Robert Downey Jr. and friends tell U.S. to vote for woman who called black kids ‘super predators,’ was excoriated by FBI

robert-downey-jr

There was once a time when Robert Downey Jr. understood that telling people how to vote was not something pretend superheroes should be doing. Marvel’s “Iron Man” inherently knew that intelligent swathes of the public will gladly make guys like him a millionaire for doing a good job standing in front of green screens, but they have no desire to hear his thoughts on domestic and foreign policy. That has changed.

RDJ’s millionaire buddy Joss Whedon — the guy who said Mitt Romney was the type of guy who would bring forth the zombie apocalypse — now wants us to believe that Donald Trump will presumably usher in the super-duper zombie apocalypse.

Mr. Whedon created a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC called “Save the Day” to push the message and enlisted Hollywood actors to star in the group’s ads.

Weirdly enough, Mr. Downey Jr. and the other actors acknowledge how pathetic and condescending projects like “Save the Day” are while essentially saying, “Yeah, we’re still going to shamelessly influence dumb people, anyway.”

don-cheadle

Here is what director Joss Whedon told The Hollywood Reporter on Wednesday:

“Whedon acknowledges that ‘no one really cares what an actor’s opinion is,’ but he says that’s not the strategy. ‘Seeing somebody famous makes people stop. Seeing something funny makes people stop. Seeing something with emotion makes people stop,’ he adds. ‘Those are the ways you can get to people.'”

The problem for Mr. Whedon and Don Cheadle, who said Donald Trump is a “racist, abusive coward who could permanently damage the fabric of our society,” is that a.) it was Hillary Clinton who called black males “super predators,” and b.) it was FBI Director James Comey who raked her over the coals for nearly 15 minutes for her “extremely careless” handling of America’s most guarded secrets.

CBS reported on April 14th of this year:

Bernie Sanders slammed his rival’s 1996 use of the term “super predators” Thursday evening, calling it “racist” on stage at the Democratic debate in Brooklyn.

Asked why Sanders had criticized Bill Clinton’s defense of his wife use of the phrase “super predators,” Sanders responded: “Because it was a racist term and everybody knew it was a racist term.”

In the 1990s, while President Bill Clinton was promoting a tough-on-crime agenda, his wife — then-First Lady Hillary Clinton — was gathering support for the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act. In one speech, given in 1996, the first lady warned against the rise of “super predators,” touting the ’94 bill as one line of defense against such at-risk youth.

“They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super predators,'” she said at the time, going on to describe them thus: “No conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

It’s pretty hard to tell people to vote for the allegedly awesome Democrat when Bernie Sanders called Mrs. Clinton’s “super-predators” remark racist. Again, in years past Robert Downey Jr. seemed to understand what a fool he would look like by appearing in these campaigns, but somewhere along the line he decided to join the parade of politically correct narcissists for election-year virtue signaling.

Question for Mr. Downey Jr.: How does it feel to spend all the good will you’ve built up over the years by staying out of politics on a woman who should be wearing an orange jumpsuit in a federal penitentiary? I suppose that doesn’t matter, now that your “Save the Day” appearances guarantee years of swanky parties thrown by millionaire hypocrites like Joss Whedon. Sad.

Related:

Joss Whedon, hypocritical millionaire, attacks Romney

George Clooney admits Clinton hypocrisy, Kurt Busiek’s spin further exposes left

George Clooney Meet the Press

Question: What could be better than watching Hollywood actor Leonardo Dicaprio lecture the world on Climate Change when everyone knows he loves to fly around in private jets for pleasure, party on giant yachts, and leave a bigger carbon footprint in one year than the average person would in 10 lifetimes?

Answer: Watching Hollywood actor George Clooney fidget in his seat when he is asked about hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton — couples paid up to $353,400 to attend — while also lecturing Americans on the corruptive nexus between money and politics.

The cherry on top is comic book writer Kurt Busiek inadvertently exposing the left’s rhetoric on unilateral nuclear disarmament while attempting to spin Clooney’s hypocrisy.

First, we have Chuck Todd of “Meet the Press” asking Clooney about his fundraiser for presidential hopeful Clinton and protests by supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“Do you look at how much is being raised, and I think the cost of the Friday night dinner [was] $350,000 a couple to be a co-chair. Do you look at it yourself and think that’s an obscene amount of money?” Todd asked Saturday.

Clooney’s response was to admit that it is a legitimate gripe, but that he was going to continue being a part of the problem anyway.

“Yes. I think it’s an obscene amount of money. I think that, you know, we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco and they’re right to protest. And they’re right to protest. They’re absolutely right. It is an obscene amount of money. The Sanders campaign, when they talk about it, is absolutely right. It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics.” — George Clooney, April 16, 2016.

In George Clooney’s mind, the National Education Association can raise gobs of money for Democrats and it’s not a problem because they represent Democrat teachers, but a super PAC for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is “ridiculous” — even though guys like me think his ideas represent us.

George Clooney Chuck Todd Meet the Press

Personally, I think money in politics is overrated (just ask…Marco Rubio! — or any number of Republicans who spent millions of dollars and lost the 2016 Republican presidential primary). If George Clooney wanted money to have less influence on the political process, then he would become an advocate for limited government. He cries about cronyism while asking voters to fuel the vehicle that drives it, but I digress.

The point here is that Clooney, like his buddy Leonardo Dicaprio, is a political hypocrite. Sanders, although a self-avowed socialist who thinks bread lines and food shortages are cool, is 100 times more principled than Hillary Clinton and should be given credit for that.

The reason why men like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have attracted millions of supporters is because they are sick of George Clooneys on both sides of the political spectrum. A candidate cannot say, “[insert behavior] is morally wrong, but I will do it anyway if it benefits me politically … and then maybe it will change when I’m elected.”

Here is where it gets interesting. Comic book writer Kurt Busiek decided to weigh in on the issue over at Deadline Hollywood. In his defense of Clooney’s hypocrisy he inadvertently exposed the danger of leftist activists who essentially push for the U.S. to unilaterally disarm when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Kurt Busiek

“Unilateral disarmament leads to losing,” according to Busiek. “[Clooney’s] point is that it’s bad to have this kind of money in politics overall, not that it’s okay for everyone else but his favored candidate shouldn’t get any.”

If unilateral disarmament “leads to losing” when it comes to campaign-finance reform in American elections, then why would the same idea applied to national security not “lead to losing” between the U.S. and nation states that publicly express a desire to see it wiped off the face of the earth?

Every year activist groups like “Global Zero” try to gain the support of Hollywood activists like George Clooney’s buddy Matt Damon. These actors push for massive reductions of U.S. nuclear weapons, despite the fact that such moves would be cheered around the world by rogue nations.

If liberal guy Kurt Busiek is telling the truth, and “unilateral disarmament leads to losing,” then why do so many Hollywood liberals push for unilateral disarmament when it comes to the U.S. military? Are they just dangerously ignorant, or do they really want the U.S. to lose?

The answer is bad no matter how you slice it.

Matt Damon Global Zero

The moral of the story here is that modern-day liberalism is a tangled knot of contradictions:

  • When its activists act on principle, they often do so based upon a gross misreading of human nature that leads to the consequences diametrically opposed to their stated intentions.
  • When its activists do not act on principle, it is because they quixotically believe the world would behave differently if only they had their hands on the levers of power. (Ask Iranian mullahs, Islamic terrorists, and Vladimir Putin how that worked out after the election of President Obama.)

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to sit back and marvel out how Hollywood activists, election-year politics, and comic books all came together for a blogger who loves to write on each issue.

Exit question: What kind of person plops down $353,400 to eat dinner with a politician? Is there anyone alive whose existence would make you say, “I’d spend $350,000 to eat a seared salmon and parsley-caper sauce with that guy,”?

Trump rally shut down by Chicago goons, socialist idea of ‘free speech’ on display

Chicago cop

If there is one good thing about Donald Trump’s presidential campaign it is that socialist goons are making their totalitarian tendencies known. A Trump rally was cancelled on Friday at the University of Illinois-Chicago Pavilion over security concerns. Bernie Sanders supporters and left-wing activists let it be known that they specifically sought to stifle the billionaire’s ability to speak.

Roughly 10,000 people showed up to hear Trump speak inside the arena and thousands of others waited outside. Activists arrived to start fights, block traffic, and generally make life miserable for the Chicago Police Department.

Fox News reported:

Kamran Siddiqui is a 20-year-old student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where the event was to take place.

He says: “Trump represents everything America is not and everything Chicago is not. We came in here and we wanted to shut this down. Because this is a great city and we don’t want to let that person in here.”

Siddiqui says he’s a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. He says it “feels amazing” to have stopped Trump from speaking at his own rally.

He adds: “Everybody came together. That’s what people can do. Now people got to go out and vote because we have the opportunity to stop Trump.”

Newsflash: Donald Trump is popular in part because the U.S. is increasingly populated with Siddiquis-like thugs. You can find them online or on any college campus that makes “safe spaces” a priority.

Siddiqui wasn’t alone:

“Chicago community activist Quo Vadis said hundreds of protesters had positioned themselves in groups around the arena, and that they intend to demonstrate right after Trump takes the stage. Their goal, he said, is “for Donald to take the stage and to completely interrupt him. The plan is to shut Donald Trump all the way down.”

The Founding Fathers knew that free speech and the right to assembly were essential to the health of the Republic, which is why they are covered in the First Amendment. Sadly, there are millions of “Siddiquis”and “Vadis” who call themselves Americans while only respecting a narrow band of left-wing thought along the ideological spectrum.

Trump Chicago

insta

“We stopped Trump” the refrain goes. Quite the opposite, in fact. All 10,000 people who did not get to see the man speak because of security threats caused by Bernie Sanders supporters — and millions who watched it unfold on the news — now will be twice as energized to vote for the man.

Guys who would rather be writing about Marvel comics and superhero movies — like me — now must defend the guy. Trust me, that is something I do not want to do, but my love for individual liberty trumps (no pun intended) my lack of enthusiasm or disdain for any political candidate.

Chicago Trump Bernie

Who is more dangerous to the future of America: Socialist hordes that take pride in silencing opponents through any means necessary, or Donald Trump? It’s an excellent question, but right now those who “feel the Bern” are making it clear that their vision for the future looks very much like the nightmare that is Venezuela. Make sure to stock up on toilet paper — socialist utopias usually don’t have much in supply.

Corporate media crown Hillary debate winner — just like corporate media said Republicans want Jeb

Clinton CNN debateAn interesting thing happened after Tuesday night’s Democratic debate from Las Vegas, Nevada — corporate media talking heads declared Hillary Clinton the winner, even though the only thing she did was come across as a weirdly-calculating politician.

Progressive media watchdog FAIR.org reported:

The Times quoted National Journal columnist Ron Fournier (“Hillary Clinton won,” 10/13/15), Slate writer Fred Kaplan (“She crushed it,” 10/14/15), New Yorker staffer Ryan Lizza (“Hillary Clinton won because all of her opponents are terrible,” Twitter, 10/13/15), Red State blogger Leon Wolf (“Hillary was (astonishingly) much more likable and personable than everyone’s favorite crazy socialist uncle,” 10/13/15), pollster John Zogby (“Mrs. Clinton was just commanding tonight,” Forbes, 10/13/15) and conservative radio host Erick Erickson (“I’m still amazed the other four candidates made Hillary Clinton come off as the likable, reasonable, responsible Democrat,” Twitter, 10/13/15). If these so-called “opinion shapers in the political world” declare Hillary the winner, then Hillary must be the winner, according to the Times.

What the Times and these pundits failed to mention is the fact that every online poll we could find asking web visitors who won the debate cast Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the winner—and not just by a small margins, but by rather enormous ones.

As I told my wife after the debate, it’s too bad Bernie Sanders is a socialist, because he was essentially the only authentic person on stage.

Former Virginia Sen. Jim Web just came across as an irascible grump; former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee came across as a dazed child; and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley just came across as another run-of-the-mill politician.

The same media juggernaut that tried to convince Americans for months that a groundswell of support for Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign existed — despite zero polling evidence to back such claims — now wants viewers to believe Mrs. Clinton trounced Sen. Sanders.

Bernie Sanders

Here is an example of Clinton’s stellar debate skills:

Anderson Cooper: Secretary Clinton, how would you not be a third term of President Obama?

Clinton:Well, I think that’s pretty obvious. I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.

Cooper: Is there a policy difference?

Clinton: Well, there’s a lot that I would like to do to build on the successes of President Obama, but also, as I’m laying out, to go beyond. And that’s in my economic plans, how I would deal with the prescription drug companies, how I would deal with college, how I would deal with a full range of issues that I’ve been talking about throughout this campaign to go further.

Translation: Vote for me because I’m a woman! Seriously. I’m a woman. That’s important.

The former secretary of state offered zero differences between a future Clinton administration and the Obama administration — other than her chromosomes — and yet she was deemed the debate winner.

When it came to a very specific question from moderator Anderson Cooper — “Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?” — Clinton simply didn’t answer the question. She went off on a tangent about the criminal justice system.

Sanders, however, answered the question.

Anderson Cooper: Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter? Let’s put that question to Senator Sanders.

Sanders: Black lives matter. And the reason — the reason those words matter is the African American community knows that on any given day some innocent person like Sandra Bland can get into a car, and then three days later she’s going to end up dead in jail, or their kids.

Is it rather repugnant to rhetorically elevate the lives of black Americans above the lives of all Americans? Yes.

At least Sen. Sanders, however, had the guts to give a straight answer in front of millions of viewers.

A woman who casts herself as qualified for the position of commander in chief because of her estrogen levels, while simultaneously refusing to answer direct questions, cannot be the winner of a presidential debate.

Corporate media pundits are less interested in telling the truth than they are with pushing their own specific visions for the world. That is why so many people rightfully do not trust what they see on cable news or what is served to them from the official Facebook news feed.

As the 2016 presidential campaign gains steam, it is always important to consume news with a discerning eye. The networks and publications telling you they can be trusted are often lying.