemoth of creativity, ingenuity, and originality, inspiring the imaginations of generations of boys and girls.

In the early days of Hollywood, studio heads and producers like Samuel Goldwyn, Louis B. Mayer, and the Warner Brothers would partner with directors like Alfred Hitchcock, Fritz Lang, and Jean Renoir to both perfect the technical art of filmmaking and tell riveting, intriguing, immersive stories. As the era of silent film faded, the Golden Age of Hollywood began. The half-century-long Golden Age produced numerous stars, of course — from Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, and Clark Gable to Jimmy Stewart, Kirk Douglas, and Gregory Peck to Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, and Marlon Brando — but was, more crucially, a time when screenwriters, cinematographers, and directors honed their art, establishing the rules which would govern filmmaking for decades.

For example, the style and format of a western differed from the style and format of a romantic drama, which itself differed in tone and technique from a romantic comedy. These rules, far from stifling creativity, were instead a means of guiding and even enhancing creativity and originality. Studio executives, of course, wanted a sizable return on the money they invested in a film, but were wise enough in those days to realize that a certain degree of novelty, daring, and even risk was necessary to make a film that would become a success. Hiring competent directors who knew when to adhere to general filmmaking guidelines and when to innovate, and casting stars with enough prestige and popularity to pack a theater allowed producers to spend a bit of their filmmaking capital splurging on original stories.

The Golden Age of Hollywood was a treasure trove of good stories: from taut thrillers like “Rear Window” and “North by Northwest” to sweeping romances like “Casablanca” and “Gone with the Wind” to moving dramas like “It’s A Wonderful Life” and “To Kill A Mockingbird” to grandiose epics like “Spartacus” and “Citizen Kane” to lighthearted musicals like “Singin’ in the Rain” and “High Society.” Over the course of decades, thousands of stories were told, captivating the hearts and minds of generations.

In the 1960s, a new cadre of filmmakers arose, shaped by the classical moviemaking of the Golden Age but eager to take new risks and further develop the technical and narrative aspects of their chosen craft. The New Hollywood movement, spearheaded by the likes of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorsese, took the tried-and-true rules established by their predecessors and applied them in novel ways, benefitting from and in many cases pioneering technological advances, which were coupled with ever-more-original approaches to storytelling.

The era produced numerous hits and spawned the phenomenon of the blockbuster. While some films, like 1967’s “Bonnie and Clyde,” pushed the envelope in regard to onscreen depictions of violence and discussions of sexuality, others, such as “Jaws,” the first “Star Wars” trilogy, the “Indiana Jones” movies, “The Godfather,” “Apocalypse Now,” “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Chinatown,” and others dazzled audiences with immersive, realistic, and relatable storytelling techniques, breathtaking special effects, and a novel application of the filmmaking style developed in the previous decades.

Action films exploded onto the scene in the 1980s, with movies like “Rambo: First Blood” and “Die Hard” depicting heroes who fight hard to do the right thing. Films like “E.T. the Extra Terrestrial” and “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” used innovative special effects to tell heartwarming, family-oriented stories. “Risky Business,” “The Breakfast Club,” and others immortalized the style of teenage comedy unique to the 1980s. “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” joined the “Star Wars” films as science-fiction classics. Many of the stars and filmmakers of the 1980s went on to continued success in the 1990s, with action stars like Mel Gibson proving themselves skilled and adept directors and household names like Spielberg yielding instant classics like “Jurassic Park” and hard-hitting epics like “Saving Private Ryan.”

Even the modern era of filmmaking has yielded some good stories, passionately and skillfully told by masters of the art of filmmaking. But those good stories have become fewer and farther between since the dawn of the 21st century. Why? There are two chief causes: corporate greed and woke ideology.

Film studios and producers have long been fixated on making money, but, as noted above, many recognized in the past that audiences enjoy and appreciate at least a modicum of creativity, ingenuity, and originality, whether in the story itself or in how it’s told. But the advent of the blockbuster in the 1970s showed studios that they could not only make some money on successful films but profit immensely from blockbusters. Thus, studios began pouring more and more money into films, in the hopes of creating that rare beast: the blockbuster. If a film needed $10 million more for its budget to afford star power, popular tunes, more engaging special effects, it could be a worthwhile investment, netting hundreds of millions of dollars for the studios and producers responsible.

Of course, studios learned that disaster could also ensue. Sinking money into a film wouldn’t necessarily make it good, even if that money was spent on stars, script rewrites, and stunning special effects. A prime example is 1995’s “Cutthroat Island,” a $98 million attempt at a swashbuckling pirate adventure. After the film lost the studio over $100 million, pirate movies were barred from production for nearly a decade, until Walt Disney Pictures and producer Jerry Bruckheimer took a risk on “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.” Major studio losses on films over the past two decades have gone as high as $200 million (wasted on the science-fiction-meets-mythology film “John Carter”) and even $237 million (lost on 2023’s “The Marvels”).

The combined desire to generate a sure-fire blockbuster and the dread of losing and never recouping hundreds of millions of dollars has led to the asphyxiation of creativity, ingenuity, and originality in the film industry. A handful of directors — almost all of whom made a name as a New Hollywood director in the 70s, an action auteur in the 80s, or a breakout genius of independent cinema in the late 90s and early 2000s — have enough cachet behind their own names to be handed almost unbridled creative control over cinematic endeavors, but the majority of big-budget, studio-funded films tend to be either reboots or franchises. A movie will be made, on a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, so long as that movie has a built-in, pre-existing fan base and, thus, a better-than-average chance of making money.

The endless stream of “Star Wars” sequels, prequels, and television shows; the ever-increasing adaptations of the “Harry Potter” books; the nonstop production of “Fast and Furious” flicks; and the almost-incestuous, incessantly-expanding Marvel superhero “multiverse” are all symptomatic of the corporate cancer that is eating the film industry away from the inside. The simple fact is that studios and producers simply are not willing to take risks on new, daring, and original ideas — with one exception.

Hollywood has become a hotbed of woke ideology over the last 15 years for certain, but the malady has arguably been around far longer. The only “risks” that studios and producers are willing to take are in pushing and promoting the LGBT agenda, demonizing white men, and mocking or belittling Christianity. Woke ideology is anathema to good storytelling; it is predicated on the concept that victimhood is a virtue. “Anora” and “Emilia Pérez” are ideal fare for the Academy Awards: a stripper who is not appreciated by her Russian mobster husband and a drug lord who wants to transition genders are perfect victims and, thus, perfectly virtuous according to the tenets of woke ideology.

Good storytelling, however, is predicated on the cultivation of virtue and its triumph over vice. This principle has been the bedrock of literature for centuries, one to which practically every great story has adhered. Victimhood is deserving, in some cases, of pity, but it is not the equivalent, in good storytelling, of either virtue or heroism. William Wallace is not the hero of “Braveheart” because he is a victim; he is the hero because he fights against tyranny, devotes his life not to revenge but to the good of his country, and finally gives his life for the sake of his country’s liberty. Dr. Alan Grant is not the hero of “Jurassic Park” because he gets attacked by dinosaurs, but because he risks life and limb to save two children and learns by the story’s end to like children.

Corporate greed has choked the creativity, ingenuity, and originality out of filmmaking — and what little there is left has been inverted and neutered by woke ideology. It has been years since the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has been relevant, but Sunday’s awards ceremony was nothing more than a soulless pageant, rewarding the woke with little statuettes, since the unoriginal franchise reboots have already been rewarded with millions of dollars.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is repbulished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

AI Movies Are No Threat to Hollywood

Why Hollywood’s Fear of AI-Generated Movies Might Be More Fiction Than Fact

Hollywood is having a moment. Not the glitzy, red-carpet kind, but the kind filled with existential dread. The enemy this time isn’t streaming services, box office bombs, or even actors on strike.

It’s text-to-video AI tools like OpenAI’s Sora. These platforms are accused of threatening Hollywood’s creative dominance.

Consider this alarm from Fran Drescher, president of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), who called AI an “existential threat to creative professions.”

But let’s cut to the punchline: even the tamest Hollywood content wouldn’t pass the strict moderation (i.e. censorship) standards of these AI tools.

The result?

At best, an AI-produced Hallmark greeting card—and, at worst, hardly a threat to the Hallmark channel.

AI Moderation: Where Creativity Goes to Die?

Here’s the deal: AI tools like Sora are designed with strict safeguards to avoid controversy.

If Hollywood blockbusters were run through AI moderation, we’d probably see half of them flagged for “explicit violence,” “hateful content,” or “overly dramatic explosions.”

How about The Godfather? Surely this cinematic classic would make the cut, right? Wrong. REJECTED. “Themes of organized crime and morally ambiguous characters not suitable for AI standards.”

Even Toy Story might get flagged if the algorithm catches a hint of that existential crisis Woody has when Buzz steals the spotlight. “Depiction of psychological distress among toys,” the content warning would read.

The pendulum has swung so far that even mildly boundary-pushing content gets the axe.

Independent creators—those AI is supposed to empower—often find their visions stifled by overzealous censors.

For example, imagine a filmmaker crafting a story about a community healing after a horrific tragedy.

The story is about unity, resilience, and overcoming grief. But because the narrative involves a violent crime as the catalyst for that healing, the project is flagged and rejected.

The AI sees the “violent content” but misses the redemption arc entirely.

This isn’t just a hypothetical.

Many critical, human stories depend on showing difficult truths to reach their uplifting conclusions. Without the ability to include those raw moments, creators are left telling sanitized versions of reality that strip their stories of authenticity.

Hollywood’s Fear Is Overblown

Here’s the irony: Hollywood has little to fear from AI tools. If anything, these platforms’ strict moderation ensures they won’t be producing the next Pulp Fiction or Breaking Bad.

Hollywood’s edgy, boundary-pushing content is safe…for now. But for independent creators, the stakes are higher.

These platforms represent an incredible opportunity to bypass traditional studios and tell their stories directly. The problem is, these tools fail to see the forest for the trees. They evaluate content in isolated pieces, not as a cohesive whole.

AI moderation shouldn’t operate like a referee handing out penalties for individual fouls without watching the whole game. Instead, it should judge content based on its complete arc.

Was that violent scene gratuitous, or was it essential to the story’s resolution? Did the controversial element add depth, or was it just shock value?

By examining projects holistically, AI tools could empower creators to tackle complex subjects responsibly. After all, the best stories often emerge from exploring the gray areas of life—not just sticking to black-and-white morality.

Hollywood’s concern about AI is misplaced. But creators’ frustrations? Those are real.

Final Thoughts

The real battle isn’t AI vs. Hollywood—it’s AI vs. true storytelling. Here’s hoping these platforms lighten up a bit and let creators tackle the tough subjects that make stories truly matter.

©2024 . All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: AI-Generated Concept Ad for Levi’s by RenderNet


Please visit the Majority Report substack.

For Anyone ‘Facing Evil,’ New Bonhoeffer Movie Is Bound to ‘Inspire and Encourage’

Many of us want to believe that, in the face of severe adversity and risk, we would try to prove worthy of a memorable legacy. Indeed, should circumstances ever turn sour, we hope to fancy ourselves as brave, courageous, and willing to stand firm no matter the cost. And yet, for the vast majority of those who have not been severely challenged in such ways, how could we know for sure the way we would react? This is why examples of people who did stand firm in the midst of trial are not just important, but necessary.

Deitrich Bonhoeffer is one of those examples. Maybe you’ve heard the name — maybe you haven’t. Nonetheless, it’s a name worth knowing. Bonhoeffer was a German theologian, pastor, and author. But what makes him stand out in ways not many can is that Bonhoeffer was also a spy and an assassin who sacrificed his life to take apart Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime’s Third Reich as they sought to exterminate the Jews. Bonhoeffer’s story is powerful, and at its very heart is the call to boldly oppose what is wicked — a call applicable to all.

For these reasons (and more), a team has been working tirelessly for over a decade to create the film, “Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin.” According to one of the producers, Camille Kampouris, the hope behind this movie is “to raise up men and women, old and young, to be like Bonhoeffer, to speak out when there’s evil.” According to The Christian Post, “Releasing in theaters this Thanksgiving weekend, the movie explores the theologian’s decision to shift from preaching peace to allegedly plotting murder, a crime that could alter the course of history.”

Angel Studios has brought Bonhoeffer back to life by taking viewers on a cinematic journey of danger and determination. As Kampouris added, this movie also highlights both the failures of the church as well as “what a real Christian should be like.” Filmmaker Todd Komarnicki explained how “Bonhoeffer is unlike who we are today.” He added that this movie is not targeted specifically at a Christian audience, as Bonhoeffer’s story could impact anyone. He stated, “His singular courage, his willingness to lose everything, and he had a lot to lose, really stands out in a time where I don’t see a lot of political courage now. The way he grappled with his faith, in the way he was honest about his doubts … [and] followed his calling from God, all the way to the foot of the cross. This man’s life is so extraordinary.”

On Friday’s episode of “Washington Watch” with Family Research Council’s guest host Jody Hice, another producer of the film, John Scanlon, unpacked this striking narrative. According to Scanlon, “The movie is a beautiful production by top Hollywood talent about an amazing story.” More than that, Bonhoeffer is “an inspiring character and someone that will make you come out of the movie wishing that you could be a better version of yourself.”

Hice asked, “What was the experience like in filming a movie like this that you know is true?” For Scanlon, “[T]he experience every day of being on set was deeply spiritual.” He continued, “Bonhoeffer’s life is so rich and … he wrote so many wonderful works. … He was a very prolific author. And, of course, his experience in Harlem in the United States [and] his experience in Germany traveling around the world, all changed him and influenced his thinking.”

Ultimately, Scanlon emphasized, “the Bonhoeffer that we bring to the screen is complex. He’s a man of action as well as a man of thought and words. … I think that he can be an inspiration.” He concluded that for anyone of any worldview “who’s facing evil … I guarantee … they’ll find something in this film to inspire and encourage them. And that’s what we’re hoping for everyone in the audience.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the ‘Stupidity’ That Led to Hitler’s Third Reich by Annie Holmquist

To Understand What is Happening Today One Must Read Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Letter ‘On Stupidity’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

When a Billion Followers Can’t Change an Election

Hollywood’s star power couldn’t sway the election—are they now left speechless?

It’s been a week since Donald Trump’s stunning victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, and the silence from Hollywood’s most vocal stars has been deafening.

Before the election, the usual celebrity suspects—Oprah Winfrey, Taylor Swift, Jennifer Lopez, George Clooney, Beyoncé, Bruce Springsteen, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Leonardo DiCaprio—were out in full force, urging their legions of fans to vote for Harris.

These celebrities, whose collective social media following surpasses a billion, thought their influence could tip the scales in Harris’s favor. However, when the votes were counted, not only did Trump win the Electoral College, but he also secured a clear majority of the popular vote.

As Christian Dugan Ramirez reported for Fox News, PR expert Doug Eldridge suggested that this silence is strategic—a way for celebrities to avoid alienating their fans.

“Had it been closer, you might be hearing more fervent rebukes and calls to ‘resist’ from the celebrity class,” Eldridge explained.

But Trump didn’t just squeak by; he won convincingly. This time, celebrities face a harsh reality: a billion followers doesn’t translate into political power at the ballot box.

The Celebrity Ego Bruise

Think about it.

These people are used to being adored, worshipped, and even idolized. When they post on Instagram or X (formerly known as Twitter), their fans flood their feeds with likes, comments, and shares.

They’ve been convinced by the echo chambers of Hollywood and social media that they’re more than just entertainers; they’re thought leaders who can shape public opinion.

So, imagine the blow to their egos when their fans—who they thought were hanging on to their every word—ignored them in the voting booth.

For stars like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, who can sell out stadiums in minutes and whose social media posts can reach hundreds of millions, it must be humiliating to realize that all that influence means nothing when persuading Americans to vote their way.

The Bubble They Can’t Escape

It’s clear that many celebrities live in a bubble, surrounded by sycophants who reinforce their worldview. When they endorsed Harris, they believed they were speaking for “the people.” But the reality is that they were talking to their own narrow circles of influence.

The election results showed that celebrities may dominate the cultural conversation but are increasingly out of touch with everyday Americans. They were forced to face an uncomfortable truth: they do not wield the power they think they do.

While celebrities like Roseanne Barr and Rob Schneider have been unapologetically vocal in their support for Trump, the Hollywood elite are hiding behind their PR teams, hoping that fans will forget their failed endorsements.

The irony is palpable. The same stars who lectured us about bravery, courage, and standing up for what’s right are now nowhere to be found.

Lessons Learned?

Perhaps Hollywood will learn a lesson from this election: having millions of followers doesn’t mean you have millions of loyal voters. Americans don’t want to be lectured by people who are insulated from the consequences of the policies they advocate.

They want leaders who understand their hardships, not celebrities living in million-dollar mansions.

So, as celebrities like Oprah, Beyoncé, and Taylor Swift remain as mum as a silent movie, maybe it’s time they recognized that their fans admire their talent, not their politics.

As this election has shown, the American people—not Hollywood’s elite—ultimately decide the future of this nation.

©2024 Majority Report. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Sylvester Stallone introduces President Trump as “the second George Washington.”


Please visit Majority Report’s substack.

Fame Fatale: How the Elite Celeb Culture Doomed Dems

If there’s anything more gratifying than watching conservatives win, it’s watching celebrities lose. The pampered, out-of-touch A-listers who shilled for Kamala Harris have not coped well since Tuesday’s results (if threats of death-by-Drano are any indication). But in every meltdown, one thing is clear: their despair isn’t just that the vice president failed, but that the country is too stupid to understand that famous people know better. It’s the same campaign of condescension that led to the demise of woke corporations. And with a little luck, celebrity endorsements will meet the same fate.

Of course, as plenty of news outlets are pointing out, using star power in politics isn’t new. More than 100 years ago, “Al Jolson led a march of fellow actors through the streets of Ohio in support of Republican Warren G Harding’s bid,” The Guardian explains. “Endorsements from Babe Ruth, Frank Sinatra and Barbra Streisand have all been coveted by the candidates of their day.” But that was before the vast majority of Hollywood and pro athletes became an arm of the socialist Left and lost all touch with the average American.

“Even though Harris’ slogan was, ‘We are not going back,’ the campaign was firmly in reverse,” the New York Post’s Kirsten Fleming insists, “taking the DeLorean to 2008 … [b]ack when Hollywood A-listers meant something. … Before the Democratic Party completely abandoned the working class. Talked down to them. Told them they were racist or bigoted for not putting their pronouns in their bio.”

They put down their caviar and step off their private jets fully expecting their celebrity cache to supersede a person’s opinions, values, or lived experience. Ricky Gervais mocked this idea over the summer before Harris introduced her cast of star surrogates. “As a celebrity, I know all about stuff like science and politics, so trust me when I tell you who you should vote for,” Gervais mimicked. “If you don’t vote the right way, it’s like a hate crime and that makes me sad and angry, and I’ll leave the country — and you don’t want that!”

A bandwagon of actors and NBA players may have worked in the glamour days of the Obamas, who seemed like celebrities themselves but always managed to resonate with the normal family. The difference now is that the Democratic Party is so far outside the mainstream ideologically (try Jupiter) that the stars who endorse them seem even more unrelatable. Not only are they rich and beautiful with massive platforms and industry accolades, but they’re embracing an agenda of extremism that never made sense to begin with.

Oprah, Christina Aguilera, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Harrison Ford, Taylor Swift, Cardi B, LeBron James, Jennifer Aniston, Beyoncé, Anne Hathaway, Sally Field, Bruce Springsteen, Jennifer Lawrence, Julia Roberts, Martha Stewart, Steph Curry, George Clooney, Spike Lee, Ariana Grande, Eminem, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert De Niro, and all of Ben Affleck’s former wives and girlfriends have the luxury of caring about the fringe issues because they’re not living on a budget, scared by crime, or losing jobs and housing to migrants. They’re too divorced from reality to understand what America wants or needs. And despite their capacity for great acting, they never bother to put themselves in the role of the average person.

That’s what makes the grassroots popularity of Donald Trump, a billionaire who owns 16 golf courses and lives in gold-gilded homes, such a paradox. But then, the 45th president never implied that Americans couldn’t think for themselves or prioritize what’s important. He didn’t reduce them to their education status, skin color, or reproductive organs. He made it his business to listen to the country — not preach. And unlike the Left’s elites who reek of moral superiority and disdain for hard-working families, he embraced them.

Of course, the former president had his own famous friends. And like the enigma they threw their support behind, these endorsements were different — and quite possibly, more effective. In our vicious media culture, standing with Trump took guts, and Americans know it. Unlike Harris’s backers, who were treated like heroes for accepting a zero-risk offer to step into the political limelight, Trump’s public allies — people like Mel Gibson, Danica Patrick, Brett Favre, Joe Rogan, Buzz Aldrin, Dr. Phil, Roseanne Barr, Paula Deen, Elon Musk, Harrison Butker, Brittany Mahomes, Kelsey Grammar, and Kid Rock — understood that they would not only face extreme ridicule and backlash, but, quite possibly, career consequences. In a battle between the fearless and the smug, it’s not hard to see who would earn more respect.

At the end of the day, the country objects to Hollywood’s moralizing for the same reason they objected to corporate America’s: it’s snobbish and patronizing, yes, but it’s also not their lane. If you throw a football, throw a football. If you sing, sing. But stop telling us that rooting out “white privilege” or banning plastic straws is more important than global stability, decent schools, or feeding our families.

And practically speaking, at least where politicians are concerned, this glitzy echo chamber does nothing to move the needle. Arizona State University professor Margaretha Bentley, whose classes have studied the “social importance” of Taylor Swift says, “In the academic literature, research has shown that, while celebrity endorsements can increase civic engagement and voter registrations, it has not proven to have a direct impact on how people make their voting decisions.”

Or if it does, it moves them in the wrong direction. When the biggest pop star on the planet endorsed the vice president, a poll from YouGov found that “only 8% of voters would be ‘somewhat’ or ‘much more’ likely to vote for Harris — with a surprising 20% saying [Swift’s support] actually made them less likely to vote for her.” In other words, it backfired. Harris was not only worse off for it, but Swift lost a good chunk of her fans’ goodwill.

So will Cardi B, who, like most of these personalities, aren’t exactly graceful losers. “I hate y’all bad,” the rapper complained after Election Day. She responded to someone asking if she’d appear at Trump’s inauguration by saying: “I’m sick of you! Burn your f****** hats, motherf*****. I’m really sad. I swear to God I’m really sad.” Singer Christiana Aguilera ordered fans to “unfollow me if you voted against female rights. … Unfollow me because what you did is unreal. Don’t want followers like this. So yeah. Done. Also after today I will be shutting down this fan account that I have had for so many years because this is sick.”

All of this adds to the country’s growing revulsion for the insulated and detached celeb scene. The reality is, Family Research Council’s Joseph Backholm told The Washington Stand, “It’s normal for people to respect and admire another person, but if we don’t know them personally, our respect for them is generally limited to the thing we know them for. I can respect a musician or an athlete for their elite talents, but I need a lot more information about them before I start taking parenting advice from them,” he said. “The Left seems to assume that because we like someone’s music or movies we’re going to defer to their judgment about what’s good for us. Most people may believe Taylor Swift is better at writing songs than they are, but that doesn’t mean they believe she’s better at deciding what’s best for their family.”

Some on the Left are waking up to this reality for the party in general. Democrat Chris Cuomo outright blamed wokeism for Harris’s loss. “You are forcing new social norms on people in this country. ‘No, I’m not,’ [they insist]. ‘We’re just doing what’s fair. Trans people have rights too.’ Yes, but if it’s communicated as if you must be forced to accept and be indoctrinated with ideas that you do not share — is that fair? ‘That’s not what we were doing.’ That’s how they felt you were treating them about it,” Cuomo argued. “That’s the women in sports thing. It’s not that it happens a lot. … [But] it’s that the fact that it happens at all, to them, is a gross violation of norms and unacceptable. And you find it okay, and they believe that is wokeism run amok.”

What you’re seeing, Rasmussen head pollster Mark Mitchell told FRC President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch,” is that these people “fleeing the Democrat Party and the Republicans, the Donald Trump movement, are really starting to become the core culture of the counterculture. … The mainstream media has jumped the shark, has lost its credibility, is losing its sway. And look at all the actors and actresses and authority figures that [threw] endorsements to Kamala Harris, and none of them moved the needle because people just don’t care anymore. So I think that trend is going to continue.”

And for Americans sick of being lectured by woke politicians, companies, actresses, and athletes, maybe that’s one of the biggest Election Day victories of all.

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Joy Came in the Morning after the Election

Biden-Harris Parole and Amnesty Ploy Nixed by Federal Court

DOJ to Drop Trump Prosecution, Oust Top Prosecutor

Social Service Agency Working with White House Secretly Tracks Kids’ Gender Identity

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Unsung Hero’ Brings Family Values Back into Hollywood

Pure and cinematically pleasing movies are hard to find. Thankfully, Christian band For King & Country (Joel and Luke Smallbone) produced an easy pick for Friday family movie nights. Their film, “Unsung Hero,” was released earlier this year and is about their Australian family’s immigration journey to the United States. Alongside other recent Lionsgate releases (“I Still Believe,” “The Jesus Revolution,” “American Underdog”), the film was a box office success. It also has a unique and encouraging message that is scarce in the modern film industry.

What is this lesson? It is worth being a family under God. This message repeats throughout as viewers are reminded that being a family takes hard, faithful work, but it is worth persevering together in the pain and placing trust in the Lord.

Here are just a few of the truths Christian families can gather from this countercultural film.

Warning, spoilers up ahead!

1. Marriage can be difficult, but it is worth remaining faithful.

In the movie, we see the parents, David and Helen Smallbone, process differently about what is happening in their new life. The mom is a godly example of submission to her husband, even when he is not making the best decisions and struggling in his grief. When she finds out that they need to stay longer in Tennessee due to her husband being rejected a promised job, she breaks down and cries in her room. She realizes she needs a break instead of taking out her anger on her children and husband. Helen is also willing to love David amid his cynicism and emotional struggles, especially as life continues to get harder for their family. Helen does stand up when needed, but knows when to do so and makes sure their children know their dad does love them, even when he shows his flaws.

Concerning David, he wants to provide more for his family. But he is trying to understand how to make it through, reacting in pride and frustration. However, he respects his wife and is not willing to give up working for his family. It is clear as the story unfolds that Helen and David know marriage is a sacred covenant before God by continuing to honor, love, and stay in all the brokenness together. They picture what it means to remain in marriage “for better or worse” through their personal conflicts.

2. Parents must be intentional and present with their children.

One of the most inspiring and convicting themes throughout the film is Helen Smallbone’s parenting and biblical leadership. She continues to shepherd her children’s hearts during each circumstance and multi-tasks working, comforting her husband, and experiencing pregnancy. One way her biblical parenting stands out amid other films is her willingness to lovingly teach her kids in a way that each will understand.

In one scene, she is playing pretend pirates with them on a playground. At one point, they must “abandon” their ship to be safe. The kids are wondering what to do next on their pirate adventure, and Helen sees this as an opportunity to speak into her children’s hearts while continuing their story.

Helen: We burn the ships. All of them.

Joel: Even ours?

Luke: How do we get back?

Helen: We don’t. It’s gonna be dangerous and scary, and it’s gonna be hard. It’s gonna be so hard that you’ll want to go back. But if you know that you can go back, you will. And giving up, giving in, is not an option. We’ve gotta fight our way forward. We have to win. Do you understand?

In the next scene, they pretend to surrender or “burn” their ship by each throwing make-believe torches. The acting, the sound effects, visuals, and dramatic music tie everything together to show it is about each of them courageously surrendering this new season of life to the Lord. Such a scene is rare to witness in the film industry today, because it includes a healthy parenting moment about reflecting God’s glory with eloquent, cinematic creativity. This scene and others can encourage Christian parents they can be the loving, biblical teachers their children need because the Lord will be their strength.

3. Christian fathers can make it right with their kids.

What makes the end amazing is that the father is willing to listen to his wife, get up after grieving the loss of his dad, and apologize to his children. These actions are right and chivalrous, but the last one is especially poignant: The father apologizes to his kids. It does not show him making excuses or overthinking it. It did not matter if the kids remembered his sins — he went to them and apologized. This is marks a turning point in the film because God’s love and forgiveness meet to change their family.

After apologizing, he calls a music producer for his daughter to have a record audition when he rejected her and his wife’s idea beforehand. Throughout these ending scenes, David Smallbone is defining biblical fatherhood and headship by owning his mistakes and assuring his children they have a present, loving dad.

It is particularly significant for a child when his or her dad looks at them lovingly in the eyes and admits his shortcomings. Whether the child realizes it or not, it teaches the son or daughter that this is what it means to be a man of God.

In Genesis 1-3, God points out that man is made to have biblical headship of his household. The opposite of this is a husband being domineering over his wife and provoking his children in anger (Genesis 3:16-19, Ephesians 6:4). Children only have one biological mom and dad. In a Christian home, the kids are watching how their mom and dad steward their special, biblical roles to love God, them, and their marriage well.

So, what we witness at the film’s ending is the biblical truth that fathers can be willing to be the specific example Christ has chosen for them. It is never too late for godly dads to look at their families and say assuredly, “I love you. I want to make it right. And I understand my role in your life.” It is so encouraging and convicting for fathers to know they can correct their mistakes for their family through repentance and be the biblical leader of the household under God.

Overall, “Unsung Hero” exemplifies on the big screen how to glorify God in Christian families and what it truly means to be a hero.

AUTHOR

 

Annabelle Pechmann serves as a Communications intern at Family Research Council.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Majority of Americans Disapprove of Disney’s LGBT Agenda

Once the go-to brand for children’s entertainment, Disney’s popularity is cratering as the House of Mouse continues promoting the LGBT agenda. According to the latest Rasmussen Reports national survey, 71% of American adults agree that Disney “should return to wholesome programming and allow parents to decide when their children are taught about sexuality.”

Rasmussen cited Disney executive Karey Burke, president of Disney’s General Entertainment Content, who bragged on a conference call in 2022 about being “a mother of two queer children … one transgender child and one pansexual child …” Burke also boasted that Disney has introduced “many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories.” According to Rasmussen, over half (54%) of American adults believe such programming and content is “inappropriate” for children under the age of 12.

Additionally, the brand’s popularity is underwater. Only 46% of Americans polled hold a favorable view of Disney, while 45% do not. This is down from Disney’s 51% favorability rating late last year. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of Disney’s support comes from Democrats. Almost two thirds (63%) of Democrats hold a favorable view of the media giant, compared to only 33% of Republicans and 36% of Independent voters.

Half of Democrats approve of programming featuring “many, many, many LGBTQIA characters” for children under the age of 12, compared to only 21% of Republicans and 24% of Independent voters. Rasmussen also noted, “More men (57%) than women (51%) believe stories featuring gay characters are not appropriate for children under 12, and men are also more likely than women to agree that Disney should go back to wholesome programming.”

Joseph Backholm, senior fellow for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, commented to The Washington Stand, “Teaching values in media isn’t a new idea. … The innovation Disney has made in recent years is to teach a new morality.” He continued, “Disney sincerely believes teaching children to love sensuality and embrace self-created identities rooted in our self-perceptions is a moral good that leads to happiness and human flourishing. The moral problem is that they are wrong. The business problem is that hundreds of millions of Americans disagree with them.”

Backholm added, “What Disney sees as foundational moral truths, many Americans see as deception and perversion. The pushback this survey reveals is not to the idea of moral lessons in movies, but to the specific moral lessons Disney has prioritized.”

Over the past several years, Disney has become increasingly political, throwing its weight behind the LGBT agenda. In 2022, top Disney executives voiced criticism of Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, which would, among other things, prohibit teachers from discussing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” with children in kindergarten through third grade. Disney’s then-CEO Bob Chapek originally maintained that the company would not publicly criticize the legislation but reversed course under pressure from LGBT lobbyists both within Disney and outside it. From there, LGBT content in Disney productions increased, including the first ever depiction of same-sex activity in a Pixar film.

In leaked video conferences Disney organized for employees during the Parental Rights in Education Act controversy, executives openly discussed promoting LGBT content to children. Executive Producer Latoya Raveneau expressed her gratitude that Disney’s leadership “has been so welcoming to like, my like, not-at-all secret gay agenda.” Referring to the Disney Channel show she produces, Raveneau added, “I don’t have to be afraid to — like, let’s have these two characters kiss in the background. Wherever I could, I was basically adding queerness to the show. If you see anything queer in the show — nobody would stop me and nobody was trying to stop me.”

Another executive, Diversity and Inclusion Manager Vivian Ware, boasted of eliminating “gendered” language from live shows at Disney theme parks, doing away with terms such as “ladies and gentlemen” or “boys and girls,” in order to create “that magical moment” for children who supposedly identify as transgender, non-binary, etc.

Last year, the Catholic League and Meath Television Media released a documentary entitled “Walt’s Disenchanted Kingdom,” exposing what Catholic League President Bill Donohue called the company’s program of “sexual engineering” of children. “They want to go after the little kids,” Donohue said. “As I pointed out in the movie, they just got off their tricycle. And now they’re trying to sexually engineer them.” The documentary, which features interviews with former Disney employees as well as individuals like neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, also addressed Disney’s increasingly vocal stances on political issues and its friendliness with the Chinese Communist Party.

Also last year, after increasing LGBT and progressive content in its productions, Disney faced a $5.5 billion budget cut, resulting in up to 4,000 jobs being eliminated. The company’s market capitalization dropped to a nine-year low and streaming service Disney+ fell nearly one million subscribers short of projected goals. In financial documents, Disney admitted that its LGBT promotion may cost the company money, but indicated no intention of changing its position. More recently, Disney’s stock has fallen by nearly 10% despite Disney+ making a profit for the first time since it was launched in late 2019.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Walt Disney’s disenchanted kingdom

The people setting America on fire

RELATED VIDEOS:

James O’Keefe Exposes Anti-White Discrimination At Disney in His Latest Bombshell Video

LGBTQ Activism = Satanism | TIPPING POINT

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

5 Reasons You Must See ‘Sound of Freedom’

UPDATE: Statement by President Donald J. Trump after watching Sound of Freedom.


I really didn’t want to see this movie. Does anyone want to see a movie about horrific crimes against children and the systems that support or fail to stop child sex trafficking? But I felt an obligation to support “Sound of Freedom.” And I was happy to hear the buzz in the conservative media sphere. “Sound of Freedom” was making noise in all the right places.

So I bought my tickets online and told myself that I had at least done my duty to financially support this worthy cause. My seat was sold, and if it went unfilled, the movie theater would still make money. Despite my best efforts to be somewhere else, I found myself in the seat on July 4.

I still don’t quite understand how I left the theater feeling hopeful. I had expected to feel hopeless and disgusted after watching a movie about child sex trafficking. And there were certainly moments of those feelings during the course of the movie. But the power of art to move the human heart is very real, if hard to describe, even after experiencing it.

It’s also hard to describe a movie without spoiling the plot for others. Here are five impressions this movie left on me, and I hope they inspire you to see the movie.

1. “God’s children are not for sale.”

This is the motivation for the main character to move beyond the soul crushing work of tracking organized pedophile networks to rescuing their victims. “Sound of Freedom” made me reflect, once again, on the work we ask others to do in our name: policing, soldiering, guarding. It is hard work, mostly done by men, who lay down their lives to protect and serve others. We ask them to deal with many of the things we do not want to face. Many do this work because of a higher calling, one that needs our support in prayer.

2. “I feel like she’s my daughter.”

Mrs. Tim Ballard texts this message to her husband while he is away searching for a victim. Her love and support for him and his work is beautifully communicated in this movie. She is also asked to bear part of the burden her husband shoulders on our behalf. She represents a much larger group of people who deserve our gratitude and our prayers.

3. “I was that darkness.”

A man contemplates his role as a consumer in the adult sex industry. His redemption from direct involvement is by the grace of God. But this character made me think about what I could or should be doing to address this grave injustice against women and men, girls and boys. At a minimum, opposing the legalization of “sex work” would be a start. Removing pornography and pornographic content from school libraries and curricula is also imperative.

4. “You’re on your own, Tim.”

Government redress of grievances is limited. Tim Ballard, the main character, had to operate on his own to follow the call to protect God’s children. But as Christians we have an obligation to prove that Tim is not alone. Each of us is called to combat the sex industry, whether through promoting organizations like Covenant Eyes that guard against pornography, by speaking out against endeavors to normalize pedophilia, or simply by living a life that upholds the dignity of every male and every female as a human being — not objects for exploitation.

5. “Could you sleep if your child’s bed was empty?”

The plea of a father for his trafficked daughter. This theme was the main reason for my initial reluctance to see the film. And it was one of the reasons why, if I had to see it, I would see it in a theater. Hearing a question like that asked in a movie theater for me is very different from hearing it asked in my living room, with my own children’s beds right upstairs.

There are some movies to see and “leave” at the theater rather than experience them at home. But this movie is one to share with others, at a theater or at your church, or even in your home. While it is not for young children, this movie is a remarkable work of art about a horrific topic. I’m grateful to Angel Studios for distributing the movie, and I encourage you to see it. I am glad I did.

AUTHOR

Meg Kilgannon

Meg Kilgannon is Senior Fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jim Caviezel’s ‘Sound of Freedom’ Dominates Ticket Pre-Sales As Disney’s ‘Indiana Jones’ Flops

Top Box Office Movie ‘Sound of Freedom’ Earns $40 Million — And Infuriates Liberal Film Critics

RELATED TWEET: 

RELATED VIDEOS:

Jim Caviezel Gives Powerful Response Regarding Abortion During ‘Sound of Freedom’ Interview

HHS Whistleblower Exposes Child Trafficking at the Border

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Elle Fanning Says She Lost Out On Movie Role At 16 Because She Was Labelled ‘Unf*ckable’

Famous actress Elle Fanning revealed she lost out on a movie role when she was a young girl because the makers wanted someone more overtly sexualized.

Fanning spoke at The Hollywood Reporter’s annual Comedy Actress Emmy Roundtable in late April and recalled the incident that occurred when she was underage. “I’ve never told this story, but I was trying out for a movie. I didn’t get it,” Fanning said. “I was 16 years old, and a person said, “Oh, she didn’t get the father-daughter road trip comedy because she’s unfuckable.”

Fanning noted that this was a troubling thing for her to hear, and explained that the role she had auditioned for at the time was a father-daughter road trip comedy.

“I didn’t hear from my agents because they wouldn’t tell me things like this — that filtration system is really important because there’s probably a lot more damaging comments that they filtered — but this one got to me,” she said.

The famous actress is all-too-aware of how detrimental that was to her well-being, and how inappropriate that comment was for anyone to hear — let alone a child.

“Yeah, it’s so disgusting. And I can laugh at it now, like, “What a disgusting pig!” she said, adding that “there’s so many stories like this”

“I was always immensely confident, but of course you’re growing up in the public eye, and it’s weird,’ she said.

Fellow actress Sheryl Lee Ralph was stunned to hear the story, yet commented that it was an all-too-familiar occurrence in Hollywood. 

“I liken fame to a machine. You can stand outside of it and look, but once that door opens and you get in, it takes you up on different levels. It’s a different experience,” Ralph said.

“If you don’t have a firm foundation of who you are in this industry, it will eat you up. One day, you might look in the mirror and not know who the hell you’re looking at. I’ve seen that happen over and over,” she said.

AUTHOR

LEENA NASIR

Entertainment reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Top Gun’ Actor Glen Powell Says Tom Cruise Advised Him To ‘Lean Into The Douchebaggery Of It All’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Jesus Revolution Producer: ‘I’ve Never Seen Such a Profound Response to a Movie’

Jon Erwin happened to be doing research for another movie when he stumbled on the iconic cover of Time Magazine from June 21, 1971. A copy in good condition goes for about $2,000 on eBay today, but Jon managed to snatch one up in 2015 — years before his movie made the psychedelic Jesus a collectors’ item. Back then, making a film about the 1970s revival known as The Jesus Revolution was a distant dream. Today, it’s a blockbuster reality — one that continues to exceed everyone’s expectations, in the box office and real life.

The news that “Jesus Revolution” crossed the $39 million mark this past weekend may have been a shock to Hollywood, but to Erwin — the movie’s writer, producer, and director — it was further proof that he’d happened upon something special eight years ago. He’d been working on another true story, “Woodlawn,” when he was “awestruck” by the parallels between the hippie movement’s desperation and the desperation of today.

“I’m a filmmaker. I’m curious by nature,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch.” “And so I read this article. At the time, you couldn’t find it online. It was this 10-page spread about what God was doing at an incredibly similar time of hopelessness and despair. … And the more I read, the more I felt: Can this happen in my generation? Can this happen in my life?” At 40, Jon said, “nothing like this has ever happened to us.” “And the more I studied it the more I wanted to make a movie.”

Erwin was set to make “I Can Only Imagine” next, based on MercyMe lead singer Bart Millard, with other true stories like “I Still Believe” (Jeremy Camp) and “American Underdog” (Kurt Warner) on the horizon. Carving out time for another project was tricky. By the time “Jesus Revolution” was released, it was the longest he’d ever worked on a movie.

But in the end, Jon pointed out, it was a testament to “God’s perfect timing.” “That the movie came out as revivals are happening around the nation is so cool. And I love all the movies that we’ve gotten to make, but I’ve never seen such an incredibly profound response to a movie and, and lives changed as people watch it. So it’s a privilege to get to bring this movie to the screen.”

A stellar cast, led by Kelsey Grammar (“Fraser”) and Jonathan Roumie (“The Chosen”), team up to reach a 70s generation that’s trying to find meaning in sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Despite his initial reluctance, Pastor Chuck Smith’s (Grammar) stodgy church is overtaken by barefoot hippies who follow evangelist Lonnie Frisbee’s (Roumie) invitation to stop searching and give their lives to Jesus.

The movement explodes, packing out Southern California’s Calvary Chapel and eventually moving to a big white tent where thousands come to know Christ, including Greg Laurie (Joel Courtney), who wrote the book the movie is based on. Laurie’s incredible story, from a tragic childhood to a spiritual awakening that led him to found Harvest Christian Fellowship, has resonated with audiences and critics (who gave the film an A+ CinemaScore rating).

For Erwin, one day in particular stood out. “[It was] by far the favorite moment I’ve had on set — and I think you feel it in the movie. You know,” he told Perkins, “it takes several miracles to make a movie. But I’ve never felt a day like the day we shot the baptisms in this movie. We thought it was very important to go back to the real Pirate’s Cove [where Smith and Frisbee baptized so many people]. And we did. And for a film, that is a very difficult place to go. It’s like a crater, very jagged rocks. You have to go up and over to get onto that location. … [But] I’ve never felt anything like it. We all felt it that day. There was a level of spiritual power there that I’ve never experienced in my filmmaking career before.”

At one point, they were filming with about 400 extras, and Roumie “came up out of the water and said, ‘This is real for people. … People are coming up to me and saying, I want to be baptized for real. I’ve just made a decision for Christ.’”

While they were shooting the part with actor Joel Courtney in the water, Jon said he was stunned to find out that “the real Greg Laurie was baptizing a member of the cast that he had struck up a conversation with a couple hundred feet away and none of us even knew [about it]. … I think you feel it when you watch the movie. But the power that is in the movie we felt on that day.”

Grammer, arguably the most well-known cast member, hasn’t been shy since the film’s release about the role faith plays in his life. “I’ve had some tragic times,” he admitted in an interview with USA Today. “I’ve wrestled with those and worked my way through them — sometimes rejecting faith, sometimes rejecting God even… But I have come to terms with it and found great peace in my faith and in Jesus.” If Hollywood doesn’t like it, Grammar shrugs. “It’s not cavalier — Jesus made a difference in my life. That’s not anything I’ll apologize for.”

In the meantime, Erwin still marvels at the impact the film is having. He’s seen videos of people praying outside the movie, or getting baptized in fountains outside the theaters — or in lakes the next day. “Not many people know this,” he told Perkins, “but 1972, which was the culminating year of the Jesus Movement was the most baptisms ever recorded in a single year, at least by the Southern Baptists. So wouldn’t it be cool if that happened again and we beat that record?”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Calls Transgender Bans ‘Close to Sinful.’ Pope Francis Calls Gender Ideology ‘Dangerous, Colonial’ Ideology.

Experts Say There’s Growing ‘Anti-Christian Bias’ in Hollywood and Elsewhere

Experts Say There’s Growing ‘Anti-Christian Bias’ in Hollywood and Elsewhere

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

New Documentary Sheds Light on Disney’s Sexual Engineering

A new documentary on the Walt Disney Company is making crystal clear how the once family-friendly company is today one of the most serious peddlers of radical ideology in America.

Released last week by the Catholic League, “Walt’s Disenchanted Kingdom” is a 50-minute film that highlights how Disney went from entertaining and inspiring kids to indoctrinating and grooming them as it embraces and advances the radical agenda of a very small yet vocal minority that even a growing number of liberals feel have gone too far.

“They want to go after the little kids,” Catholic League President Bill Donohue said during an interview Tuesday on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” “As I pointed out in the movie, they just got off their tricycle. And now they’re trying to sexually engineer them.”

The idea for the documentary came after Donohue and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins were unable to arrange a meeting with then-Disney CEO Bob Chapek to speak on behalf of conservative Catholics and evangelicals in America amid the tumult over Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill last year.

Opponents of the legislation labeled it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill because it prohibits classroom “instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity … in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

More broadly, the legislation reinforces the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children.

Though Disney initially chose not to take a public stance on the bill, its CEO later condemned the legislation following an outcry from pro-LGBTQ+ activists.

“You listened to one side. Will you listen to our side?” Donohue recalled asking Chapek, paraphrasing his joint letter with Perkins to the Disney CEO. “I’m a Catholic leader. Tony’s an evangelical leader. We represent a good swath of the country.”

“Well, they blew us off,” Donohue said.

So Donohue ran with the idea of a documentary, enlisting Jason Killian Meath, CEO of Meath Television Media LLC, who wrote and directed the film. They also brought in an all-star cast, including Perkins, renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, conservative columnist Miranda Devine, media watchdog Brent Bozell, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, Jewish activist David Horowitz, film critic Christian Toto, media personality Will Witt, and conservative political commentator Mercedes Schlapp, who hosted the documentary.

“I want to get the word out — to disseminate it to Christians and to observant Jews, Muslims, Mormons, people of no faith, people who are concerned this has gone too far,” Donohue said.

“I also would like to persuade at least some of the shareholders and other people at Disney to say, ‘Wait a minute! Maybe we have gone too far.’ ‘Can we get back to our roots?’ ‘Can we have a family-friendly institution?’ ‘Why are we trying to do this to kids?’”

“There are aspects of this movie — when the viewers take a look at it … your head’s going to spin at certain points. But it’s something that needs to be said,” Donohue said.

Among the concerning revelations about Disney highlighted by the documentary is how members of its entertainment producing teams are injecting “queerness” anywhere and everywhere they can.

“Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my not-at-all-secret gay agenda,” Disney child programming producer and writer Latoya Raveneau said in leaked virtual meeting footage that is highlighted in the documentary.

“I don’t have to be afraid to like, ‘Let’s have these two characters kiss … in the background,” she said. “I was just wherever I could — just basically adding queerness.”

“No one would stop me,” she recalled.

And with radical gender ideology being thrusted upon children through media and in classrooms at increasingly younger ages, critics of the harmful crusade say there should be no surprise when there is a rise in cases of gender dysphoria — the clinical term describing the conflict some experience when they feel as if their biological sex doesn’t seem to conform with their sense of identity.

“The reason you see gender dysphoria rates now skyrocketing is in part because kids are impressionable,” Ramaswamy points out in the documentary. “They are going to respond to their adults and their cultural leaders in their schools and so it’s no surprise that we are creating the very problem that supposedly the companies like Disney were aiming to solve.”

“And it’s much worse than that,” adds Donohue in the documentary, “because, as we know in these elementary schools, they’re taking kindergartners and first graders, teaching them that they’re ‘gender fluid,’ encouraging them to be chemically castrated, to have puberty blockers — pre-puberty kids — to alter their lives forever.”

“This is an atrocity against children and Disney has allowed itself to become part of it,” he adds.

During his interview with Perkins on Tuesday, Donohue noted that even Erica Anderson, a transgender psychologist who has worked with hundreds of transgender teens, has acknowledged, “This has gone too far. It’s going to get worse. I don’t want any part of it.”

“I’m hoping, at the very least, Disney will tap the brakes and rethink this whole idea of going down the lane of the woke agenda,” Donohue added.

To get the message out, the Catholic League has made the documentary free to view on public platforms such as YouTube and Rumble. It is also accessible on SalemNOW and Amazon Prime.

Notably, on Tuesday, Catholic League was informed that its video has been marked by YouTube as “age-restricted” and not appropriate for viewers under 18. Types of content that is considered “age-restricted” include content with harmful or dangerous activities, nudity and sexually suggestive content, violent or graphic content, content with vulgar language, and content “that endangers the emotional and physical well-being of minors.”

While Donohue noted that the documentary doesn’t contain any of YouTube’s categories of “age-restricted” content, Perkins suggested that it may be in violation of the Left’s terms and conditions.

“You told the truth and you put the information out. Now that violates the terms of the Left these days — when you tell the truth,” Perkins said.

In response, Donohue said, “I couldn’t agree more. And I want to punctuate that. That’s what this is all about. A man can’t become a woman. A woman can’t become a man. We need to tell the truth and stop with the fiction.”

AUTHOR

Kenneth Chan is Director of Communications at Family Research Council and serves as an editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

What the Death of Hollywood Means for America

The new entertainment industry will be even more woke.


Peak TV, a stunning era during which Big Tech and traditional studios entered into a furious competition to make a bewildering amount of content, is dead. The 559 scripted shows from last year represent a historic hubris that everyone, especially investors, is recovering from.

That was the year that Netflix announced that it was spending $18 billion on content.

In the aftermath, Netflix lost subscribers for the first time and expects to lose millions more as its stock fell 35%. The dot com giant lost, but so did its rivals. Disney+ lost billions, HBO Max is cutting back programming, and so are most others, including the ‘N’ in the FAANG oligarchy.

Netflix has been humbled, and is shedding woke programming and exploring an ad-supported tier, but the push by Hollywood studios to build rival streaming platforms to those of Netflix and Amazon by investing heavily in original content gated by subscriptions has set a lot of money on fire without achieving platform independence. Everyone lost, but Big Tech still runs the show.

Streaming subscriptions are replacing movie theaters and television networks. And that also means that Silicon Valley is replacing Hollywood. Netflix, Amazon, and Apple demonstrated that they had the capital to dominate the entertainment industry. This isn’t good news for the culture.

While old Hollywood had a reputation for being liberal, many studio bosses and producers were actually fairly conservative and movies were the products of a tug-of-war with more liberal writers, actors and directors. Movies had to be able to play in theaters across the country and serve as broad an audience as possible. Movies of that era might be homogenized, but they were less likely to openly offend or antagonize audiences. Movie stars were expected to at least pretend to lead moral lives and keep industry decadence locked away behind closed doors.

The partnership between Eastern European Jewish immigrant studio bosses who had started out, like Samuel Goldwyn, as a glove salesman, William Fox, a garment industry foreman, the Warner brothers, the children of a shoe repairman, and the much more urbane British and American talent turned the film industry into a cultural touchstone and made its products part of our national identity. Critics rightly pointed to the cultural impoverishment of making movie theaters into the hub of our culture, but they could not have imagined what was to come.

The fall of the studio system overturned the industry’s innate conservatism and while it ended many abuses and unleashed the talent, the end result was that movies became increasingly at odds with the values and morals of the American public. The decline of the networks likewise unleashed cable and then streaming programming that was oriented culturally leftward..

Rather than open up a range of programming targeting untapped segments of the public, Peak TV aimed for the same upscale urban multicultural audiences that the entire industry is aimed at. If the ideal wisdom of the marketplace existed, a world in which untold billions were spent to produce 559 scripted shows, should have produced a wave of conservative programming.

It did not.

The entertainment industry’s programming has been most conservative when control was consolidated by studios and networks. It is least conservative when it is driven by “talent”. Consolidated entertainment has at least tried to make programming for a broader country while industry disintegration has made programming more woke, more radical, and more hateful.

The Netflix revolution, in which endless amounts of investor cash were burned to lure talent, made for some of the some ‘woke’ programming imaginable. At the peak of Peak TV, Netflix had not only successfully mainstreamed radical sexual and gender identity, but was actively pushing sexual content involving children from Cuties to Big Mouth. Freed from a business model other than the dream of endless growth, Netflix burned billions of dollars and our culture.

Wokeness precedes broke-ness. But the story of Peak TV is also one of cultural brokenness.

Netflix pursued original programming by trying to make it as edgy as possible. In response, Hollywood studios revived old intellectual properties and tried to make them edgier with racial recasting, gender-swapping, sexual politics, and general social justice themes. The giant dumpster fire of Netflix was met with a social justice Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, and DC. Anything with a known brand or IP was brushed off and given a social justice makeover.

Ghostbusters was rebooted as all-female, Doogie Howser, M.D. was reborn as an Asian girl, The Wonder Years was reimagined with a black family, Magnum P.I. with a Latino star, Party of Five with illegal aliens, and these and countless other examples showed that underneath all the fake wokeness, the industry had run out of original ideas. All Hollywood could do was try to make the old tired ones seem fresh and new with identity politics remakes.

And as Hollywood’s popular culture has become American culture, and for some the quasi-faith of fandom, the decay of the entertainment industry into wokeness has devastated society.

Hollywood has come to consist of the culture championed and consumed by boomers. Succeeding generations have reworked those “intellectual properties” to make them edgier and more political, but have produced few of their own franchises. Of the top ten media franchises dominant in America, only one, Harry Potter, was created by anyone born after 1964. And J.K. Rowling is not American and was predictably canceled for insufficient wokeness.

Hollywood is Joe Biden making TikTok videos. It’s an industry that was once creatively revolutionary, but now only puts on an appearance of aspiring to a political revolution. As long as the revolution doesn’t interfere with its tax credits and Chinese box office. Behind the wokeness is a brutal war between agents, producers, writers, directors, and the new dot com masters of the universe, over fortunes that are both astronomical and on the verge of vanishing.

The entertainment industry was slow to adapt to the internet because it is not inventive and is incapable of innovation. Even its response to Netflix consisted of old studios trying to build their own Netflix. Political radicalism makes dinosaurs seem like they are on the cutting edge. That’s why corporate broke-ness so often follows corporate wokeness. It’s not just that wokeness is bad for business, but it often disguises a much more broken business model underneath.

Hollywood is as tied down by guilds and painstaking rules as any medieval kingdom. All it really has anymore are the intellectual properties mined by greatest generation creators marketing to baby boomers (and in some cases, boomers reworking the pop culture of past generations) that have been passed down to newer generations and laboriously reworked to be more woke.

The internet killed Hollywood, as it did so many other industries, and streaming has become its slow death, accelerated by the boom and bust economics of an unstable country and world.

Cinema made a national propaganda machine possible. The Nazis and Communists both seized on it for that very reason and regime figures like Leni Riefenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein were brilliant, revolutionary, and quite evil. But it was American movies that conquered the world because they fused creative talent with American values. Hollywood is still the only national industry with the production capacity and know-how for a true worldwide reach, but its cultural impact is swiftly becoming negligible as it churns out reworked versions of the same thing.

As Hollywood dies, America and the world will be poorer for it, not for the billion-dollar woke digital cartoon factory that it has become, but for a time when a centralized entertainment industry did not have to be a mass propaganda machine feigning popular support for a regime.

That is exactly what it is now.

Hollywood’s biggest production of the pandemic year was the 2020 Democratic convention which abandoned working-class and riot-scarred Milwaukee for an entertainment industry stream. Stars in a streaming convention propping up a senile reactionary who had outsourced his future to radicals while sidelining the party’s old working-class constituency proved to be the perfect metaphor and epitaph for both the Democrats and for Hollywood.

AUTHOR

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Latest Super Gay ‘Thor’ Film more about ‘Hate and Blunder’ than ‘Love and Thunder’

Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube host songs calling for beheading over ‘blasphemy’ against Muhammad

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.