FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images

Racism, Hypocrisy From Hollywood Movie Stars Over Georgia Voting Law

Well of course liberal Hollywood elites would do this. Here’s the headline from the Hollywood trade paper Variety:

Hollywood Stars, Entertainment Companies Sign Open Letter Condemning Georgia Voting Restrictions

Among the stars listed as signing, says Variety, are:

“The hundreds of signatories included the likes of Netflix, Amazon, ViacomCBS, Starbucks, Facebook and UTA, as well as celebrities such as Rooney Mara, George Clooney, Mark Ruffalo, Larry David, Josh Gad, Lee Daniels, George Lucas, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Leonardo Dicaprio, Demi Lovato, Shonda Rhimes, Samuel L. Jackson, Orlando Bloom and Naomi Campbell. Business titans such as Michael Bloomberg, Scooter Braun, J.J. Abrams, David Geffen and Warren Buffett also signed the note.”

One has to ask: Have they even read the law?

Over there at Real Clear Politics a number of leaders in the black community had another view altogether.  The headline:

Why We Black Leaders Support Voter ID Laws

The column said, in part, this, bold print for emphasis supplied:

“America is a country of over 300 million people. We are comprised of every shape, size, nationality, and opinion. This diversity has proven to be one of our greatest strengths.

However, if you listened to largely white liberal media personalities and elite CEOs, you wouldn’t know this. According to liberal orthodoxy, all Blacks think alike, and all Blacks support Black Lives Matter, and all Blacks oppose the recently enacted Georgia Election Integrity Act.

…These elites are totally oblivious to the real Black leaders, such as civil rights legend Robert Woodson and Richard Finley; younger leaders like Wall Street wizard John Burnett; National Black Chamber of Commerce founders Harry and Kay Alford; Michael Murphy, political operative extraordinaire from Georgia; business and football legend Herschel Walker; Texas state Rep. James White; 21-year-old West Virginia state Rep. Caleb Hanna; former Florida Lt. Gov. Jennifer S. Carroll;  former ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission Ken Blackwell; and U.S. Congressmen Byron Donalds and Burgess Owens, to name a few.

What do all these people have in common? They are all Republican, therefore white liberal elites don’t deem them to be Black because they come from a conservative perspective.

To add insult to this patronizing injury, the very same liberal elites who blast voter ID laws that most Blacks support run corporations that practice similar ID policies. If every other ethnicity is required to show an ID to vote, why is the Black race considered incapable of doing so.

This notion is absolutely insulting.

You can’t board a plane without an ID. You can’t pick up a package from a UPS distribution center without an ID. You can’t buy alcohol without an ID. And you definitely can’t visit President Biden in the White House without an ID. Is that racist? Of course it isn’t.”

Got that? These liberal Hollywood elites are attacking ID to vote in Georgia – in spite of the fact that black leaders aplenty in and out of Georgia do in fact support the law. (As noted in this space right here with Georgia black clergy standing up for the law.)

As a matter of fact, when it comes to ID in Hollywood? Take a look at just one major Hollywood studio – Warner Brothers. The studio runs tours. And if you are visiting Hollywood and want to take the Warner studio tour you will learn this from the studio web site:

“A form of legal photo identification is required to be shown during check-in.”

It doesn’t get more hypocritical than that.

But hey, this is Hollywood.

Tucker Carlson
Tucker Carlson

The ADL Attack On Tucker Carlson

The other night Fox’s Tucker Carlson was placed in the dock by the Anti-Defamation League for saying this to fellow Fox host Mark Steyn. (Bold print supplied for emphasis.)

“I’m laughing because this is one of about 10 stories that I know you have covered where the government shows preference to people who have shown absolute contempt for our customs, our laws, our system itself and they are being treated better than American citizens. Now, I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term “replacement,” if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World. But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually. Let’s just say it: That’s true.

…If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there. So every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter. So I don’t understand what we don’t understand cause, I mean, everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it. Oh, you know, the white replacement theory? No, no, no. This is a voting right question. I have less political power because they are importing a brand new electorate. Why should I sit back and take that? The power that I have as an American guaranteed at birth is one man, one vote, and they are diluting it. No, they are not allowed to do it. Why are we putting up with this?”

Cue the outrage from the left.

The ADL, led by one Jonathan Greenblatt – who, take note, is a former staffer in both the Clinton and Obama administrations – penned a letter to Fox CEO Suzanne Scott in the finest of cancel culture style demanding Tucker be fired. Why? Mr. Greenblatt said this, bold print for emphasis supplied:

“Last night, in a segment on his program dealing with voting rights and allegations of voter disenfranchisement, Tucker Carlson disgustingly gave an impassioned defense of the white supremacist “great replacement theory,” the hateful notion that the white race is in danger of being “replaced” by a rising tide of non-whites. While couching his argument in terms of what he described as the Democratic Party attempting to replace traditional voters with immigrants from third-world countries, Carlson’s rhetoric was not just a dog whistle to racists – it was a bullhorn.”

To be polite, this is bunk. I saw the segment and Tucker quite specifically said:

“…I mean, everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it. Oh, you know, the white replacement theory? No, no, no. This is a voting right question.”

Got all of that? The ADL accused – falsely accused – Tucker Carlson of pushing a “great replacement theory” that is, says Mr. Greenspan, racist on its face.


As Tucker himself indicated on Monday night it is useful to take a look at, yes indeed, the ADL’s own website. I did. And what did I find over there? This curious article.

The ADL article is in essence a fact check on the issue of an alleged Palestinian “right of return” to what is now modern-day Israel. The fact check centers on this stated inaccuracy. It reads:

“Inaccuracy: Palestinian refugees have a ‘right of return’ under international law – the right to reclaim and return to their former homes inside Israel.”

Under the heading of “Response” the ADL statement says this:

“International law and international statute do not call for a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel, but rather for a resolution of the long-standing Palestinian refugee problem which was caused by the Arab attack on Israel in 1948. On humanitarian grounds,Israel has committed to participating in an international effort to resettle and compensate Palestinian refugees.

United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 refer not to a “right of return,” but of the need to resolve the Palestinian refugee issue.”

The article goes on to be quite specific about the problems it sees between the Palestinians and Israel. It says this, bold print for emphasis supplied.

“A ‘right of return’ is also not viable on practical grounds. An influx of millions of Palestinians into Israel would pose a threat to its national security and upset the country’s demographic makeup.”

Hmmm. So there, in black and white, is the ADL itself saying that an “influx” of Palestinians to Israel would “upset the country’s demographic makeup.” Which is to say, this is the Israeli version of a “great replacement theory,” with Palestinians swarming into Israel and both upsetting the Jewish state’s demographic makeup – replacing Jews with Arabs – and also threatening Israel’s national security.

So in having this support for the Israeli version of the “great replacement theory”  posted on the ADL website – should Jonathan Greenblatt be asked to resign? Was this a “dog whistle” to anti-Palestinian racists?

Of course not. The very fact that such a call for Greenblatt to resign would be ridiculous on its face illustrates just how valid was Tucker Carlson’s point.

America is the one country in the world where the entire population, all 100% of it, is descended from immigrants. No one is opposed to immigration. The opposition comes to illegal immigration.

But I digress. The real problem here is the vivid hypocrisy of the ADL, rejecting outright an influx of Palestinians into Israel on the basis of a “right to return.” Which is to say, the ADL is rejecting – and I would say properly rejecting – a Palestinian version of a “great replacement theory.”

Which, in turn, underscores exactly why Tucker is right.

One would think the head of the ADL has better things to do than play the cancel culture game.

Meghan McCain

Meghan McCain To Co-Hosts: Will You Quit To Make Room For An Asian Co-Host?

Ya can’t make it up.  In all the coverage surrounding the Atlanta shooting, in which several Asian women at a local massage parlor were murdered by an admitted sex-addicted maniac who happened to be white, much has been made about discrimination against Asians.

Curiously left out of this discussion are the major-deal lawsuits brought against Ivy League Harvard and Yale for alleged discrimination against Asian applicants. (Harvard was eventually cleared – but why were they charged in the first place?)

Now the hypocrisy of liberals on this issue has been called out by “The View” co-host Meghan McCain – who promptly gets dumped on by The Washington Post

The headline: Critics pounce on Meghan McCain’s comments about Asian representation on ‘The View’

The story by reporter Meryl Kornfield begins this way:

“The View” co-host Meghan McCain is once again under fire after saying Wednesday that she feared “identity politics” would allow Asian people to get jobs over White people.

The show’s panelists were discussing calls by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) for more Asian American Pacific and Islander, or AAPI, representation among President Biden’s Cabinet. While the other co-hosts endorsed greater representation, McCain, who is considered the show’s conservative voice, questioned whether promoting AAPI figures would deal a blow to candidates who are more worthy of the positions — an assertion that earned a quick rebuke from many who said talent and diversity are not mutually exclusive.

Her comments were so widely shared on social media that her name became one of the top trending topics Wednesday on Twitter. By that evening, one video clip had more than 2.5 million views on the platform.”

Stop. Full stop. Notice the very first sentence in this report of what Meghan McCain said? It was this:

“‘The View’ co-host Meghan McCain is once again under fire after saying Wednesday that she feared ‘identity politics’ would allow Asian people to get jobs over White people.”

Um, no. That was not what she said or meant. What Meghan McCain clearly meant was that race and gender – no matter the race or gender – should never trump qualifications. Qualifications are, obviously, color and gender-blind. If one person knows how to change a flat tire and the person next to him on a busy highway has no idea how to change a tire – who should change the tire? Obviously, that would be the person with the tire-changing experience. Their color or gender would be irrelevant.

But McCain really drove home her point when she pointed out that The View was 25 years old and in that 25 years had had but one Asian American host. (That would be Lisa Ling.) Then she put her fellow hosts on the spot and called them out directly: Which one of them, she asked, would quit their job to give it to an Asian American?

Answer? No volunteers. None. Zip, zero, nada.

Which, in a snapshot, tells you everything you need to know about how the Left plays the identity politics game. Its rules for thee – but not for me.

Meghan McCain is well on to the game.

Good for her.

Piers Morgan
Piers Morgan

Piers Morgan Defends Fired-By-CBS Sharon Osbourne

So as discussed in this space a few days back, CBS was “investigating” Sharon Osbourne, the co-host of the CBS show Talk

Now the investigation of what millions saw in real-time live television is complete – and CBS, bowing to the woke cancel culture, has fired Sharon Osbourne.

Shocking. Not.

Osbourne’s sin was defending the free speech rights of her friend Piers Morgan who had the audacity – the audacity! – to criticize Meghan Markle, the Dutchess of Sussex – for her comments going after husband Prince Harry’s royal family in a much-ballyhooed Oprah interview.

Because Markle is biracial, Morgan’s criticism of her is a no-can-do in the World of the Woke. The CBS statement said this:

“The events of the March 10 broadcast were upsetting to everyone involved, including the audience watching at home,” the network said in a statement. “As part of our review, we concluded that Sharon’s behavior toward her co-hosts during the March 10 episode did not align with our values for a respectful workplace. We also did not find any evidence that CBS executives orchestrated the discussion or blindsided any of the hosts.”

Talk about Orwellian.

This is what Osbourne said on that March 10th show when she defended her friend’s free speech:

“I feel even like I’m about to be put in the electric chair because I have a friend who many people think is a racist, so that makes me a racist.”

Wow. Call in the investigators. Alert the cancel culture.

For his part, Piers Morgan instantly defended his friend Osbourne. Here’s the headline from Fox News

Piers Morgan calls Sharon Osbourne’s exit from ‘The Talk’ an ‘absolute disgrace’
Former ‘Good Morning Britain’ anchor says Osbourne was ‘bullied out of her job’

Said Morgan:

“What’s happened to @MrsSOsbourne is an absolute disgrace that shames CBS. Bullied out of her job for defending me against an invented slur of racism because I don’t believe a liar. In tomorrow’s Mail on Sunday, I’ll tell MY truth about this woke cancel culture bulls*t.”

And so he did, as seen right here. The headline from the Daily Mail:

PIERS MORGAN: I’m not a racist and neither is Sharon Osbourne but that didn’t stop the woke mob lynching her just for defending me in a shocking episode that shames the Cowardly Broadcasting System and should horrify anyone who values free speech

Morgan opened by quoting a routine by comedian George Lopez, a Latino, that was openly trashing a black woman in his audience. As it happens, Lopez is a friend of The Talk host Sheryl Underwood, an African-American. Underwood defended Lopez from charges of blatant, quite open racism. Nothing happened to Underwood for doing so.

Morgan’s remarks and Osbourne’s defense of Morgan, not to mention Osbourne’s own remarks, don’t even come close to the Lopez remarks that Underwood defended. But hey, never mind, the Woke mob wanted Sharon Osbourne’s head and they got it. Said Morgan in his Daily Mail piece:

“It’s an absolute disgrace and given how Underwood defended HER friend George Lopez when he DID say racist things that were caught on camera, it’s disgustingly hypocritical of her.

As is the behaviour of CBS, the Cowardly Broadcasting System, who’ve so pathetically bowed to the woke mob illiberally baying for blood like a bunch of crazed language-policing fascists.

In their statement announcing Sharon’s departure, CBS made it clear she was leaving specifically for what happened on that episode and not because of any of the other historic allegations of alleged inappropriate behaviour made against her by aggrieved former panel members, all of which Sharon vehemently denies.

CBS said: ‘The events of the March 10 broadcast were upsetting to everyone involved, including the audience watching at home. As part of our review, we concluded that Sharon’s behavior toward her co-hosts during the March 10 episode did not align with our values for a respectful workplace.’

What a load of sanctimonious, two-faced twaddle.

So, it’s OK for Sheryl Underwood to passionately defend someone who spews racist abuse at a black woman, but it’s not OK for Sharon Osbourne to passionately defend someone who didn’t?

This is such an outrageous double standard.”

Indeed it is.

Even more to the point, this is yet another seriously fascist-style attack on free speech. From CBS, no less.

Buckle in. There will be more of this woke cancel culture coming.

Count on it.

Alexi McCammond
Alexi McCammond

Teen Vogue Cancel Culture Hypocrisy Caught

Well, well, well.  Just days ago we here at had this headline: 

Teen Vogue Cancel Culture Targets Black Female Editor – Who Resigns
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that cancel culture sauce for the goose will at some point become cancel culture sauce for the gander.

In taking issue for the cancel culture zeroing in on resigned-editor Alexi McCammond I wrote this:

“ Wow. Alexi McCammond, the 27-year old black woman newly appointed as the editor of Teen Vogue is abruptly out before she even got started. Why?

Because when she was a teenager she wrote a couple of tweets described this way in Variety:

‘According to social media posts, McCammond’s old tweets — which dated back to 2011 — included ‘Now googling how to not wake up with swollen, asian eyes’ and‘Give me a 2/10 on my chem problem, cross out all of my work and don’t explain what i did wrong… thanks a lot stupid asian T.A. you’re great.’

Again, McCammond was a 17-year-old kid when this was written. There is no indication, none, that she has not now grown up and is a functioning adult who knows better.”

I also wrote this:

“Perhaps it is time for each of those 20 staff members to be investigated for any comments or tweets they made while a teenager? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that cancel culture sauce for the goose will at some point become cancel culture sauce for the gander.

Not good. Not good at all.”

Hmmm. And now, with all the certainty of the sun coming up, here comes this new headline over there in The Washington Examiner

Senior Teen Vogue staffer who supported editor-in-chief’s ousting over controversial tweets used N-word on social media

This jewel of a story profiling utter hypocrisy:

A senior Teen Vogue staffer who supported the ousting of newly-named Editor-in-Chief Alexi McCammond over past controversial tweets concerning Asian Americans used the N-word on social media more than a decade ago.

“I love the contradictory nature of the phrase ‘white n—-,’” Christine Davitt, senior social media manager at Teen Vogue, wrote in one tweet from 2009.

Davitt, who is reportedly of Irish and Filipino descent, also used the N-word in several other tweets. The tweets appear to have been deleted as of Sunday morning.

Davitt’s resurfaced tweets come days after she posted a letter to Instagram expressing concern over McCammond’s hiring at Teen Vogue “in light of her past racist and homophobic tweets.”

‘So proud of my @teenvogue colleagues. The work continues…’ Davitt wrote in a caption.

So. I get it.

If you’re the black Alexi McCammond and tweet something offensive (when you were a teenager) according to Teen Vogue’s half-white Christine Davitt, then…you’re out. And not only out but Davitt is “so proud” of her “@teenvogue colleagues” for pushing McCammond out.

But when it comes to light that the half-white Davitt herself has old tweets out there using the N-word? And nothing happens to her? No job loss, much less no internal push from her colleagues in a public message to get her out.

Hey, no problem. Nothing to see here, just move along. The so serious concern at Teen Vogue about “past racist” tweets if, well, you’re half-white and the right person with the right insider connections.

In other words? Cancel culture for thee, but not for me.

Pathetic, hypocritical…and dangerous.

1 2 3 28