There has been a lot written about the silence of various people on the Harvey Weinstein business but there is one point that nobody seems to be interested in making.

Harvey Weinstein was a powerful man, he was a connected man. He knew Hollywood actors, journalists and pols. He had decades of success in the industry and became a powerhouse within it.

As a producer it is very likely that he was aware of all kinds of issues concerning his films, concerning stars, concerning journalists that might have an impact on his bottom line. It’s also very likely that he not only had such info on journalists and pols but might have even enabled such people in activities that they might not want made public.

This is my opinion the reason for the current silence by some and the long history of silence by others

So let me end this short post with an obvious question:

At what point does it become more profitable to Weinstein to share this three decades of info with the public than to keep silent now that everyone his going after him?

It is the answer to that question that terrifies hollywood most of all.


As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



(or you can buy one here)

An interesting followup to yesterday’s post suggesting that if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 Harvey Weinstein would not today be exposed as the man he has been for years.

Two days ago just as I arrived for work Red Sox left fielder Andrew Benintendi hit a two run homer off of Astro Ace Justin Verlander making his first relief appearance ever giving the Sox a 3-2 lead in the bottom of the fifth of game 4 of their series. I walked in smiling and when I told my lead the score, at he confidently predicted an Astro win so we bet a candy bar on the result.

Yesterday I was running late and found myself, thanks to Houston’s late comeback rushing into Shaw’s in Leominster to buy the bar to pay off that bet. I found myself stuck in a line behind a woman who was visiting her daughter who had just had her first child. The conversation in the line and with the cashier was Trump vs Mexico. At this point I interjected, “Well consider this, if Donald Trump isn’t elected there is no way that Harvey Weinstein is exposed by the NYT as he was a vital ally and fund raiser for Hillary Clinton.” The cashier agreed that this was true but the woman ahead of me had a slightly different take, while she agreed with my premise she stated quite emphatically: “Still isn’t worth it.”

Given that Mr. Weinstein preyed on woman (which she was) I found that opinion interesting and as I was leaving it hit me that not only would her daughter be of the age that Weinstein would go after but there is no reason to believe that if that new grandchild of hers wanted a career in movies a Harvey Weinstein or someone like him, would in 15-18 years be making the same demands on her if she wanted to get ahead in the business.

This is how crazy the left has become, a liberal women so dislikes Trump that she would have been willing to not only let Weinstein’s crime be unexposed and unpunished but would have been OK with him being allowed to obtain new victims for the sake of keeping him Trump of the White House.

So for those who you Hate Trump but are outraged over Weinstein I have two questions for you:

Would the price of Weinstein never being exposed have been worth it to you if it meant Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump in 2016?

If the answer to the first question is yes: At what number of new women victimized by Mr. Weinstein would that price become too high?

I think these two question really give this story the perspective it deserves don’t you and I’d love to see a roving reporter asking these question to a bunch of women’s studies majors at liberal universities across the nation wouldn’t you?

I’ll give the last word to Thomas Wictor


As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



(or you can buy one here)

Harvey Weinstein image by DAvid Shankbone via Wikipedia
An important point needs to be made concerning the continuing exposure of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual crimes and the finger pointing of leftists over the wall of silence.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected none of this would have come out.

Do you think for one moment that the NYT which had killed the Weinstein story once already would have dared to move forward knowing that a friend an ally of Mr. Weinstein was in the White House, running the justice department etc etc etc. Would they have dared to expose a story that would have crippled a Hillary Presidency?

I think not.

Every single woman who now has the courage to come forward about Weinstein owes Donald Trump the man they hate, the man they demonized, the man they did all they could to defeat, a huge thank you because without his election there is no Times story and they do not have the ability to openly say the truth about Weinstein.

And I submit and suggest that every one of us in the new media on the right should remind them of this fact every single day.

Update:
A question for the Hollywood left and feminists: Even if it meant that Harvey Weinstein was not exposed and would still preying on women do you still wish Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 instead of Trump and why?


As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



(or you can buy one here)

Being a Christian in Hollywood can be difficult. There aren’t a ton of movies being made today that fit in with a believing actor’s moral compass. Moreover, there’s a stigma attached to many actors who willingly profess their faith just as there’s a stigma against conservatives. As such, the average Christian-themed movie is pretty poorly done from a purely critical perspective. The messages can be great, but the delivery can be lackluster. Neither Kirk Cameron nor Nicolas Cage could make one of the most popular Christian book series of all time successful.

The Case for Christ is different. I was shocked when I saw that it received a 77% critical response on Rotten Tomatoes until I realized it was only reviewed by 13 critics. Go figure. Nonetheless, it was encouraging so I took my wife to see it last night. We were familiar with Lee Strobel’s journey from truth-seeking news reporter to truth-seeing evangelist and author, so we didn’t go for the sake of the story. As highly selective adults who have chosen to restrict our movie viewing to ones that fit our worldview (or that at least don’t attempt to trash it), we wanted to see if it was the rare “well made” Christian movie.

We were pleased with the results.

Both the acting and the cinematography were very good. They delivered 1980 about as well as big-budget films, 70s red Camaro and all. Nobody’s going to win an Oscar from this movie, but compared to the poorly crafted Christian movies of today that have good messages but are artistically weak, this was a real winner. Mike Vogel delivered the right mix of skepticism and intellect. He was believable as he struggled in a quest to debunk the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I wasn’t expecting it based upon some of his previous performances in cultural garbage flicks like Cloverfield and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but he found his groove with this role.

While far from being a critical masterpiece, this will hopefully bring more attention to the quality of Christian movies. They don’t have to look like they were made by a high school film studies class, nor does the dialogue have to sound like carefully crafted proselytizing disguised as robotic conversations. There needs to be a gelling of message and art that gets people not only interested in seeing a movie but that compels them to recommend it.

Hollywood is a cesspool of left-wing manipulation of progressive propaganda. As a society, we’ve fought through to make conservative-themed movies like American Sniper and Zero Dark Thirty critical and box office successes. Now we need to do the same for Christian-themed movies.

The Case for Christ is a step in the right direction. We need more of them.

As I’m writing this, many millions of people around the world are watching the Academy Awards. I know I’m not alone in “boycotting” the Oscars, though calling it a boycott is silly. It’s simply a choice. To say it’s a boycott is to belittle the efforts made by those who actually oppose the actions of organizations in sustained and systematic fashions. Like many Americans, I’m just deciding to do something else with my time.

I’ve ranted in the past about avoiding Hollywood. I didn’t watch the Golden Globes and I’ve called for conservatives to find entertainment alternatives, but this is a little different. The Oscars are the big show. It’s the one that is viewed around the world more than any other entertainment awards event. This year, people in other countries will watch the awards and will be able to come to only one conclusion: America hates its President and is falling apart as a result.

They don’t know the situation. Because they’re not bombarded with American news the way we are, their limited exposure means they have to form their conclusions from an incomplete data set. Watching the Oscars, they won’t realize that a large portion of Americans support President Trump. They’ll watch Hollywood liberal after Hollywood liberal bash Trump. They won’t hear a single one say anything positive about the President and if by some miracle they do (I don’t think Clint Eastwood or James Woods are winning anything this year), they’d hear the crowd throw out loud boos. This is Hollywood honoring Hollywood and disgracing the nation that gave them their opportunities.

I mentioned that what many of us are doing during the Oscars should not be called a boycott. If the ratings of this Academy Awards are low (which I doubt), it won’t faze any of them. The only way that they can be made to care about the absurdity of their liberal message is for their actual dollars to drop. That means it’s up to conservatives to stop watching. Sounds hard. It will be. Heck, I’m a movie fan. I moved out to the LA area because I wanted to get into the movie business a decade ago. Things change and I’m glad I didn’t follow through with that particular goal, but one thing is now clear to me. I cannot allow my hard-earned dollars to be used to promote the leftist agenda that spews forth from the people that Hollywood supports.

That’s not to say I won’t see any movies at all. I’m just going to be very selective. I’m going to support the stories that have conservative leanings. I’ll support directors and actors, few as they may be, who are unabashedly conservative. I’ll read more books, watch less television, and spend my downtime educating myself on YouTube with conservative and/or Christian messages.

In other words, I’m done with liberal Hollywood.

Leftists in Tinseltown will continue to embarrass our nation until we let them know that enough is enough. That doesn’t mean a Tweet or a blog post. The only way they’ll listen is if we hit them in their paychecks. The only way we can hit them in their paychecks is to stop spending portions of our paychecks to support them.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – Full disclosure: I’m writing this post pre-Grammys.

The pundits are already salivating over potential political diatribes from the podium, however. Via Page Six:

As such, Grammy Awards producer Ken Ehrlich has a message for those who will take the stage on Sunday’s ceremony: Bring it on.

Ehrlich has no reservations about political messages or anti-President Trump statements flying during CBS’ three and a half hour Grammycast. Artists expressing passionate opinions about real-life issues are the stuff of memorable moments, he said.

“One of the tenets of our show is artistic freedom, and over the years we’ve shown we do believe in it,” Ehrlich told Variety. “How many more times do we need to hear ‘I’d like to thank my publicist, my agent, my wife and kids.’ The great acceptance speeches are ones that have a point of view and are more personal.”

For some reason, celebrities seem to believe that their opinion on immigration or trade policy matters more than yours and therefore you need to hear what they have to say.  So instead of graciously accepting the award, be it the Oscar, the Grammy, the Tony, whatever, too often they launch off into a tirade against whatever hot-button issue or politician is currently at the forefront. Right now, it’s all anti-Trump.

Meryl Streep, for example, lashed out at Donald Trump at The Golden Globes earlier this month and again this weekend in accepting an award from the Human Rights Campaign.  Meryl Streep is a brilliant, stunning actress, and while it’s true that she is also a human being with opinions just like the rest of us, is the Golden Globe podium the right place for that tirade?

Should celebrities just keep their mouths shut? Should they act like one-dimensional people without opinions and just act (or sing, or dance, or write…)?

For the most part, people don’t really care what celebrities think, or at least people aren’t particularly influenced by what celebrities think. It might make us feel good, or vindicated, when our favorite entertainer hold the same opinion that we do. But the opposite also holds true that if an artist holds a different opinion than us, and is perhaps very zealous in promoting their opposing opinion, we may be turned off of their work and regard them differently. I can think of a couple of entertainers that I simply will not support any more because of their outspoken, less than gracious, opinions. Not to say that’s the right way to respond, but it is in fact my response. And that is my right just as it is their right to speak out.

In the end, we are all human, celebrities included. They have just as much right to an opinion as anyone else, but there was once a time in the golden days of Hollywood when the studios saw their actors as “property” and expected them to reflect the image of that studio. It was their job to act, not to promote their own social issues and woe to the celeb that stepped out of line. Even today there are certain professions were political silence is mandatory.  Things have changed in Hollywood and many actors own their own studios or produce their own films, so they can behave and speak however they choose. Those golden days are long gone in more ways than one.

I, for one, rather miss them.

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.

We’ve written about the issues of Hollywood pedophilia quite a bit around here

Now Elijah Wood has spoken up and here is the coverage we are seeing

wood

Remember Wood was the star of arguably one of the most popular film franchises of the last 20 years and the press this is getting is practically zero.

I wonder if they can interview him for a sequel to this movie

Given where our national debate is these days I suspect pretty soon he will be called a bigot for even objecting to this stuff?

If Wood was talking about the Catholic Church instead of Hollywood would there be any other story in media?

Thursday this graced the top of the Drudge Report:

oscars

As indicated by the image Al Sharpton did, well what Al Sharpton does…

Sharpton criticized the industry for having a “fraudulent image of progressive and liberal politics and policies” and compared success in Tinseltown to climbing the Rocky Mountains.

“Hollywood is like the Rocky Mountains, the higher up you get the whiter it gets. And this year’s Academy Awards will be yet another Rocky Mountain Oscars. Yet again, deserving black actors and directors were ignored by the Academy — which reinforces the fact that there are few if any blacks with real power in Hollywood,” Sharpton said in a statement.

Now I freely admit that I’ve seen none of he nominated pictures and the only one I’m hoping to see is Creed because of Stallone and the Rocky series and I don’t know if Reverend (when was he ordained a minister anyways) Sharpton did but I do have one question for the good reverend and one for those in the Black Community who agree with him.

“Which of the current nominees was unworthy of an Oscar nomination and which one would you remove to replace with a nominee of a color acceptable to you?

I think we need to know who Al Sharpton thinks wasn’t good enough.

But the 2nd question goes to the people of color in the film community:

With the complete understanding that the nomination for an oscar can generate cash and open doors and how important it is, if Reverend Sharpton got his way and forced Hollywood to make sure there was an acceptable quantity of black nominees do you really want to be considered the Token Black who only got his nomination for his race?

I ask this because if the Reverend Al gets his way that’s how people will think of you within your industry and every single person, studio who fails to get a nomination in the future will point to you in private and call you Token.

Are you willing to do this to yourself and every other black film maker who follows you just so Al Sharpton can shake down the studios?

Would you to this to your race, your children and yourself? If the answer is yes then be aware that any time you speak of “Black Pride” in the future be aware that at least two people know you’re lying.

Me and you.

Even the most disengaged person in the country knows that for all the talk of artistry Hollywood is pretty much a PR machine.

Hollywood pushes all kinds of movies:  fantasy, action, comedies, kid flicks.  There are all kinds of actors, A list stars, character actors, unknowns, You see war, peace love and lessons, CGI and live action but when it comes down to it, all the special effects, big names, and locations are about creating an image and selling that image to you.

That’s the job of Hollywood, That’s PR.

The movie industry pulls out all the stops to do this.  According to Ad week the motion picture industry as a whole spent 3.2 billion in 2012 on advertising their product from TV to the Internet and everywhere else.

Looking at a single studio in 2013 20th Century Fox (or just Fox if you prefer) released 13 movies.  Some of them are pictures were big box office successes that you likely heard of ( The Wolverine, the Croods.)  Some of them you might not have seen at the movies but know the franchises.  (A Good Day to Die Hard) some that you likely never heard of or caught on cable (the Counselor) and some you might have heard of because of the sheer volumes of ads but you gave it a miss because it looked kinda lame ( The secret life of Walter Mitty).

The movies Fox made featured stars that are household names:  Nicolas Cage, Emma Stone, Hugh Jackman, Famke Janssen, Bruce Willis, Rosie Perez, Brad Pitt, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck.  You see them on posters; you’ve watched them on the morning show, on daytime talk on late night shows pitching their pictures.  You’ve seen the ads on TV, and the trailers and posters at the movie theaters when they came out and on Cable as you browse though the on demand menus.

In 2013 Fox spent $303,000,000 to promote those 13 movies.  While some of that money filled seats and some did not, it’s almost a given that even if you didn’t go to see those pictures if I rattled off their names you would have likely heard of them and even if you didn’t remember much about the movies you would know the stars.

Bottom line all that Hollywood PR money made its mark in your memory.

 

And that oddly enough brings us to the EPA and a report put out by a group called Open the Books.  As indicated by the name, they are all about transparency in government spending.

Their latest report details spending by the EPA from 2000 to 2014 and there are a lot of things in that report that really jump out at you.

Since 2000 they have given out double in grants than the entire Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has in total assets. (p1)

Their 2015 budget this year is higher than the budgets of 8 states (p1)

A full 1/3 of EPA employees (over 10,000) position make over $100 a year.  (p31)

But what really jumped out at me was the spending on PR:

198 ‘Public Affairs’ employees (FY2012) were employed by EPA. Since 2007, EPA spent over $141,495,571 in salaries and another $1.5 million in performance bonuses. The EPA also spent $15,093,088 with outside public relations consultants to further buttress PR. ‘Public Affairs’ ranked 16th most paid salary title at EPA since FY2007.

  

So between outside PR firms and internal “public affairs” employees that comes to over $150 million dollars over 8 years on PR.

To put that in perspective that’s more than the production budgets of the 2013 Fox releases , Runner Runner, A Good day to die hard and The counselor combined. Those three pictures featured Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck, Bruce Willis, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Rosie Perez and Brad Pitt.

So given those facts three things immediately leap to mind.

How can the EPA spend 19.7 million a year on PR without, you know, actually promoting anything?

When Hollywood promotes a movie you see the posters everywhere, you see the stars on TV, you hear them on radio, you are bombarded with information to the point where even if you want to forget about a movie or a star, you can’t.  It pops into your head.

I defy anyone to come up with anything the EPA has promoted that you have heard of?  The only thing you have likely heard at all concerning the EPA concerning that nasty mine spill that turned a river orange.  That’s something  the EPA is doing their best to make you forget.

If the EPA is spending millions promoting something they’re doing don’t you think someone in the country might have heard of it?

If we aren’t the target of that 19.7 million a year pr WHO IS?

Ok if the EPA is spending 19.7 million a year to PR people and they aren’t trying to advertise or promote the EPA to the public and the taxpayer who are they spinning?

You’re talking a group of employees with an average wage of $90K that’s not chicken feed, you are spending the more than hit movies cost.  We know a movie maker is trying to sell their product to the viewing public, exactly who is the EPA spending all this money trying to sell?  Who is the target and what is their goal?

I mean Jem and the Holograms crashed and burned but at least people have heard of it?  What has the EPA done lately other than pollute rivers that we know about?

What is the EPA doing spending millions on PR people anyway?

 Have we run out of sites that need cleaning or inspecting?  Is the air and water so clean , the species so safe and our country so unpolluted that we have the extra to blow on this kind of thing?

I think those are excellent questions, I think it would be really interesting to get the answers.

Don’t you?