We’re in the midst of crazy season:

James O’Keefe finds anarchists planning to commit felonies in order to disrupt the Trump inauguration on Friday, including

an actual plot to release acid at events, chain up DC subways, and assault people at the inauguration

Because that’s how anarchists show their respect for Americans.

There’s the Washington Post covering Marla Maples’s hairdresser, instead  of covering O’Keefe’s investigation. Because that’s how you show journalism worthy of a national newspaper.

Then there are the Code Pink women doing a flashmob dance at Union Station while wearing “pussy hats.” Because flashmobs and silly hats are how you show you are a serious woman of substantive standing on the issues.

And let’s not forget the Congresspeople saying they’ll boycott the inauguration. Because that’s how you show your standing on partisanship, an issue you decry only when you accuse Republicans.

In the midst of all this, at least we get some comic relief. Last night Tucker Carlson opened his show with this, which was actually funny, especially the Peyton Manning line:

A man using the alias “Dominic Tullipso” said Tuesday on Fox News Channel — well, it was hard to figure out what he was trying to say, but it was also clear that he wasn’t running a business that involved spending thousands on hiring activists.

“It’s pretty darn easy these days to just say whatever the heck you want on national TV and have it pass off as truth,” he told host Tucker Carlson. “I don’t know, it’s pretty incredible to me how easy it was to get the coverage we got.”

The unidentified prankster then added, “By the way, I’m not saying that anything of this a hoax and any of this isn’t true.”

At least the Washington Times realized they had been had.

With all this circus going on, is anyone surprised that Ringling Brothers is shutting down?

Why go to the circus when the circus comes to you?

UPDATE
This one promises to be a humdinger: Anthropologists and other scholars plan read-in of Michel Foucault to mark inauguration of Donald Trump

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz posts on U.S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.

Contrary to popular belief, liberal mainstream media bias is not the same ol’ narrative that conservatives have had to fight since the 1970s. Starting with the Bush administration and as a direct result of the rise of the internet, liberal journalists have dramatically increased their blatant favoritism towards progressive agendas. They don’t even try to hide it anymore.

We see a lot of publications like Newsbusters reporting on the bias. This is a good thing, but it’s not enough. As conservative citizens, bloggers, and social media users, we have to do more than point out the bias because most people are already aware that it exists. Sure, there are still pockets of hardcore progressives who claim the media is biased against them rather than the other way around, but we won’t be able to reach those people. Our focus should be on the masses who accept that media bias exists but who still allow themselves to be indoctrinated by it.

This is where fighting “smarter” comes into play. Most have seen examples of or even participated in the insult wars against people who share biased news. I’ve done it many times in the past, often referring to the “sheep” who hang on every declaration on The View or who share Paul Krugman links every time he writes a condemnation of conservative principles. We have to stop. The ball is in our court. We have the opportunity to start real political discourse. It won’t be easy. The passions on the left are heavy and have been stung repeatedly since November. We need patience and intelligence. We need to take the high road.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aggressive with our strategies. One of the easiest arguments to make is calling out hypocrisy. It’s hard to deny when presented the right way, particularly in the current situation. It’s hypocritical of everyone on the left who fought for a smooth transition of power and acceptance of election results until it was their side calling the election results into question. You can’t tell us we need to accept the results if Hillary Clinton won, then decline to accept the results because she lost. This is just one example of the hypocrisy.

As I’ve noted in the past, both the media and liberal politicians are going to go after Trump’s biggest weakness: his thin skin. They know that he’ll respond to attacks, so that’s exactly what they’re going to do. However, it’s in the way they’re going to spin it that the damage can be done. They will attack, then wait for the counter-attack and report mostly on the latter. Today, we see it in the “feud” between Trump and Congressman John Lewis. The Congressman drew first blood by calling the legitimacy of Trump’s Presidency into question, for which he was rewarded by the press as being brave and righteous. When Trump attacked back, the media unleashed the hounds to highlight Trump as being racist (Lewis is black), misinformed (Trump called out Lewis as all talk, no action, despite his very real actions during the civil rights movement), and a bully (okay, that one’s accurate).

Trump Tweeted insults at a man who attacked him. How is that bigger news than a respected American politician calling into question the legitimacy of a Presidency based upon an intelligence briefing that admits the actual effects of Russia’s attempts are unclear? Are we supposed to unify behind Barack Obama but revolt against Trump? That’s essentially what Lewis is calling for, but you’d never know that based upon media coverage.

As noted on TNA, conservatives must go on the offensive against the bias:

What’s the right answer to the media bias problem? Fight back. Spread real news. Correct those who fall for the bias. Scorn those who report with bias. A free press is there to keep Americans informed, not indoctrinated. It’s time to make the media realize their agenda is not our agenda.What’s the right answer to the media bias problem? Fight back. Spread real news. Correct those who fall for the bias. Scorn those who report with bias. A free press is there to keep Americans informed, not indoctrinated. It’s time to make the media realize their agenda is not our agenda.

This is why we must fight harder. Despite the election results, we are losing this battle. The left is regrouping. The attacks from the media are incessant and increasing in ferocity. It’s up to conservatives to not only highlight when the media reveals their leftist agenda, but to also offer alternatives to those narratives. We have the truth on our side. It’s time for us to make others see it for what it is.

By John Ruberry

Last night Feld Entertainment, the owner of Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus since 1967, announced that it is pulling up stakes and shutting down the circus for good.

For a very brief period I was one of its center ring performers. More on that later.

Steeped in history more than any other American entertainment offering, the Greatest Show on Earth can be traced to the 1860s with a circus run by James Anthony Bailey. In 1881 he teamed up with P.T Barnum, a circus latecomer who made his name as an oddity museum and freak show operator, creating Barnum & Bailey Circus. Its first big attraction was Jumbo, purportedly the world’s largest elephant–and an unintended result was the adding of “jumbo” to the English language.

Three years after Barnum & Bailey was founded, the five Ringling brothers, entertainers from Baraboo, Wisconsin, started their circus.

Technology was at first kind to these circuses, trains allowed the shows to travel quickly from city to city, abandoning wagons except for the parades with wild animals that served as priceless publicity for drumming up ticket sales. Trains gave Barnum & Bailey the opportunity to travel outside of its base in the Northeast–and the Ringlings weren’t confined to the Midwest anymore.

The Ringling family purchased Barnum & Bailey in 1907 and the shows were consolidated in 1919.

An elephant helped establish Barnum & Bailey and the combined circus was partly brought down by elephants.

Sometime around 2000 animal rights organizations, notably PETA, began protesting circuses and the Greatest Show on Earth was of course its biggest target. The mud and dung started flying with animal cruelty accusations from these groups, particularly regarding elephants. But Feld Entertainment collected $25,2 million in a settlement from animal rights activist groups over their charges of cruelty to pachyderms.

The battle was over but the war was lost. Two years ago Ringling Brothers announced that its elephants would be retired from the circus in 2018, but that date was moved that up to May of last year, largely because of what Ringling CEO Kenneth Feld called “anti-circus” and “anti-elephant” local ordinances.

When he announced the shutdown of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, Feld didn’t cite one item but offered, “The competitor in many ways is time.” People, particularly children, are less patient than ever in the age of smartphones, tablets, and YouTube–and the length of its shows has dropped by nearly an hour since Feld Entertainment purchased Ringling Brothers. Technology now worked against the circus.

But Feld’s daughter, Juliette, went in a different direction, stating “We know now that one of the major reasons people came to Ringling Brothers was getting to see elephants.” Ticket sales, which have been declining for a decade, dropped noticeably when the shows became elephant-free.

Of course it’s the goal of the animal rights activists to have all circuses to be strictly human affairs. They’ll never deny that. So the camels, alpacas, lions, and tigers that are part of the Ringling menagerie will be retired, likely ending up in reserves.

Mission accomplished.

Meanwhile, 500 Ringling employees will be out of work, and it’s my fear that it will be tough going for them, as circus life tends to be a multi-generational endeavor.

Interviewer: “So, what makes you think you can be a good fit at our big box store?”

Job seeker: “Well, I’ve worked at Ringling Brothers for thirty years and I’ve lived on circus trains all of that time. I was educated at circus schools because my parents worked for Ringling Brothers too.”

Thanks for hanging in there, I’m getting to my center ring moment now.

Twice I attended Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey shows. My dad took my brothers and I to a performance at Chicago’s International Amphitheater in 1967. It was a dazzling experience–and the hall was packed. Nearly forty years later I brought Little Marathon Pundit to the Ringling circus, this time at the Allstate Arena in suburban Rosemont. Yes, the show was shorter, there was a motorcycle daredevil act in addition to the animal performers, but there was no big band this time–a rock combo offered music and there were a lot of empty seats. Outside the auditorium there were protesters even though it was snowing.

John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

Back inside, as David Larible, a clown, descended the stairs of the arena I snapped a photo of him with my then-exotic smartphone. He motioned me to follow him, brought me to the center ring, where I, along with a few other lucky attendees, participated in a musical instrument comedy skit, as my daughter heartily laughed. It was one of those unforgettable father-daughter moments.

Yes, I’m a former Ringling performer.

You can argue that Ringling Brothers was dying then–but certainly the animal rights radicals hastened its death. And when this venerable circus is dead–a part of America will have died with it.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

The 21st century isn’t turning out so well for millenials.  They are making less than their parents did at their age.  Home ownership, one of the key markers of financial success, is down for their age group.  And, apparently, in general they are unhappier and more narcissistic.  It’s declined to the point you can now see how poorly you compare to other countries (although I can’t vouch for the data).

But hey, we got that going for us!

Why is this?  Most blame the recession.  But plenty of millenials have done well, despite a recession.

Me when I realized this while writing this article

My current job gives me some insight.  I work with junior Sailors on a daily basis, most in their early twenties.  As their commander, I get to interview them and get a peek into their lives.  I also keep copious notes, and as an engineer, I look for trends.

I see one big, ugly trend: most Millenials come from broken homes. 

Almost 85% of my Sailors come from divorced parents.  These are people from across America, from every state in the union.  I was astounded by this.  In many cases, at least one parent (mom or dad) is completely out of the picture.

These broken homes don’t produce broken people.  My Sailors are hard working Americans, and they arrive with a very deep love of their country and wanting to do right.  In many cases though, their broken home hinders them.

How I feel sometimes

I take for granted that my parents cared about my education and well being.  While they didn’t pay for college (thank you Uncle Sam!), they did set me up pretty well, and helped me cover emergencies until I got on my feet.  My parents taught me about debt and savings.  I didn’t have a credit card until I was in college, and even then, I paid it off every month (and still do!).

Many of my Sailors don’t have this.  Too often they go to boot camp with very little in their pocket.  Many arrive with little to no furniture.  Plenty come in with credit card debt.  Luckily, we have free classes on financial management, and most turn themselves around.  For the average person though, these free classes don’t exist.

Broken homes break down other assumptions.  Driver’s license?  How to dress for an interview?  How to speak without using obscenities?  How to shake hands properly?  Speaking in public?  These basic skills can’t be assumed anymore.  Anyone who has worked with millenials would agree.

Although I enjoy watching my Sailors grow and develop these skills, I worry that in other parts of society, these skills are not being developed.  Yes, we should continue to work on our economy, but perhaps we’ve forgotten what a big influence good family life is on success.


Obviously I’m in the Navy.  In case it’s not obvious, this post only represents my views.  It doesn’t represent the views of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other federal agency.  But you’re smart, so you already knew that…

If you enjoyed this, check out my blog, and drop Da Tech Guy some money!

Legal Insurrection, one of the best conservative websites, had hundreds of videos deleted (emphasis added):

YouTube took down Legal Insurrection’s Channel without any prior notice based on “multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement,” but we never received any claims of infringement.

We have lost hundreds of videos, including a lot of original content on important news subjects. You now will see disabled videos in hundreds of our posts.

Legal Insurrection’s creator, William Jacobson, is a law professor. After inquiring, he found out

that the copyright claims were filed by the Modern Language Association based on excerpts of audio of pro- and anti-Israel speakers at the MLA Annual Meeting we reported on in this post, Massive DEFEAT for BDS at Modern Language Association.

What is BDS?

The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement works to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.

The Modern Language Association doesn’t like it when someone posts videos of what their members actually say at their conferences. They complain to YouTube, which dutifully follows their order to censor without telling the person who posted the video, in effect attacking Legal Insurrection’s reputation as a source of facts.

YouTube recently removed dozens of Prager University videos, among them:

  • Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?
  • Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?
  • What ISIS Wants
  • Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?
  • Is America Racist?
  • Israel: The World’s Most Moral Army
  • Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology
  • The Most Important Question About Abortion
  • Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?
  • Pakistan: Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist?

If by now you don’t realize we’re fighting a culture war, you haven’t been paying attention.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz posts on U.S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.

Today, the DoJ entered the fray to put an asterisk next to Donald Trump’s Presidency. They announced that they’re investigating the FBI for their pre-election actions. As you may recall, FBI Director James Comey was the first scapegoat offered up by the Democrats about why they lost so badly.

According to The Blaze:

The inspector general’s office at the Department of Justice announced Thursday that it will investigate the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state, as well as FBI Director James Comey’s decision to send a letter to Congress stating that the bureau was reopening its case involving the Democratic nominee for president just days before the Nov. 8 election.The inspector general’s office at the Department of Justice announced Thursday that it will investigate the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state, as well as FBI Director James Comey’s decision to send a letter to Congress stating that the bureau was reopening its case involving the Democratic nominee for president just days before the Nov. 8 election.

It’s been over two months since their devastating losses and we’re still seeing liberal publications scratching their collective heads. They simply cannot comprehend that Americans could say no to their agenda that they believe has worked out so wonderfully the last eight years. As a result, they’re doing everything in their power to make it appear as if they were robbed rather than accepting that their message simply isn’t resonating.

They’re looking for as many bogeymen as they can find to attach to Trump’s Presidency. They want this to be an unmitigated disaster from day one, so they’re employing jamming and propaganda techniques to force that perspective onto the American public. This, more than anything else, is why BuzzFeed did what they did.  They intend to beat all of Trump’s horses, living or dead, until a majority of Americans believe that they’ve made a terrible mistake.

DC politicians are working behind the scenes to do the same thing. There are questions that the DoJ rightly needs answered by the FBI, but those questions can be done privately and without a full blown investigation. The reason they’re taking it as far as they are is simply a well-timed statement to the public. In essence, they’re saying, “In the midst of this Russian problem, don’t forget that Trump had help on the inside as well.”

Their plan would actually be quite entertaining if it were put into a fictional realm. Imagine the story line (read in a deep movie-trailer-guy voice): “They thought they had the perfect plan to rule the most powerful nation on the planet, but they got trumped. Now, the Democrats have a plan to wreak havoc on the political system and teach the people once and for all that the left is right. No one is safe. No action is too disgraceful. In 2017, they’re out for blood and they’ve got nothing left to lose.”

The Democrats aren’t trying to gain more power or affect public policy. They want one thing: retribution. Their actions are designed to make as many Americans as possible regret their choices in 2016. This year is going to be about making us feel bad so they can feel better about themselves.

President Clinton coming aboard the USS INDEPENDENCE in April 1996.

A larger version of the picture above sits on the wall inside the intelligence portion of US Pacific Fleet’s headquarters in Hawaii.  One of my side tasks when I worked there was to find historical pictures to decorate our walls.  This picture drew a lot of heads, as most service members weren’t fond of Clinton’s time as President.

The picture reminds us of an important time in history.  China had already caused plenty of problems with Taiwan, and in 1995 they started the Third Taiwan Straits Crisis.  In response, President Clinton put two Carrier Battle Groups near the straits.  This caused a lot of shame to the Chinese, because their Navy was unable to do anything about it.

There was a marked shift after that moment.  Chinese military focus was almost solely on the Army, with the Navy as a mere sideshow.  This changed.  China began focusing on building a blue water Navy after 1996.  It’s taken them 20 years, and they certainly aren’t done, but now the People’s Liberation Army (Navy) has modern destroyers and submarines, and their navy now exceeds the size of all of our allies.

This week, China moved its only aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, through the Taiwan Straits.  The carrier itself represents little threat to Taiwan, much less than the thousands of land-based missiles sitting on the other side of the straits.  But that’s not the point.  China is doing to us EXACTLY what we did to her in 1996.  The Liaoning transit was likely timed to minimize the chance of a United States response and maximize messaging to their people and President-elect Trump:

Whether it acknowledges it or not, the US is declining-otherwise Trump would not need to declare he wants to “make America great again”. And, like it or not, China is still rising, although its economy has slowed. The first Chinese aircraft carrier has become operational and a second one is in the works. 

Trump’s Presidency is going to be interesting indeed.


This post represents the views of the author and does not represent views of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other federal agency.


Check out NG36Bs blog here, and be sure to donate to Da Tip Jar!

Back in 2001, Urinetown premiered on Broadway,

Urinetown is an hilarious musical satire of the legal system, capitalism, social irresponsibility, populism, bureaucracy, corporate mismanagement, municipal politics and musical theatre itself! is an hilarious musical satire of the legal system, capitalism, social irresponsibility, populism, bureaucracy, corporate mismanagement, municipal politics and musical theatre itself!

Of course, sophisticated New Yorkers loved it and it won three Tony Awards, three Outer Critics Circle Awards, two Lucille Lortel Awards and two Obie Awards. (You can watch the whole thing on YouTube, but I don’t recommend it.)

Fast-forward 15 years and Buzzfeed’s version of Urinetown premieres shortly before President Obama’s farewell address: Buzzfeed releases a document alleging kinky sexual behavior by Donald Trump on a trip to Russia (which involved hiring prostitutes to urinate on a bed Pres. Obama had slept on), and that Trump has a close relationship with Russia due to that compromising information. Ian Miles Cheong has a pretty good summary of the allegations.

Which brings to mind The Big Lebowski,

I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith also tweeted this at the time,

In Smith’s own words, his organization released an “unverified” report, of which “there is serious reason to doubt the allegations.”

David French finds all of it disturbing

This is ridiculous. How can “Americans make up their own minds” when they have no ability to fact-check the allegations? The public knows nothing about the sources, nothing about the underlying claims, and has no means of discovering the truth. Buzzfeed admits that “there is serious reason to doubt the allegations.” It’s been using its journalistic resources trying to verify the claims for “weeks” and hasn’t been able to. But “Americans” can somehow do what Buzzfeed can’t? This isn’t transparency; it’s malice.

John Podhoretz, hardly a Trump supporter, asserts that Buzzfeed’s Trump report takes ‘fake news’ to a new level (emphasis added)

There is literally no evidence on offer in these memos or from BuzzFeed that any single sentence in these documents is factual or true. What’s more, we know most major news organizations in America had seen them and despite their well-known institutional antipathy toward Trump, had chosen not to publish them or even make reference to them after efforts to substantiate their charges had failed.

BuzzFeed tells us that “the document was prepared for political opponents of Trump by a person who is understood to be a former British intelligence agent.” Indeed, the memos are designed to read as though they were cables sent from the field to the home office. And they should set off the bull detector of every rational person who reads them.

I’ve been a newspaper and magazine editor for 31 years, and like many in my profession, have had occasion over the course of four decades to work with people linked to intelligence agencies both domestic and foreign when they are retailing stories injurious to one or another politician or cause.

In my experience, there is no source of whom you need to be more skeptical, and whose information you need to verify to the letter before you can even begin to think of publishing it, than an “intelligence” source.

Now we’ll see the effects of Buzzfeed’s micturition of a seriously doubtful “report:” The discrediting of a President-elect, the waste of taxpayer money on investigations, hearings, and whatnot, and continued attacks from Dem sore losers; worst of all, a possible undermining of the electoral process.

Welcome to Buzzfeed’s Urinetown.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz posts on U.S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – Louisiana’s Attorney General Jeff Landry (R) and New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D) are in a political tug-of-war centering on the rising crime rate in Louisiana’s most popular tourist destination.  In 2016, shootings in New Orleans increased by almost 25%, and homicides rose by 7%.  AG Landry blames Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s poor leadership for the uptick in crime while Landrieu contends Landry has no authority over him or law enforcement in New Orleans.

AG Landry has taken to Twitter in recent days with the hashtag #MakeNewOrleansSafeAgain in an effort to draw attention to his efforts to reduce crime in the city and his own violent crimes task force which operates outside of the NOLA police department. Landry points out that “Chicago has about 20 murders per 100,000 people. New Orleans is experiencing twice that many at 40 murders per 100,000 people.”

Landry insists that Landrieu is in part to blame in the increase in crime due to his agreement to enter into a five-year consent decree with Eric Holder’s Justice Department in 2012. This agreement is projected to cost NOLA over $55 million over the course of its duration.  The consent decree came about on the heels of violence in Ferguson and other cities after federal investigation of police departments reportedly engaging in civil rights violations; cities across the nation such as Albuquerque, Cleveland, and Seattle have all entered into consent decrees with varying degrees of success.

Generally, the police departments often feel hindered by the decree:

The head of the Police Association of New Orleans agrees that the consent decree is at least partly to blame for a rise in crime in a department that remains roughly 350 officers short of the state goal of 1,600.

“Because of the oversight, officers are reluctant to initiate contact,” said PANO President Michael Glasser. “…The consent decree requires a lot of oversight and redundancy, and while that probably creates a better work product, it’s labor intensive and time consuming, and we lack labor. What used to take an hour or two now takes two or three or four.”

AG Landry refers to the consent decree as the “Hug a Thug Program” and believes that officers need more help, thus his task force, and he’s probably going to push for more money from the state legislature to expand the program:

To do so he’s going to need funding, obviously, so it’s a good bet where this is going is a push at the legislature this spring to get more money for the Violent Crime Task Force to increase its presence in New Orleans and push past NOPD to make a difference.

If the legislature goes along with Landry, then John #Fail Edwards will have to sign off on it which will be particularly interesting as he is often at political odds with both Landry and Landrieu.

Some see Landry’s intervention as a power grab:

But there’s some question – at least by NOPD Chief Harrison – as to whether Landry’s office should be investigating crimes in New Orleans. Harrison sent a letter to Landry Wednesday asserting that “we are aware of no authority that permits you, your employees, or law enforcement agents under your direction to engage in active law enforcement within New Orleans or in general.”

Under the city’s Home Rule Charter, the mayor of New Orleans is the chief law enforcement authority for Orleans Parish, according to Harrison. Landry is the chief law enforcement officer for the state.

Landry insists he has no political agenda here, saying that public safety and tourism dollars are at stake:

This is not about politics; my effort is about protecting Louisiana lives and our economy tied to tourism in New Orleans. While my office works to stop crime all over Louisiana, the spike in crime within our state’s largest city is alarming. That is why I announced this initiative and why we are taking action.”

The numbers don’t lie. Crime has indeed spiked in New Orleans and the city ended 2016 with 176 murders. As 2017 opens and the Crescent City anxiously awaits the decision from the Fifth Circuit on the Confederate monuments issue, due any day now, tensions in the city are certain to rise and it’s not difficult to see why Landry’s task force might be a potential benefit to a city that clearly needs a little backup.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

If Hillary Clinton opened up a hamburger joint, would you eat there? If George Soros wrote a book and went on tour, would you buy his book and wait in line at Barnes & Noble to have him sign it? Did you run out and buy a Dixie Chicks album after they attacked George W. Bush?

Why, then, do conservatives continue to support Hollywood when the vast majority of people in it are pushing a left-wing agenda? Many of them spend more times promoting their political narrative than making movies and television shows. Most of them allow those narratives and agendas to leak through in their performances and movie choices.

As I write this, the Golden Globes are being watched by millions of Americans. A good chunk of those watching are conservatives. This isn’t intended to condemn any of you; I had aspirations to be part of the Hollywood world at one point in my life and even moved to southern California to pursue it. Over the last decade, I watched as the liberal underpinnings of Hollywood emerged into blatant attacks on many of the things that I believe. Recently, the progressive rhetoric has reached a crescendo to the point that they don’t even try to pretend they’re only entertainers. They’ve come out feverishly opposed to the philosophies that make America awesome and in favor of the socialist, lawless, liberal ideology that is leading us towards oblivion.

There are few institutions that are easier to generalize than Hollywood. Save for a handful of brave and outspoken conservatives, the vast majority of actors, directors, and producers are as left-wing as they come. Last year brought more of them out of the political closet as the fear of Donald Trump prompted policy commentary from the strangest places. Today, they are outspoken and angry.

Most of Hollywood is pro-choice. They support the ideas of giving greater rights to members of the LGBTQ community than to average Americans. They want open borders as long as the illegal immigrants aren’t in their neighborhoods. They want total gun control except for their bodyguards. They oppose school choice while their children go to private schools.

They support Obama, oppose Trump, and they’re going to do everything they can to subvert his presidency.

As conservatives, we should not support them. We shouldn’t buy tickets to their movies. We shouldn’t bump up the ratings on their television shows. We shouldn’t be fawning over them at awards shows or idolizing them in any way. Like it or not, they have power through influence of their huge audiences. Some of them reach millions of people every day with their ideologies.

It’s hypocritical for us to condemn their politics but support their careers. Every time we buy a ticket to movies written, directed, and performed by liberal activists, we’re giving them money that will be used to promote their agenda. How many of them gave to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and other liberal politicians? Which ones held fundraisers to promote the progressive agenda? We empower them to attack our philosophies.

We need to make better entertainment choices. As much as I’d love to call for a boycott, it’s unrealistic. As conservatives, we can choose to watch movies by those who aren’t fighting us. They don’t even have to be outspoken conservatives as long as they’re not militant liberals. There’s a reason that Mark Wahlberg seems to be in every patriotic retelling of real events from Lone Survivor to Patriots Day. Clint Eastwood directs a movie every year or two. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson could be the next Ronald Reagan. Chris Pratt and Denzel Washington might not speak too much about politics, but they’re open about their faith.

We have choices. We don’t have to kiss the ring of the Hollywood elites or risk boring ourselves with Fox News all night. If we spend our entertainment dollars supporting people and stories that align more closely with conservative philosophies, Hollywood will eventually take the hint. Even if they don’t, at least we can feel better knowing we’re not supporting the engines of our own demise.