Sony caves to North Korea: ‘The Interview’ capitulation clowns give Kim Jong-un free speech veto 19

Seth Rogen James Franco The InterviewThe Founding Fathers knew that the right to free speech was important, which is why it is covered in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights. Today, Dec. 17, 2014, is the day that U.S. capitulation clowns at Sony gave a dictator veto power over the free speech rights of its American artists and sent a message to thug regimes that if they have enough tech savvy, then they can make studio executives cower in fear.

Here is what the First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — Amendment I, U.S. Constitution.

Sony isn’t rolling over for the U.S. government, but instead doing something even worse — it’s censoring itself to appease a Communist thug regime that runs gulags.

Here is Sony’s statement regarding its decision to pull “The Interview” from theaters. It also has no plans to release the film in any formincluding VOD or DVD.

“We are deeply saddened at this brazen effort to suppress the distribution of a movie, and in the process do damage to our company, our employees, and the American public. We stand by our filmmakers and their right to free expression and are extremely disappointed by this outcome.”

Cowards. American blood was shed to guarantee that our rights to free speech, press, petition, assembly, and religion could be upheld, but in the face of threats by anonymous hackers on the other side of the globe, Sony crumbled. And before Sony made an utter embarrassment out of itself, the five major movie theater circuits did the same thing: Regal Entertainment, AMC Entertainment, Carmike Cinemas, Cinemark and Cineplex Entertainment.

Imagine you’re Vladimir Putin. Imagine you’re Iran’s Ali Khamenei. Imagine you’re Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro or China’s Xi Jinping. Is it more or less likely that you would be willing to use hackers to impose your will upon American companies and stifle dissent?

Imagine you’re a writer for a major motion studio. Would you craft any screenplays in the near future that challenge the world’s worst dictators and despots? The message Sony has sent to the world by pulling “The Interview” is downright chilling and its executives should be reminded of it for years to come.

Anyone who cares about free speech should be downright terrified that companies operating in the U.S. would run for the hills the moment a nebulous hacking group threatens Americans with violence. The fact that it was even under consideration to torpedo the film is an indicator that America’s cultural rotgut has grown to gargantuan proportions. We have been hollowed out from the inside, and Sony’s reaction to being hacked by the “Guardians of Peace” has exposed that sad reality for everyone to see.

Sony does not “stand by” its filmmakers. In fact, it is doing the exact opposite. It stabbed Seth Rogen and James Franco in the back, and it sucker punched millions of Americans who realize just how dangerous it is to appease dictatorial regimes.

Calling someone “un-American” should be done only on rare occasions due to the seriousness of the charge. However, I firmly believe that any American employee of Sony who backs the decision to kill “The Interview’s” theatrical release is taking part in something that is wholly and unequivocally un-American.

Related: Seth Rogen rightly called out Sony’s capitulation to North Korean thugs prior to hacking

Jeb Bush enters 2016 race, pretends as if another Bush is the best a nation of 300 million could do 22

Jeb BushJeb Bush is apparently running for president. In a nation of roughly 300 million people, he thinks that what America needs to right itself is … another Bush. If you peruse the internet for a bit, then you shouldn’t have too hard of a time finding partisan hacks who cheer on Mr. Bush while simultaneously skewering the rationale for Hillary Clinton’s upcoming presidential campaign.

Mr. Bush wrote on Facebook Dec. 16:

Columba and I are so proud of the wonderful adults our children have become, and we loved spending time with our three precious grandchildren.

We shared good food and watched a whole lot of football.

We also talked about the future of our nation. As a result of these conversations and thoughtful consideration of the kind of strong leadership I think America needs, I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States.

In January, I also plan to establish a Leadership PAC that will help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation. The PAC’s purpose will be to support leaders, ideas and policies that will expand opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.

I’m sure Mr. Bush is a nice man. My guess is that he’s a good husband and a strong father. However, if he were to win the Republican nomination, then I would have no choice but to stay home on Election Day. The pseudo-desire for a hereditary monarchy by Bush and Clinton supporters is bizarre and, quite frankly, culturally unctuous. Mr. Bush has every right to run for president, but should he? Could there be any clearer message to the world that America is out of ideas than running Hillary Clinton against Jeb Bush in 2016? It’s depressing, and I can not support it.

To make matters worse, it seems as though Mr. Bush wants to find a way to win that doesn’t involve exciting principled conservatives. Like John McCain, he seems to hold his nose at the thought of having to talk with the conservatives he needs to carry him over the finish line. When asked to vote for a Democrat or the guy who is a like the diet, sugar-free version of a Democrat, Independent voters are almost always going to break towards the real deal.

If Americans want to send a message to the world that our best days are still ahead us, then they can do so by telling Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush to go home.

Dyed armpits: Absent real oppression, Amercian feminists create new dragons to slay 5

Dyed ArmpitThe Islamic State group is now passing out pamphlets in Iraq for the “rules” its members are to employ when taking on sex slaves. Women are being “gifted” and young girls are completely unaware that barbaric monsters are figuring out ways to use the Koran to justify rape. Meanwhile, in the United States, American feminists have propelled dyed armpits into a “movement” worthy of write-ups in The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. Absent any real dragons to slay, modern American feminists will create them. Today’s dragon: Armpit oppression. It’s not quite as glorious as the women who are trying not to have their heads chopped off in the Middle East, but it will do.

The Washington Post reported Friday:

There is a new trend sprouting across the country. More specifically, there is a new trend sprouting in women’s armpits across the country, according to the New York Post and others.

Some women, you may have noticed, are growing out their armpit hair — and then dyeing it. …

In her “Free Your Pits Manifesto,” which you can read here, [Roxi] Hunt writes:

“Whether you shave or not, women should be allowed to make decisions about their bodies without judgement from others. And, women making these decisions about their bodies should not be something exploited by the media. What we need is encouragement, not judgment.”

Therein lies the rub. It’s not just about being an individual — it’s about telling others that they don’t have the right to pass any form of judgment on the decisions a woman makes about her body, even if she flaunts those decisions in public with red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet dye jobs that scream, “Look at me!”

Destiny M, who was covered in The Post’s piece, demonstrates quite nicely in a new YouTube video why the “Free Your Pits Manifesto” is inherently flawed:

“A lot of people were like, ‘That’s a cry for attention.’ Maybe it is! I don’t care. For me I know it’s not, but for other people it can be. There’s nothing wrong with that. Most things we do are for attention, so why hate it? And then growing out your body hair is empowering and I recommend it to everyone.”

If a woman wants to make a spectacle of herself, then the rest of us are under no obligation to offer “encouragement, not judgment.”

Ironically, Ms. Hunt’s own statement, “Women should be allowed to make decisions about their bodies without judgement from others,” passes a form of moral judgment. The modern American feminist wants to judge, but not be judged. She wants us to encourage her self-exploration — no matter what that entails — but does not want to encourage those who disagree with her worldview.

In some sense, Americans should view the “dyed armpits” campaign as a good thing: the women’s rights movement has become the women’s encouragement movement. While women in the Middle East are fighting for their right to life, women in America are whining about their preference for approval. The battle for basic human rights is one that is always worth fighting for — and can be won. The fight to be free from judgment for any behavior one deems to be an expression of his or her “true” self is wrongheaded, and should face stiff resistance.

Tattoo your face. Dye your armpit hair. Stick bones through your nose and stretch your earlobes to strange dimensions. Have a ball. It’s your choice, but the rest of society is under no obligation to cheer you on.

Dan Slott’s Spider-Gump: Peter Parker is like a box of chocolates — you never know what you’re going to get 61

Amazing SpiderMan 11Spider-Verse Part 3 has arrived, and the showdown everyone has been waiting for has finally happened: Peter Parker vs. Doctor Octopus (aka: The Superior Spider-Man). With Olivier Copiel vivifying Dan Slott’s words, Amazing Spider-Man #11 is injected with energy and vibrancy it otherwise doesn’t quite deserve. The reason being is because its writer seems to have drawn inspiration for his version of Peter Parker by watching Forrest Gump on repeat in his bedroom. Dan Slott’s Peter Parker is like a box of chocolates — you never know what you’re going to get.

After 10 issues of Peter fumbling and bumbling around as a sideshow character in his own book, a switch has seemingly been flipped and he suddenly takes charge. It’s jarring, and the result is a sort of cognitive dissonance for readers who haven’t been happy with the status quo for some time. If you’re like me, then you’re left scratching your head at the inconsistency. If you’re like Andrew Roebuck from Spider-Man Crawlspace, then you have a more curious take.

Mr. Roebuck says of Spider-Verse Part 3:

“It seems to me that we finally have a reason for Slott writing our Peter Parker so incompetently these last few months. He needed it to feel important for him to step into his big boy pants and take charge of the situation. We needed to see Peter at his worst to appreciate him when he is finally back doing the things that we all knew the character capable of.”

If one were to hold tight to this premise, then he or she would have to believe Dan Slott wanted Peter Parker fans to drop roughly $50 over the past year on a lackluster to embarrassing version of their favorite character for the so-called payoff of issue #11. That is certainly one way to deal with the cognitive dissonance the book has generated, but one I don’t think will be of much comfort to the vast majority of Peter Parker fans.

What is more likely: that Dan Slott views Peter Parker as a kind of Andy Dufresne from The Shawshank Redemption, who he had to drag through a mile of human waste to attain glory, or that he’s writing a character that he doesn’t quite know how to handle?

Perhaps the most bizarre moment of Peter’s momentary return to form is his assertion: “Ock can’t imagine a world where he loses. One where I come back, reclaim that body, and win!”

Given that there are plenty of instances in Spider-Man history where Peter Parker handily defeats Otto, it seems a bit odd to say that the villain can’t imagine a world where he loses. He’s lost. Multiple times. Regardless, any one who read The Superior Spider-Man knows that Peter didn’t come back and “win” per se — Otto basically stepped aside.

All of this again raises the question: What happened to Peter? Was he dead? If so, then where was his soul? Did Otto just take control of Peter’s mind for a year, which would mean that Peter was the one doing all sorts of dastardly deeds while brainwashed? Is there a “downloaded” Otto somewhere in the recesses of Peter’s brain just waiting to get out? There never was any clear answer, which may be why Peter hasn’t really grappled with the enormity of the situation. The personalities of individuals who survive near-death experiences often undergo profound changes. The Superficial Spider-Man just swings around and occasionally mentions that he maybe-sorta-kinda-died.

SSM Otto Anna Peter ParkerThe one diamond in the rough from The Amazing Spider-Man #11 comes when Peter and “Spider-Gwen” share a moment that could lead to some interesting stories down the road. As much as it pains me to say it, the smart move by Marvel would be to use each character’s shared experience as a spring board for a more serious relationship between the two of them. This particular Gwen knows exactly what Peter went through when he lost his first true love. Instead of having Peter Parker engage in stupid make-out sessions with Dan Slott’s creation Silk, it would be worth Marvel’s time to kick start something more serious between Peter and Gwen. Doing so would also open the possibility of a love triangle between Peter, the new Gwen, and Mary Jane. The Superficial Spider-Man could become The Substantive Spider-Man once again.

Amazing SpiderMan 11 SpiderGwenIn short, Spider-Verse Part 3 was one of the few issues of The Amazing Spider-Man since its relaunch that was actually worth the $4.00 cover price. Unfortunately, Dan Slott’s Spider-Gump is still like a box of chocolates — you never know what you’re going to get.

Update:

Shortly after this blog post went live, Dan Slott blocked me on Twitter. This is my second time with such an honor. I'm assuming the first time he unblocked me so he could once again see my Twitter feed. I promise I'll continue blogging on The Amazing Spider-Man, Dan Slott. I know you'll keep reading.

Shortly after this blog post went live, Dan Slott blocked me on Twitter (even though I never followed him to begin with). This is my second time with such an honor. I’m assuming the first time he unblocked me so he could once again see my Twitter feed. I promise I’ll continue blogging on The Amazing Spider-Man, Dan Slott. I know you’ll keep reading.

Update II:

I have also been blocked by Tom Brevoort. Marvel's reaction to intelligent criticism it can't shoot down with petty name-calling is to do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears while screaming, "I can't hear you!"

I have also been blocked by Tom Brevoort. Marvel’s reaction to intelligent criticism it can’t shoot down with petty name-calling is to do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears while screaming, “I can’t hear you!”

Seth Rogen rightly called out Sony’s capitulation to North Korean thugs prior to hacking 8

Seth Rogen James Franco The InterviewIt’s not very often that I find myself in agreement with Seth Rogen, but leaked Sony emails reveal that even a comedian who often spews leftist talking points understands the importance of free speech — when his own is threatened.

As Seth Rogen’s and James Franco’s “The Interview” was filming, Sony CEO Kazuo Hirai took issue with a scene that depicts the death of North Korea’s gulag overseer, Kim Jong-un. He stepped in to make sure that the feelings of a dictator weren’t hurt too much. Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, then had to figure out a way to deliver the news to writer and co-director Mr. Rogen.

Reuters reported Dec. 10:

In an exchange with Rogen, Pascal said she was in a difficult position because Hirai had asked her to make changes in the film.

“And this isn’t some flunky. It’s the chairman of the entire Sony Corporation who I am dealing (with),” she said.

Rogen responded by promising to remove three of four burn marks on Kim’s face, and reduce the “flaming hair” by 50 percent. But he said he could not meet all the demands. …

Rogen initially told Pascal he objected to requests to modify the death scene, which he said would be viewed as censorship and hurt sales.

“This is now a story of Americans changing their movie to make North Koreans happy,” he said in an Aug. 15 email. “That is a very damning story.”

In the end, enough edits were apparently made to satisfy Mr. Hirai, but at what cost?

This blog has covered Hollywood’s willingness to appease Chinese censorship boards if it will bring in a few million dollars more, and now it’s confirmed that similar measures were made out of the fear of what a North Korean dictator might do when he is openly mocked.

There is no doubt that Sony will lose millions of dollars as a result of its recent hacking. There is also no doubt that it is also quite embarrassing when wealthy Jewish liberals are exposed saying things about the first black president that would get a conservative kicked out of the industry in a second.

Buzzfeed reported Dec. 10:

In what has become the latest embarrassing email uncovered in a trove of messages leaked by hackers who attacked Sony, Pascal wrote Rudin: “What should I ask the president at this stupid Jeffrey breakfast?” She was referring to a breakfast hosted by DreamWorks Animation head and major Democratic donor Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Rudin, a top film producer responsible for films like No Country for Old Men and Moneyball, responded, “Would he like to finance some movies.” Pascal replied, “I doubt it. Should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?” Rudin responded: “12 YEARS.” Pascal quickly continued down the path of guessing Obama preferred movies by or starring African Americans. “Or the butler. Or think like a man? [sic]”

Rudin’s response: “Ride-along. I bet he likes Kevin Hart.”

Hopefully, future liberal Hollywood power players will understand that free speech is much more important than their reputations. Yes, there is a risk when taking on powerful regimes that it will result in your personal emails being shared with the world — your very racial, very liberal emails — but that is a risk worth taking.

Seth Rogen is a liberal guy, but it’s refreshing to see that even he understands how bizarre it is to curb creative endeavors because ruthless dictators might throw digital temper tantrums. When Hollywood censors itself because anyone with some top-notch hackers behind them might retaliate, then it is a sad day for freedom of speech.

Eric Garner protesters miss the point: More government equals more force 14

Police Chokehold DeathSince a grand jury’s decision not to indict New York City Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo for his role in the death of Eric Garner, protests across the country have popped up. Racial complaints have taken center stage at these gatherings, but I have yet to see any protesters call attention to the role an ever-expansive government played in Mr. Garner’s death. Government equals force, which is why policemen were sent to bring an American into compliance with laws on selling loose, untaxed cigarettes.

Oddly enough, there are protesters in New York City who have turned the problem on its head — they’re holding “capitalism” accountable for Mr. Garner’s death instead of the politicians who want limited resources to go after the guy on the corner selling loose cigarettes.

USA Today reported December 6:

NEW YORK — Protesters staged a “die in” Friday night in an Apple store on Fifth Avenue and in Macy’s at Herald Square. …

Zandir Santos, 30, of Brooklyn, relished in the idea that protesters had disrupted life at an Apple store and a Macy’s in New York. The filmmaker said this is a pivotal time in American history and that police must change how they treat people.

“The CEO of Apple knows we shut his store down–that means capitalist America is going to take us seriously,” he said. “We are going to shake up your business and we want to hit you where it hurts.”

This blog covered Rosa DeLauro’s (D-Conn.) desire to tax Americans for every ounce of sugar they consume. This blog also covered New York City’s interest in banning e-cigarettes. The list goes on and on, but the point is always the same: when you vote for more government then you get more government, which includes the power to send cops to your door if you sell loose cigarettes, sell e-cigarettes, consume too much sugar, etc.

How many of the people protesting “capitalism” voted for the New York City politicians who crafted the laws that prompted NYPD to show up at Eric Garner’s footsteps? It’s a morbid question, but one worth considering: Did Eric Garner vote for the very same people whose rules and regulations played a part in his demise?

President Obama said Monday that the protests Americans are seeing now are “necessary” (provided they are peaceful), but he too only focuses on race — there have been thousands of federal regulations put in place under the Obama administration, and with that comes the power to enforce the government’s will.

The Hill reported May 15, 2013:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Race is certainly an issue in Eric Garner’s death, but not in the way the media is portraying it. The National Journal reported November 9, 2012:

“93% of African-Americans voted for Obama, down 2 percentage points from 2008, although 96 percent of black women supported him.”

Translation: 93% of African-Americans voted for a guy who craves power to be consolidated into the hands of small elite in the nation’s capital, although 96 percent of black women supported him.

The conservative man and woman — white, black, brown, blue, or orange — just wants to be left alone. One way to make that happen is not to vote for power-hungry politicians who write endless lists of legislation that may require law enforcement officials to knock on your door in the middle of the night.

Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham liberalism: Feelings are truth until enough shame changes my mind 9

Lena Dunham APIt’s no secret that individuals who identify as liberals tend to put quite a bit of stock in feelings and emotions. A liberal’s stated intentions have a higher value than the consequences of the policies he supports. However, recent revelations surrounding Rolling Stone’s UVA rape story, Lena Dunham’s rape allegations, and the “Hands up, don’t shoot!” protesters indicate that modern liberals have elevated their feelings to a whole new level: truth” is whatever it is a liberal man or woman is feeling at any specific moment. If it feels true, then it must be true — at least until the shouts of enough people blow the delusional fog of self-righteousness from their eyes and they are forced to acknowledge the lies.

First up we have Rolling Stone’s ‘A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA,’ which turned the lives upside down for an entire campus, a slew of innocent men, and their families. “Rape culture” feels so true that it must be true — so why bother interviewing men accused of gang-rape, right Rolling Stone?

Sabrina Rubin Erdely wrote “Jackie’s” story Nov. 19:

“Shut up,” she heard a man’s voice say as a body barreled into her, tripping her backward and sending them both crashing through a low glass table. There was a heavy person on top of her, spreading open her thighs, and another person kneeling on her hair, hands pinning down her arms, sharp shards digging into her back, and excited male voices rising all around her. When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face. The men surrounding her began to laugh. For a hopeful moment Jackie wondered if this wasn’t some collegiate prank. Perhaps at any second someone would flick on the lights and they’d return to the party.

“Grab its motherfucking leg,” she heard a voice say. And that’s when Jackie knew she was going to be raped.

She remembers every moment of the next three hours of agony, during which, she says, seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement.

What a horrible experience. Unfortunately, the story is bogus. The reason Rolling Stone didn’t know earlier: feelings.

Rolling Stone’s Will Dana wrote in his “Ooops, did I do that?” apology:

“Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her.”

As The Washington Post pointed out, there wasn’t even an event at the fraternity on the night “Jackie” told Rolling Stone she was gang-raped. But hey, the “larger truth” of “rape culture” needs to be addressed. What’s the big deal? That, of course, brings us to Lena Dunham.

Ms. Dunham wrote in her memoir, “Not That Kind of Girl,” that she was raped by a college Republican named “Barry” when she attended Oberlin College. Breitbart News actually went to the campus to investigate, and found out that her description of the campus “remains the only detail Breitbart News was able to verify.” When Ms. Dunham’s story started to fall apart, Oberlin’s radio station historian suddenly began to sound like she would fit right in with the editors at Rolling Stone.

Sophie Hess: “People here are less interested in justice for this kind of crime and more interested in helping the victim. I’m not psyched to help you do this.”

John Nolte: “You can look at everything I’ve thus far written about this. We just want to know the truth.”

Sophie Hess: “Asking whether or not a victim is telling the truth is irrelevant,” Ms. Hess proclaimed. “It’s just not important if they are telling the truth. If this person had wanted criminal justice they would have pursued it.”

John Nolte: “I’m not just talking about criminal justice,” I responded. “The details in the book point to a specific individual.”

Sophie Hess: “Who graduated years ago.”

John Nolte: “This man is easily found using Google and says he’s innocent. Right now everyone is looking at him and he’s just twisting out there.”

Sophie Hess: “Our archives are private. We have no obligation to share them with anyone. I don’t want our organization to be a part of this. I’m the general manager and the answer is no.”

Again: the truth is “just not that important” if someone feels like a victim. In Ms. Dunham’s book, she says she took alcohol and drugs on the night she was allegedly raped. What is more likely, given Breitbart’s investigation — that Ms. Dunham was raped, or that she’s found a way to turn a drug-fueled experience she regrets into a public service announcement on “rape culture”?

I may feel really gross and dirty for what I did while high on cocaine with some random guy, but at least now I can turn it into a positive experience while damaging Republicans (score!) and dealing a blow to rape culture.

The same mentality also applies to those who feel like racism can only be defeated with lies.

Consider The Associated Press’ coverage on the “Hands up, don’t shoot!” protests that are based on a lie (debunked by forensic evidence and multiple [black] eye-witnesses):

To some, it doesn’t matter whether Brown’s hands literally were raised, because his death has come to symbolize a much bigger movement.

“He wasn’t shot because of the placement of his hands; he was shot because he was a big, black, scary man,” said James Cox, 28, a food server who protested this week in Oakland, California.

The truth “doesn’t matter” because a lie that can sway public opinion in support of a “bigger movement” is — in the minds of many modern liberals — better than a reality that doesn’t move large masses into action for a progressive cause. Sad.

When an ideology becomes so warped that the lies become the truth, that is how you get a.) men like Jonathan Gruber wielding enormous influence in the nation’s capitol, and b.) elected officials like Nancy Pelosi saying she doesn’t know who he is — despite video evidence to the contrary.

We live in interesting times: the truth seems treasonous, the biggest liars are given the bully pulpit, and hard-working Americans are told to sit silently while they’re blamed for the bad behavior of total strangers.

As I’ve said before: It’s been fun, Western Civilization! It’s a shame it had to end this way, but it was grand while it lasted.

Chris Rock: I’m such a race-obsessed clown that even my kids think I’m ‘crazy’ 15

Chris Rock APMultimillionaire Chris Rock is an angry man. One would think that living out the American Dream would temper some of his rage, but that is not the case. Americans are apparently too darn bigoted, race-relations aren’t much better than they were in 1861, and college campuses are too “conservative” for him to be happy. But is that all accurate, or did Chris Rock take the blue pill from The Matrix, wake up in his room, and decide that he wanted to go through life seeing everything through race-goggles?

Matrix Red Pill Blue PillMorpheus says to Neo in The Matrix:

You are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage — born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever it is you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonder Land, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole really goes.

Chris Rock was not born into bondage, but he most-certainly wears mind-forged manacles. The ideological chains are fitted so tightly around his brain that in his Vulture interview with Frank Rich he says he no longer likes to bring material to college campuses because they’re too “conservative”:

Frank Rich: What do you make of the attempt to bar Bill Maher from speaking at Berkeley for his riff on Muslims?

Chris Rock: Well, I love Bill, but I stopped playing colleges, and the reason is because they’re way too conservative.

Frank Rich: In their political views?

Chris Rock: Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of “We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.” Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say “the black kid over there.” No, it’s “the guy with the red shoes.” You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.

If Chris Rock didn’t have such ideological blinders on, then he would be able to understand that it is the very same liberalism he subscribes to that produces liberal college campus “free speech zones,” “speech codes,” and perpetually-offended students who have to point to the “guy with the red shoes” instead of “the black guy over there.” The people who don’t want to keep score because “we don’t want anyone to lose” are Chris Rock’s political allies — liberals.

What is most amazing is that Chris Rock laments how sensitive everyone is about what they say and do while he simultaneously asserts that white people should be held accountable for the sins of their fathers.

Chris Rock: To say Obama is progress is saying that he’s the first black person that is qualified to be president. That’s not black progress. That’s white progress. There’s been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years. If you saw Tina Turner and Ike having a lovely breakfast over there, would you say their relationship’s improved? Some people would. But a smart person would go, “Oh, he stopped punching her in the face.” It’s not up to her. Ike and Tina Turner’s relationship has nothing to do with Tina Turner. Nothing. It just doesn’t. The question is, you know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children. There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let’s hope America keeps producing nicer white people.

Frank Rich: It’s about white people adjusting to a new reality?

Chris Rock: Owning their actions. Not even their actions. The actions of your dad. Yeah, it’s unfair that you can get judged by something you didn’t do, but it’s also unfair that you can inherit money that you didn’t work for.

Chris Rock views all white people as suspiciously-docile Ike Turners, who should be judged (unfairly) for the actions of their fathers. Couple that with CNN’s John Blake, who believes white people are all subconsciously racist, and you have a very interesting scenario unfold: White people should be judged for the the actions of their ancestors — actions which sprang into existence on many levels due to subconscious thoughts beyond their control.

As I said before on this blog, years ago my college professors said I was “subconsciously” racist. I asked them what I could do about my so-called “subconscious” racism, and they said “nothing.” It was an incredibly telling moment. The liberalism of Chris Rock and liberal college professors all across the country can only produce hopelessness, anger, resentment and division. It creates negative feedback loops and a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.

If everyone you meet is “subconsciously” racist, then it becomes impossible to really ever trust anyone. If the guy you meet at work is automatically seen as an metaphorical Ike Turner because his great, great, great, great grandfather owned slaves, then true friendship and understanding can never really blossom.

Chris Rock wants to see America as an overwhelmingly racist nation, and so his mind feverishly finds evidence to confirm those beliefs for him. It’s an incredibly depressing way to go through life, which may be why guys like me — who used to think he was funny — just feel sorry for him.

Chris Rock’s kids, however, just look at him like he’s “crazy”:

Frank Rich: Your own kids are all girls, right?

Chris Rock: All girls. I mean, I almost cry every day. I drop my kids off and watch them in the school with all these mostly white kids, and I got to tell you, I drill them every day: Did anything happen today? Did anybody say anything? They look at me like I am crazy.

They look at you like you’re crazy because you are acting crazy, Mr. Rock. Seek help. When you stop obsessing on race, you’ll realize that the vast majority of Americans honestly do not care if you are black, white, purple, green, blue, or chartreuse. They just want to know that you’re an honest, hard-working, and reliable person with a can-do attitude.

Join us in 2014, Mr. Rock. When you do, then perhaps you’ll actually be funny again.

Related: On Independence Day, Chris Rock celebrates his ignorance

Did ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ draw inspiration from Operation Focus during the Six-Day War? 20

Star Wars Force Awakens XWingThe new teaser trailer for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is out, and it looks pretty darn amazing. It’s got a little something old, a little something new, and George Lucas has been replaced by J.J. Abrams. Score. However, the history nerd in me has his interest piqued because of the squadron of X-Wing fighters seemingly headed into battle about 100 feet above a large body of water. Did Mr. Abrams draw inspiration from Israel’s Six-Day War — Operation Focus in particular? If so, then I’m more excited to see the film.

If you’re not familiar with what the Israeli air force did during the Six-Day War in 1967, then look it up. In short, Israel’s air force pulled off a daring operation in which they flew over the Mediterranean — so low that they would not be picked up by Egyptian radar — and then destroyed the entire Egyptian air force.

If J.J. Abrams needed the Rebel Alliance to pull off an inspiring win, then drawing from Operation Focus was a brilliant move. If it turns out to have absolutely nothing to do with the movie, then I guess we’re just left with really cool images of X-Wing Fighters flying over water. It’s a win-win situation.

Star Wars Force AwakensLet me know what you thought of the trailer below, and make sure to include your thoughts on the new lightsaber as well. I think the crossguard looks cool, but I’m not sure if it would work in battle. Since I’m not a Sith Lord, I’ll withhold judgment until December, 2015.

Ferguson grand jury details emerge, egg piles up on the faces of its critics 3

Darren Wilson ABC InterviewIn the moments after the Ferguson grand jury decision, social media sites exploded with “disgusted” critics — even though they were not privy to the information seen inside the courtroom. As details emerge, those critics increasingly have egg all over their faces.

After exposing Michael Brown’s friend Dorian Johnson as a liar — forensic evidence refuted his claim that Mr. Brown was shot in the back — The Associated Press reported Wednesday:

One woman, who said she was smoking a cigarette with a friend nearby, claimed she saw a second police officer in the passenger seat of Wilson’s vehicle. When quizzed by a prosecutor, she elaborated: The officer was white, “middle age or young” and in uniform. She said she was positive there was a second officer — even though there was not.

Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then “stood over him and finished him off.” But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was “based on me being where I’m from, and that can be the only assumption that I have.” …

Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown’s, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown “on his knees with his hands in the air.” He added: “I seen him shoot him in the head.”

But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

“What you are saying you saw isn’t forensically possible based on the evidence,” the investigator told the friend.

Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.

“I ain’t feeling comfortable,” he said.

Imagine you’re on a grand jury, and you’re presented with “witnesses” who saw phantom cops in the passenger seat of Darren Wilson’s squad car and men who say they “ain’t feeling comfortable” when their tales of execution-style murder are destroyed by forensic evidence. During this time you’re also presented with a small group of witnesses who confirm the officer’s account of what happened. They do not see ghost cops and their stories stand up to scrutiny.

Now imagine that you see and hear Darren Wilson professionally speak in his own defense for four hours — when he doesn’t need to do so and the choice could seal his doom — and everything he says is backed by the forensic evidence, including analysis provided by an independent expert hired by Michael Brown’s family.

What would you do? If you were a member of the grand jury acting in a professional manner, then there’s a good chance you would not indict the officer. That is not a “disgusting” decision; it is, in fact, perfectly reasonable.

The behavior of online mobs ruled solely by emotion would be laughable if it wasn’t for the fact that an entire community has been ripped and burned, in part, by the ramifications of their rhetoric. Lives have been irreparably harmed by individuals seeking to politically and monetarily exploit others along racial lines, and those who are blinded by ideology can’t see how they are aiding and abetting Machiavellian mouthpieces across the nation.

The good thing about the grand jury’s decision is that it gave officer Wilson a chance to finally tell his side of the story to the public. If you haven’t had a chance to watch his 45-minute interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, then you should do so. The policeman handled himself very well.

Here is an excerpt of the kind of questions he had to put up with:

Stephanopoulos: And in your training there was no option in those moments when you were faced with Michael Brown but to shoot?

Darren Wilson: Correct.

Stephanopoulos: What about, and I don’t know enough about the training, what about when he’s coming towards you? Why not run behind the car?

Darren Wilson: Run away? How do you run…

Stephanopoulos: You just don’t do that.

Darren Wilson: You can’t run away. That’s not what we’re there for. If we ran away every time something scared us, every time we heard a noise in the night, we wouldn’t be very good at our job. We’re taught and trained to deal with the threat at hand, and that’s what I did.

In the mind of George Stephanopoulos, cops should run away and hide behind their squad cars when a 6’4″, 292-pound robbery suspect charges them.

George Stephanopoulos Darren Wilson

“What about when he’s coming towards you? Why not run behind the car?” Imagine a world where cops are trained by George Stephanopoulos. Would you feel safe?

The story of Michael Brown is a sad one, but it most certainly does not involve a cop with racial animus towards black teenagers. To suggest that Darren Wilson was looking for an excuse to use his gun — the one he had never fired until that day — on a black teenager is preposterous. Likewise, the implication that the Ferguson grand jury did not take their job seriously and come to the conclusion they did based on hard evidence is ridiculous.

Related: Text of Darren Wilson’s testimony before the Ferguson grand jury