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,”?

Hollywood cowers before Kim Jong-un, refuses to sign George Clooney petition for free speech

Clooney AP1Free speech is taking a beating these days, and the punishment is coming from the one place that should be its staunchest defender: Hollywood. In an exclusive with Deadline Hollywood, George Clooney says he circulated a petition to support Sony Entertainment on the grounds that pulling “The Interview” would, for all intents and purposes, be an abdication of free speech to its enemies. The number or people in Hollywood willing to sign the petition: ZERO.

Here is an excerpt from the petition:

This is not just an attack on Sony. It involves every studio, every network, every business and every individual in this country. That is why we fully support Sony’s decision not to submit to these hackers’ demands. We know that to give in to these criminals now will open the door for any group that would threaten freedom of expression, privacy and personal liberty. We hope these hackers are brought to justice but until they are, we will not stand in fear. We will stand together.

The fact that Mr. Clooney’s friends within the industry refused to sign such a statement is pathetic. Dec. 16, 2014 marked the 70th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, but on that very same day Hollywood studio heads couldn’t even bring themselves to sign a piece a paper in defense of free speech. Ask yourself: Would you want to go to war with anyone from Hollywood? Do you want these people and their friends running the country and shaping the culture? How much damage have they already done?

After discussing his spineless friends (without naming names, of course), Mr. Clooney then goes on to talk about the ramifications of the Sony hacking with Deadline Hollywood’s Mike Flemming Jr.

DEADLINE: What kind of constraints will this put on storytellers that want to shine a critical light on a place like Russia, for instance, with something like a movie about the polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB officer who left and became an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin?

CLOONEY: What’s going to happen is, you’re going to have trouble finding distribution. In general, when you’re doing films like that, the ones that are critical, those aren’t going to be studio films anyway. Most of the movies that got us in trouble, we started out by raising the money independently. But to distribute, you’ve got to go to a studio, because they’re the ones that distribute movies. The truth is, you’re going to have a much harder time finding distribution now. And that’s a chilling effect.

Mr. Flemming’s hypothetical scenario involving a movie about Alexander Litvinenko is impressive. It shows that he knows how dangerous of a precedent it was for Sony Entertainment to pull “The Interview.” Unfortunately, he and George Clooney appear to be in the vast minority in Hollywood. The erosion of free speech is happening before our eyes — we just can’t see it. You can’t see or hear the movies that were never written out of fear. You can’t hold the DVD of a movie that was never made because cowardly men and women in Hollywood are slaves to the desires of dictators and despots. You can’t smell and taste the popcorn for a blockbuster movie that was killed before pen was ever put to paper.

People laugh because a giant free speech debate has been generated over a Seth Rogen movie, but what happened at Sony is no laughing matter. Regardless, Americans should stand up and applaud George Clooney for shining a light on the character — or lack thereof — of the men and women running Hollywood.

George Clooney and Barack Obama: Pasts Unexamined.

The George Clooney image created by the media also happens to be the blueprint for the perfect liberal president (if you promise not to analyze the past too closely). It worked for Barack Obama, which can only mean one thing: Get to work, conservative bloggers.

Rolling Stone’s Mark Seliger has a piece on George Clooney, Confessions of a Dirty Mind, that’s worth a read.  Since you can only read select quotes if you don’t buy the magazine, I plunked down some cash so I can explain it in full.

Who does this sound like?

“Look at him now, sitting in his house high up in the Hollywood Hills, off white khakis, matching socks, spotless tan desert boots, natty blue polo shirt, dreamy, chocolately-brown eyes, broad shoulders, a straight line of white (but not too white) teeth, hair graying distinguishedly, legs crossed confidently, the easygoing smile and the aura of calm assurance. He is talking about something or other – maybe the failure of politicians these days…maybe the atrocities in Darfur…In truth, it’s exceedingly difficult to hear anything over the blare of how perfect everything is, both him and his entire orbit.”

My God, replace “in his house high up in the Hollywood Hills” with “in his house in our nation’s capital” and you would have thought Seliger was talking about Barack Obama! Years ago I couldn’t help but think that media used Clooney blueprints to build Barack Obama’s image. The desire was there to apply them to John Kerry (and don’t think that efforts weren’t made), but the vehicle just wasn’t capable. It’s hard to make use of smoke and mirrors when your magician keeps crashing through the props…

For the moral relativist who wants to redistribute wealth, George Clooney is a dream come true. He’s partied hard – “mainly booze, some coke and many quaaludes (“I thought quaaludes were the greatest drug ever made!”)” – but doesn’t show the wear and tear. In fact, he’s incredibly handsome. He comes from a good family and subscribes to a religious faith, yet it’s not a driving force in his life (i.e., it’s important like regular exercise is important). He’s a motivated man who settles for nothing less than success, yet he advocates public policy positions beneficial to those who are equally motivated in their quest for mediocrity (i.e., entitlement programs on steroids).

The other great thing about George Clooney—and here’s where Obama falls short—is that he’s promiscuous. Instant cool! Correction: He’s only beds beautiful women. He’s a Sean Connery character vivified! JFK knew the deal, but Obama went for the more family-friendly route…

Just as with Barack Obama, however, the real story is in the media’s ability to ignore facts that belie the narrative, even when they’re the ones poking holes in it!

[Clooney’s] not keeping secrets. It’s just that some parts of his life have nver really been looked at or examined. His angry-George period, for example…He’d get angry at other drivers on the road, “the f**king idiots,” and roll down his window to yell, “You f**king a**holes!” He’d break his golf clubs and throw them in the lake. He’d smash his tennis racket. He’d fly into jealous rages—“horrible rages where you drive around the girl’s apartment, ‘I know she’s with this other guy!'” Offended by some acquaintance, he’d draft a letter that featured words like “c**ksucker” and “flaming a**hole.” It was bad.

Odd, just earlier in the story Steven Soderbergh notes, “He only picks fights with people who are as powerful as he is, and that’s rare in this business.” Seliger refers to him as, “the definition of class.” So which is it? Is he the definition of class, or the guy who yells “you f**cking a**hole to the mom who was drifting in her lane along the highway because her three kids were arguing in the backseat? Is he the guy who only picks fights with those who are as powerful as he is, or is he the one who writes “c**ksucker” Christmas cards to acquaintances who needled him on his politics? All we do know is that some parts of his life “have never really been looked at or examined,” (kind of like Barack Obama!).

My favorite part of the piece is a story about George’s youth. Struggling to make it in Hollywood, his dad tries to convince him to go back to school. He tells his son to get something to fall back on. George’s response: “If I have something to fall back on, you know what I’ll do? I’ll fall back.”

Amazing, amazing quote. Embedded it is a conservatism Clooney would deny—but it’s there. In essence, Clooney is always moving forward. Failure is not an option. He’s singularly focused on one goal, and once that’s accomplished he’ll move on to the next one. (His only mistake is that it appears he applies this philosophy to women.)

Question: So why is it when George Clooney devotes himself 100% to a cause he believes in—without a fallback safety net—and it “nets” him millions of dollars, that it’s okay, but when a businessman does it he’s pejoratively referred to as “the 1%”? We don’t know, because like George Clooney and Barack Obama it’s something that has “never really been looked at or examined.”

Before we idolize stars or put them in office, it’s important to put their past in context. If this was done to George, perhaps his “rage phase” could have been avoided; if this was done to Barack Obama he probably would not be in The White House. It’s up to conservative bloggers to pick up the slack left behind by our liberal counterparts—so get writing.