 |
The democrats psychosis of failure.The hate machine
is alive and well. No where else to turn.
|
Why would Hollywood lie about a Republican politician? Are they, the media and Hollywood, progressive socialists, Marxist to?
Strange. They're just a bunch of actors, right? Reading from a script, right? Ignorance and delusion? Willing disciples, soldiers of rage and hate? How can anyone now go to any movie for entertainment and enjoy it, when everywhere in the film there is references to the Hollywood hate for you and the country.
Strange as it might seem, when the progressive socialsit wrote a book for public consumption on how to assassinate George W. Bush, the media loved it. And then if that wasn't enough they made a movie on how to kill George Bush. What's wrong about that? Who cares, he's just a Republican or a Conservative. What's not to like having Bush murdered?
And how the progressive socialist democrats put on a play, and reenactment of the killing of Julius Caesar in Central Park, but make it about killing Donald Trump. It was well done. Realistic. The stabbing scene was extremely graphic ,illustrating the pure unbounded hate by the democrats for Donald Trump.
A take-off on the stabbing of Julius Caesar by his enemies in the Roman Senate, ''et tu brute?'' , ''You to, my child'' was the famous saying when Caesar's brother-in-law stabbed him to death along with other the members of the senate that hated him.
And why did the progressive democrats believe this was okay? Openly depict the murder of a sitting president. One has to wonder how this would have worked out if Republicans had done this to Barrrack Ogbjma? A book tour and a movie and a play on how to kill Barrrack?
This is reminiscent as well of how the ''never Trumpers'' among the Republicans in and out of power want to destroy him along with all the democrats in and out of power. It's truly more then just the ''swamp'' that wants Trump gone. This is a neurological problem. This is mutated DNA.
The progressive socialist liberal democrats are the source of chaos and conflict to cause as much trouble for this county as they can to foster the wish of Barrrack to once and for all make good on his promise to ''Transform America''.
Barrrack's promise was his religious jihad to drive America to it's knees as a strategy to put global power in his hands and those of friends around the world, like Iran, our enemies. Barrrack knew with America as the sole super power in world, he would not be able to solidify his desire for ultimate power for absolute control.
Again, thank God for Donald Trump and the millions of citizens who voted for him. Now the democrats have come out of the shadows because they lost the election that they knew they would win, telling us all how much they hate Trump and everyone that voted for him, what they demand right out in the open, the total destruction our civil society to regain their birthright to power.
And as witness to this truth, all one needs is to watch the progressive socialist democrats on television. A profound treachery of intent.
If Hillary Clinton was president, all of the revelations about the criminal activities that have come to light over past two years by porgressive democrats in the DOJ and the FBI and other agencies would have been covered up. The criminal would be running wild and free.
Barrrack's desire for absolute power would be complete, made manifest. This who they are and always have been. Don't vote for self annihilation. Our country deserves better.
‘Vice’ Is a Travesty in Storytelling
Biographers usually paint their subjects in either a positive light or a morally complex one.
Director and screenwriter Adam McKay chose a different path in his new film about Dick Cheney, instead casting his subject as a heartless and cruel man who embodies pretty much everything wrong with modern America.
“Vice” includes enough kernels of truth about Cheney to seem compelling. Yet at every step, the film magnifies, exaggerates, and invents character flaws with almost joyful gratuity, so that the whole film adds up to a skillfully choreographed hit job.
On screen, we see a man ensnared by power politics and the corrupting influence of big oil, ruled by a desire to measure up to his wife, and willing to expend other people’s lives and interests for his own personal gain. It’s “House of Cards,” minus the admission of being fiction.
“Vice” is most instructive not as biography, but as a window into the mind of Hollywood’s elite. The film depicts a moral universe in which the heathen are Republican, and the chief sins include oil, war, male power politics, and heteronormativity. The film’s title “Vice” is a strong hint
—it means more than just VP.
The story picks up in 1963, with Cheney working a blue-collar job in Wyoming—about as far removed from presidential politics as possible. He’s also an alcoholic standing on the verge of a divorce. His wife gives him an ultimatum: to make something of himself, or she’s leaving.
That is his pivotal moment.
From there, Cheney begins his slow rise through D.C. politics, beginning as a congressional staffer, where he learns the ways of Rome and becomes accustomed to dancing along with the powers that be. In that world, he finds himself surprisingly at home and attains a real degree of personal redemption, notwithstanding the moral murkiness of politics. He regains the respect of his wife, and his family stays intact.
That redemptive theme is McKay’s biggest compliment to Cheney. But it doesn’t last. It’s quickly overshadowed by other negative themes, as he begins to crave the spoils of power for their own sake. The movie briskly moves through Cheney’s time as chief of staff to President Gerald Ford, House member, and secretary of defense.
The real meat of the film comes when Cheney joins George W. Bush’s ticket for president in 2000. This is where the painting of Cheney gets especially egregious.
By this time, Cheney is a CEO and a seasoned political operator. He runs circles around Bush, who is portrayed as a know-nothing dunce—a sitting duck for Cheney. Here the filmmakers’ obvious spite for Bush is palpable enough to gag on.
In one pivotal scene before the election, Cheney puts forward a deal: He will only join the ticket if Bush lets him oversee the bureaucracies, the military, energy, and foreign policy. Bush agrees, essentially giving away the store of his presidency, all the while seeming clueless to what he has done.
This transaction captures the image of Bush and Cheney long cherished by the left: Bush as the fool, Cheney the swindler. Whereas a fair portrayal would have shown nuance, putting the two men on an even rational footing, “Vice” indulges the tired caricature of Bush as a bumbling country boy who never deserved to be president.
This is filmmaking as wish fulfillment. And it is also, implicitly, an exercise in self-congratulation. Cheney is the king of vice. All who oppose him, then, are children of light. Looking at you, Hollywood.
It’s true that Cheney did come to a unique and “different arrangement” with Bush as vice president—he admitted that toward the end of his vice presidency. He did have more power than most vice presidents, and critics can rightly judge that.
But the film goes so far as to depict Bush as a puppet president who let Cheney wield the real authority—often on behalf of oil interests.
This framework carries through the entire film. When a crisis comes, it’s Cheney, not Bush, who wields the real power. On 9/11, Cheney takes charge in the Situation Room, running the ship “like a ghost,” as the narrator tells it.
We also see the invasion of Iraq framed in the worst possible light: not based merely on bad intelligence, but quite likely a conspiracy on the part of Cheney to open up Iraqi oil to U.S. companies, presumably to enrich himself. The film cites information originally obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request, which shows that an energy task force led by Cheney had a map of oilfields in Iraq in March of 2001. Few details are given, with little context, yet the portrayal all but indicts Cheney in the mind of the viewer.
And that is the real tragedy of “Vice.” Viewers will come to this film not just to be entertained, but to learn “the untold true story that changed the course of history forever,” as the movie trailer promises.
Many will think for themselves. But if most viewers are like the two who sat next to me, they’ll groan and lament at the evil on screen, horrified that this all could have happened. Actor Christian Bale’s rendering will be taken as gospel—even though the film seems more interested in ruining Cheney’s image than giving a true account of his life.
The net effect will be a permanently altered and distorted view of Cheney, all thanks to an effort to portray a flawed public servant as the devil himself. That is a travesty.
No comments:
Post a Comment