Did you see Ms. Streep morph into Joan of Arc at the Golden Globes? “We are,” She said with a wistful sigh. “the most vilified people in America.” How many million women would love to be “vilified” like that?
Hillary, Meryl, and Madonna do not have a clue about real people
By Mario Murillo
Hillary, Meryl, and Madonna do not have a clue about real people. They are ignorant of Americans—60+ million of them—who voted for Trump. Those who voted for him are not racists, homophobes or any of the lazy labels that aging actresses love to stick on them. (Just to be clear: what we have here are two actresses who think they are politicians and one politician who is truly an actress.)
Did you see Ms. Streep morph into Joan of Arc at the Golden Globes? “We are,” She said with a wistful sigh. “the most vilified people in America.” How many million women would love to be “vilified” like that?
Earth to divas: Real people get up early—real early. They do not have a cadre of fawning domestics make their kids’ lunch, or heat the limo seats for the ride to Opulent Academy.
Real people dig in their couches to find change. They go to things called grocery stores. They buy milk and bread. They pay things called bills. They have things called budgets. They battle inhuman traffic to get to a job that does not pay nearly enough. They face crime and injustice every day. At night, they worry about the future of their children.
Real people have a conscience, go to church and pray. They believe that God is intervening in the welfare of America and Israel. Their numbers are growing and if you want to guarantee 8 years of Trump keeping on lying about those who support him.
Back in La La Land: These 3 poor dears think they are relevant. Madonna offers sexual favors. They pontificate: “If your opinion differs from mine you are racist, homophobic and I decree that you are hereby you banished!” (Along with football and MMA). Instead of banishing anyone, they are solidifying the support for Trump.
It’s a law that is as certain as gravity: Attack the people who voted for Trump and his popularity will grow. 12 Republican candidates, the mainstream media, Megyn Kelly and Hillary Clinton all found out the hard way. (See basket of deplorables.)
What is in the mind of these celebrity senior citizens? What makes them think their word trumps reality? Meryl’s heart was broken to see Trump mock a handicapped man. Hillary made an entire campaign ad about this. Yet, they both know it is a complete lie. But, with a well-practiced sweep of their hair they say, “Dahling, I said it, it must be true.”
George Clooney said, “as a celebrity, “I can’t change policy … but I can make things louder.” True. However, a lie told louder is still a lie. Real people know that.
Reporter: WH Press Secretary Gets Questions from Reporters Before Press Briefing
It’s just a show.
A CBS reporter from Arizona reveals that President Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, receives questions from the press in advance of his daily press briefing. In fact, she says, the reporters often receive the answers in advance of the briefing, too.
According to the reporter, Jay Carney told her this yesterday at the White House:
“It was a very busy day. We started here shortly after 8 o’clock with a coffee with press secretary Jay Carney inside his office in the West Wing,” says the reporter.
“And this was the off-the-record so we were able to ask him all about some of the preparation that he does on a regular basis for talking to the press in his daily press briefings. He showed us a very long list of items that he has to be well versed on every single day.
“And then he also mentioned that a lot of times, unless it’s something breaking, the questions that the reporters actually ask — the correspondents — they are provided to him in advance. So then he knows what he’s going to be answering and sometimes those correspondents and reporters also have those answers printed in front of them, because of course it helps when they’re producing their reports for later on. So that was very interesting.”
Last night in the Silicon Valley, the nets filled to overflowing with souls seeking Christ. Now we are adding another service at Star of David Church tomorrow night. Here is part 2 of a message that came out of this visitation of God.
John 21:3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We are going with you also.” They went out and immediately got into the boat, and that night they caught nothing. 4 But when the morning had now come, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Then Jesus said to them, “Children, have you any food?”
They answered Him, “No.”
6 And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish.
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea.
Jesus asks a question that should burn in the heart of every preacher today: “Have you caught any fish?” For Peter that question was explosive. He had met Christ after a night just like this, a night where he caught no fish.
This simple command that came next will save us now. It will save us from losing our nation. It will save us from wasting our life. Jesus said; “Throw the net on the right side.”
He is the Lord of the harvest! Thousands of pastors and churches in America need to be awakened to this truth. I am warning you that God is issuing a warning and a deadline to the American church. We must throw the net where, when and how God tells us.
Tragically we have become Oscar winning actors at net throwing. A breathtaking denial hangs like a shroud over a vast number of churches. We have glorified the act of tossing a net. We have celebrated the skill of tossing out information and programs and then blithely ignore the fact that there are no fish in the nets. We are distracting millions of Christians away from our flat lining birth rate.
As I said before we do not have to die this way! He is the Lord of the Harvest! What baffles us does not faze God. People groups that we believe are unreachable can be deeply influenced by the Holy Spirit. We cannot offer God the excuse that the Silicon Valley or any other enclave of secular progressives is too hard or too sophisticated for Christ.
The granddaddy sin of the American Church is…wresting away from the Holy Spirit the chief responsibility for leading our fishing. Jesus gave Him that job. Jesus imparted all He had to the Holy Spirit.
We were never supposed to overrule the impulses He infuses in us; we were never supposed to figure out how to be relevant to a culture. We were supposed to surrender through prayer and expect step by step instructions.
To be sure, those instructions will often go against the grain of our logic and even our dignity. There is a towering reason that we are so deeply stung when the Spirit moves. Let me explain:
Removing the Holy Spirit as General, CEO and director of the harvest is our greatest sin…but it is another sin that feeds that sin… WE VIOLENTLY DISAGREE WITH JESUS ABOUT THE HARVEST ITSELF!!
He believes that the fields are ripe for the Gospel and we believe that few if any want the message of Christ. That colossal disagreement is why we do what we do and we keep doing what we do.
Peter seemed to spend a lifetime disagreeing with Jesus about fish. Jesus kept correcting Peter with object lessons that proved there were mountains of fish. He even once had Peter pull tax money out a fish’s mouth.
If we do not change our ways our nation is lost. There is no version of this current Church growth movement that will save us. None of it ends in revival or restoring us to one nation under God.
If we could but drop our defenses against Christ and the Holy Spirit and wait for divine directives our nets will fill with fish and our nation will honor righteousness again.
10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation
This week, a number of commentators have published articles containing incorrect and irresponsible claims regarding the allegation of Woody Allen’s having sexually abused his adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow. As the author of two lengthy, heavily researched and thoroughly fact-checked articles that deal with that allegation—the first published in 1992, when Dylan was seven, and the second last fall, when she was 28—I feel obliged to set the record straight. As such, I have compiled the following list of undeniable facts:
1. Mia never went to the police about the allegation of sexual abuse. Her lawyer told her on August 5, 1992, to take the seven-year-old Dylan to a pediatrician, who was bound by law to report Dylan’s story of sexual violation to law enforcement and did so on August 6.
2. Allen had been in therapy for alleged inappropriate behavior toward Dylan with a child psychologist before the abuse allegation was presented to the authorities or made public. Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan.
3. Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police.Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.
4. Allen subsequently lost four exhaustive court battles—a lawsuit, a disciplinary charge against the prosecutor, and two appeals—and was made to pay more than $1 million in Mia’s legal fees. Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded that there is “no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.”
5. In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”The judge also recounts Farrow’s misgivings regarding Allen’s behavior toward Dylan from the time she was between two and three years old. According to the judge’s decision, Farrow told Allen, “You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.”
6. Dylan’s claim of abuse was consistent with the testimony of three adults who were present that day. On the day of the alleged assault, a babysitter of a friend told police and gave sworn testimony that Allen and Dylan went missing for 15 or 20 minutes, while she was at the house. Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan’s lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch “staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.” A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress. The first babysitter also testified she did not tell Farrow that Allen and Dylan had gone missing until afterDylan made her statements. These sworn accounts contradict Moses Farrow’s recollection of that day in People magazine.
7. The Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that Dylan had not been sexually molested, cited repeatedly by Allen’s attorneys, was not accepted as reliable by Judge Wilk, or by the Connecticut state prosecutor who originally commissioned them. The state prosecutor, Frank Maco, engaged the Yale-New Haven team to determine whether Dylan would be able to perceive facts correctly and be able to repeat her story on the witness stand. The panel consisted of two social workers and a pediatrician, Dr. John Leventhal, who signed off on the report but who never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow. No psychologists or psychiatrists were on the panel. The social workers never testified; the hospital team only presented a sworn deposition by Dr. Leventhal, who did not examine Dylan.
All the notes from the report were destroyed. Her confidentiality was then violated, and Allen held a news conference on the steps of Yale University to announce the results of the case. The report concluded Dylan had trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. (For example, she had told them there were “dead heads” in the attic and called sunset “the magic hour.” In fact, Mia kept wigs from her movies on styrofoam blocks in a trunk in the attic.) The doctor subsequently backed down from his contention.
The Connecticut state police, the state attorney, and Judge Wilk all had serious reservations about the report’s reliability.
8. Allen changed his story about the attic where the abuse allegedly took place. First, Allen told investigators he had never been in the attic where the alleged abuse took place. After his hair was found on a painting in the attic, he admitted that he might have stuck his head in once or twice. A top investigator concluded that his account was not credible.
9. The state attorney, Maco, said publicly he did have probable cause to press charges against Allen but declined, due to the fragility of the “child victim.” Maco told me that he refused to put Dylan through an exhausting trial, and without her on the stand, he could not prosecute Allen.
10. I am not a longtime friend of Mia Farrow’s, and I did not make any deal with her. I have been personally accused of helping my “long-time friend” Mia Farrow place the story that ran in Vanity Fair’s November 2013 issue as part of an effort to help launch Ronan Farrow’s media career. I have also been accused of agreeing to some type of deal with Mia Farrow guaranteeing that the sexual-abuse allegation against Woody Allen would be revisited. For the record, I met Mia Farrow for the first time in 2003, more than 10 years after the first piece was published, at a nonfiction play she appeared in for a benefit in Washington, D.C. I saw her and Dylan again the next day. That is the last time I saw her until I approached her in April 2013 to do a story about her family and how they had fared over the years. I talked to eight of her children, including Dylan and a reluctant Ronan. There was no deal of any kind. Moses Farrow declined to be interviewed for the 2013 piece.
LOS ANGELES — Next week, about 6,000 Oscar voters will start casting ballots for their favorite films of 2013 and those who made them.
Will they make moral judgments as well as artistic ones with their votes?
That question and others erupted this weekend as a controversy emerged involving people and movies in the annual film awards race.
An open letter by Dylan Farrow, Woody Allen’s adopted daughter, was published on Sunday in the column and blog of Nicholas Kristof, the columnist for The New York Times. In the letter, Ms. Farrow presented graphic details in her account of sexual abuse as a child by Mr. Allen.
Ms. Farrow challenged actors like Cate Blanchett and Diane Keaton to justify their decisions to work with him, as both have, or to celebrate him, as Ms. Keaton did at the Golden Globes in January, when Mr. Allen received a lifetime achievement award.
Her torment, Ms. Farrow wrote, “was made worse by Hollywood,” adding that “all but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye.”
The letter suggests a callous indifference by film professionals now celebrating their accomplishments in a series of ceremonies leading up to the March 2 Academy Awards. And it lands as Mr. Allen’s film “Blue Jasmine”enters the Oscar balloting that begins Friday. He is nominated for best original screenplay, and Ms. Blanchett, the film’s star, figures on many lists as the favorite for best actress honors.
The abuse claims go back to 1993, when Ms. Farrow’s mother, Mia Farrow, fought with Mr. Allen over custody of three children, including Dylan. Last fall, Dylan Farrow spoke in detail about her claims of abuse in an interview in Vanity Fair. Mr. Allen, who was never charged with criminal wrongdoing, has denied the accusations, a position his lawyer repeated on Sunday.
In a separate blowup, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which awards the Oscars, on Saturday issued an emphatic defense of its decision to rescind a nomination for the song “Alone Yet Not Alone,” from a small, religious movie of the same title.
The Academy had been accused in a letter from an earlier Oscar winner, Gerald Molen, of opening itself to charges of bigotry against Christians, but insisted that the nomination was revoked only because the song’s co-writer, Bruce Broughton, had abused his position as a committee member by emailing voters with a notice about his song.
Together, the two controversies are this year’s contribution to an emerging insistence by many who watch the Oscar process, and some who participate in it, that Academy members should take into account moral, ethical and social factors when marking a ballot or enforcing the rules.
A year ago, “Zero Dark Thirty,” about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, was sharply criticized by public officials and some Academy members who believed that the film advocated the use of torture, or falsely suggested that harsh interrogation had led to Bin Laden’s discovery.
The actor Martin Sheen, a prominent Academy member, was linked to a drive against the film’s portrayal of torture, then publicly disclaimed the effort. The film had five nominations, including one for best picture, but received an award only for its sound editing.
Another kind of storm broke around “Life of Pi,” which drew pre-Oscar protests for supposedly underpaying its visual effects artists. Ang Lee still won the Oscar for best director.
By and large, Oscar voters are lucky if they can find time to see the nominated films, let alone sort through a court case or a secret military operation. But they, including actors, are increasingly being asked to do just that.
At the Santa Barbara International Film Festival, where she was honored Saturday night, Ms. Blanchett was asked about the Farrow letter by the Hollywood-Elsewhere.com reporter Jeffrey Wells on her way to an after-party. “It’s obviously been a long and painful situation for the family, and I hope they find some resolution and peace,” she said.
A spokeswoman for Ms. Blanchett said she had no further comment. Ms. Keaton’s agents did not immediately respond to a request for comment. “We have had a long, productive and rewarding relationship with Mr. Allen,” Sony Pictures Classics, which released “Blue Jasmine,” said in a statement. “Mr. Allen has never been charged in relationship to any of this, and therefore deserves our presumption of innocence.”
Elkan Abramowitz, a lawyer for Mr. Allen, responded harshly to the new round of publicity. “It is tragic that after 20 years a story engineered by a vengeful lover resurfaces after it was fully vetted and rejected by independent authorities,” he wrote in an email Sunday. “The one to blame for Dylan’s distress is neither Dylan nor Woody Allen.”
In summarizing the case, Mr. Kristof, who acknowledged being a personal friend of Mia Farrow and her son Ronan, wrote that “a panel of psychiatrists sided with Allen, a judge more with Dylan and her mother.”
Oscar voters have occasionally used the awards to send a message about focusing on art, not behavior. That appears to have happened in 2003, when they named Roman Polanski best director for “The Pianist,” while Adrien Brody received an Oscar as its star and Ronald Harwood for writing its screenplay — even though Mr. Polanski was still wanted for sentencing on a statutory rape charge from more than 25 years earlier.
Asked to comment on Ms. Farrow’s claims, an Academy spokeswoman wrote in an email, “The Academy honors achievement in film, not the personal lives of filmmakers and artists.”
But Dylan Farrow, through her letter, now insists that accountability, at least as she sees it, be part of the package.
Christian film stripped of ‘Best Song’ Oscar nomination
The Washington Times
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
This year’s most-obscure Oscar nominee is no more.
At a meeting this week, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences board of governors decided to strip the surprise nomination for Best Song from “Alone Yet Not Alone,” which appears in the independent Christian-produced film of the same name.
Writer Bruce Broughton, a former member of the board of governors and currently on the music branch’s executive committee, violated the Academy’s rules against lobbying by personally e-mailing “members of the branch to make them aware of his submission during the nominations voting period,” according to a statement released by the governors Wednesday.
The nomination of “Alone Yet Not Alone” raised the eyebrows (and hackles) of many veteran Oscar-watchers when the nominations were announced Jan. 16. The film had a public profile more associated with obscure foreign films and nobody had tipped it as a possible nominee in any category.
“Alone Yet Not Alone” played on 11 screens nationwide for one week in October and grossed less than $135,000, BoxOfficeMojo.com said. As of Wednesday evening, fewer than 100 people had rated it on the Internet Movie Database. By comparison, the Sandra Bullock October release “Gravity,” which was nominated for 10 Oscars, has grossed more than $260 million and been rated by more than 250,000 IMDb users.
The producers of “Alone Yet Not Alone” plan a broader release in June.
Studios sometimes give films a short end-of-the-year “qualifying run” to make it eligible for the Oscars, with a broader release planned for the spring, cashing in on the publicity and cachet of the nomination.
The Japanese animated film “The Wind Rises” by Hayao Miyazaki was nominated for Best Animated Feature this year using the same strategy. But that strategy usually requires a much more-aggressive and high-profile publicity campaign than “Alone Yet Not Alone” could manage.
Ironically, the song had survived an earlier challenge to its eligibility based on the fact the film’s producers had not purchased any advertisements for its short and barely-noticed qualifying run in Los Angeles. The Academy ruled in that case that the theater listings for its showtimes qualified as the required advertisement.
According to the Academy governors, no other song will be nominated in place of “Alone Yet Not Alone” when the final ballots are sent out Feb. 14, and the Oscar will go to one of the four remaining nominees on March 2.
“Alone Yet Not Alone” is a religiously themed period piece about 18th-century settlers dealing with colonial wars and Indian kidnappers in the Ohio Valley. The song is presented in the movie as a traditional family hymn and sung on the film’s soundtrack by Joni Eareckson Tada, a well-known evangelical minister.
Mr. Broughton, who wrote the song with lyricist Dennis Spiegel, told the Hollywood Reporter that he was “devastated” by the stripping.
“I indulged in the simplest grassroots campaign, and it went against me when the song started getting attention. I got taken down by competition that had months of promotion and advertising behind them. I simply asked people to find the song and consider it,” he told the prominent trade publication.
The film’s status as a small Christian film led Orthodox Christian film blogger Peter Chattaway to predict charges of religious persecution in the coming days, playing off the image of Hollywood as a liberal bastion hostile to Christianity.
“The Academy may or may not have ruled correctly when it comes to Broughton’s e-mails. But it probably, however unintentionally, just gave certain Christians a little more fodder for their persecution narrative, and thereby threw just a little more fuel on the culture-wars fire. Sigh,” Mr. Chattaway wrote on his Patheos site Wednesday night.
Oscar Winner Pens Letter Accusing Academy of Christian ‘Bigotry’ in Song Flap (Exclusive)
After the best original song nomination for “Alone Yet Not Alone” was rescinded, “Schindler’s List” producer Gerald Molen rips the Academy for “faith-based bigotry.”
Gerald Molen, an Oscar-winning producer of Schindler’s List, is accusing the Academy of discriminating against a religious movie in revoking its nomination in the best song category.
In a feisty letter to Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences president Cheryl Boone Isaacs, a copy of which was obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, Molen attacks the group’s Jan. 29 decision to rescind the nomination for Alone Yet Not Alone, an overtly faith-based film, over allegations that its songwriterBruce Broughton, a former Academy governor, improperly lobbied members of the song branch. If Broughton and co-writerDennis Spiegel are ineligible for an Oscar merely for asking people to give their tune a listen, he argues, more Oscar winners should be required to return their statues because they all promoted their work to some degree or another.
“Every film, director, writer, cinematographer, actor, art director, costume designer and efx house finds a way to pitch or promote their work. Many will see this decision as faith-based bigotry pure and simple,” Molen says in the letter to Boone Isaacs.
The Academy nominated “Alone Yet Not Alone” for best song then took back the nomination two weeks later saying that Broughton improperly emailed “members of the branch to make them aware of his submission during the nominations voting period.” The nomination had been controversial because Alone Yet Not Alone earned just $134,000 in its 21-day run and Broughton is a former governor and current music branch executive committee member.
In the movie, the song is sung not by a professionally trained singer, but by Joni Eareckson Tada, a 64-year-old woman who has been without the use of her arms and legs for 47 years and runs a charity that provides wheelchairs to needy children. She also authors Christian books and broadcasts Christian radio.
“Critics will pounce and accuse us of being out of touch and needlessly offending middle America by stripping this song — a song sung by a quadriplegic hero to evangelical Christians who has captured the imagination of the American people — of its nomination,” Molen writes. “In my humble opinion, it seems to me that this has turned a Cinderella story that America loves into a story of the wicked stepmother who wants to keep her daughter from the ball, with we the Academy cast as the villain.”
After its nomination, several songwriters affiliated with other films expressed dissatisfaction with the selection, and a PR firm representing a song not nominated hired a private investigator to research whether Alone Yet Not Alone should be disqualified for not meeting advertising requirements, but the Academy wasn’t convinced on those grounds.
The email sent by Broughton, though, convinced the Academy to make the highly unusual move to rescind the nomination. Broughton’s email read in part: “I’m dropping you a line to boldly direct your attention to entry #57,” a reference to the track number on a CD containing songs up for nomination consideration. “I’m sending this note only because it is extremely unlikely that this small, independent, faith-based film will be seen by any music branch member; it’s the only way I can think of to have anyone be aware of the song.”
“My goodness,” writes Molen, “if we were truly to operate by this new standard the committee has cited, your office would be filled with returned Oscars from past winners and nominees who have lobbied their friends and colleagues. This seems to me to have been a normal practice for a long, long time, and yet the Academy has suddenly discovered lobbying in the case of this one song?”
This isn’t the first time Molen has expressed displeasure with the Academy. Last year, he fired offanother letter to then-president Hawk Koch complaining about the selection process for best documentary, including that the selection committee included left-leaning filmmaker Michael Moore.
The Academy’s decision to take back its nomination caused a stir in Christian media, with many journalists and bloggers speculating that Hollywood is simply prejudiced against faith-based films. But Molen’s stern letter amounts to much more significant criticism, given his pedigree as an Oscar winner for best picture and producer credits on blockbusters like Jurassic Park and Minority Report. He also produced the political documentary 2016: Obama’s America and is working on the follow-up to that film, called America, set to open July 4.
“It has been reported that a rival film hired a private investigator to find dirt on the film in an attempt to discredit it as not having been advertised properly and that when this failed to sway the committee, a decision was instead made to disqualify it because of the email,” Molen wrote in his letter to Boone Isaacs. “I urge you and the Academy to reconsider this decision and restore the song and fairness and integrity to our process.”