Hugh Jackman’s ‘Greatest Showman’ Turns P.T. Barnum into SJW Willy Wonka

Twentieth Century Fox

They kept us waiting right ’til the end of the year – but I think I might just have spotted the Worst Movie of 2017.

It’s called The Greatest Showman. It stars Hugh Jackman, Michelle Williams and Zac Efron. And it purports to tell the story of that notorious huckster P.T. Barnum – only reinvented for woke modern audiences as a 19th century Social Justice Warrior bringing the joy of diversity and gender-fluidity to a delighted and approving world.

Yes, really.

Look at the trailer (below, though be sure to keep a sick bag close at hand: this is not for the weak of stomach).

The soundtrack sets the tone. It was written by the same lyricist duo responsible for the emetic schmaltzfest that was La La Land.

Here is the chorus from the main song, “This is Me,” which makes no attempt whatsoever, either musically or lyrically, to engage with the sensibilities of the movie’s period setting. No, it’s all about feeling great about being a midget/bearded lady/paralyzed slave, because – hey! – which circus show freak wouldn’t be happy being exploited commercially by a smiling showman in a big top hat?

[Repeat warning: do NOT step away from the sick bag. This is NOT a drill.]

OK, those lyrics:

When the sharpest words wanna cut me down
I’m gonna send a flood, gonna drown them out
I am brave, I am proof
I am who I’m meant to be, this is me
Look out ’cause here I come
And I’m marching on to the beat I drum
I’m not scared to be seen
I make no apologies, this is me

What did Fox think they were doing buying up this tosh?

Read the rest at Breitbart.

PA’s Scott Pruitt Gets Eaten Alive by Fox

Fox News Sunday / Screenshot

I just watched Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, get eaten alive by Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace.

Not only was it an ugly and painful sight but it was also a very dispiriting one.

Here is the guy who was carefully selected to be in the vanguard of President Trump’s war on the Green Blob which, for decades, has been doing untold damage to liberty, the scientific method, and the economy.

And he can’t even answer a few basic and obvious questions about why the job he is doing is necessary, important, and right.

Wallace asked him about the UN’s view that it was 95 percent likely that more than half the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is due to human activity.

Pruitt sweated, stuttered, and floundered.

Wallace asked him about NOAA’s claim that 2015 and 2016 are the hottest years on record.

Pruitt had no convincing comeback.

Wallace asked him the age-old question beloved by climate alarmists: “What if you’re wrong? What if CO2 is causing dramatic climate change and we as humans are responsible?”

Pruitt just didn’t know how to respond.

There should have been nothing complicated or unexpected about these questions. They are the kind of thing any half-way decent interviewer might have asked, be he a hostile one or a semi-friendly Fox News one playing devil’s advocate.

And if Scott Pruitt had had even the most cursory briefing and media training in his new role, he should have been prepared for them.

Not only should he have known the most effective answers to give; but he should have been so confident in the rightness and truth of his cause that he should have been able to seize the moment and make the points that really need to be made about President Trump’s environmental policy: that it is being enacted for the good of science, for the good of the economy and the core mission of Making America Great Again.

How could Scott Pruitt not do this?

Any one of us on the skeptical side of the argument could have pointed him to dozens of leading scientists — and hundreds if not thousands of papers and articles — that could easily have enabled Pruitt to say what needed to be said.

He could have noted the incompetence, corruption, and mendacity of the heavily politicized IPCC; the dishonest manipulation by organizations like NOAA — indeed especially NOAA — of the raw temperature data; the utter meaninglessness of the “hottest year evah” claims so often made in the liberal media.

And he could easily have batted off the “What if you’re wrong?” question by making perhaps the most important point of all that needs to be made about the “war” on “carbon”: that what it all comes down to is cost benefit analysis. To whit: the trillions of dollars being spent every year on the possibility that there might be a problem, a) could be spent much more usefully elsewhere and b) are doing more harm than good.

Pruitt was incapable of doing this though because, trained lawyer though he is, he is simply not on top of his brief.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

I Heart Glenn Beck


So Glenn Beck is to lose his show at Fox. If you want to know why this is a bad thing for the world, forget what you may think of his sometimes over-the-top, lachrymose schtick and his tendency towards overstating the case. Concentrate instead on the unbridled joy and delirium Becks dethronement is already causing in left-liberal circles. The head of Glenn Beck on a platter is like Kwaanza come early for Keith Olbermann and George Soros and Barack Obama and CNN and CNBC and the New York Times and all the rest of that rag bag of Islamists, eco-loons, progressives, communitarians, and Gramsciites who would be so much happier if you didnt know about their plans to steal your freedoms, take more of your money, swell the size of government and destroy your liberty.

Here, for example, is what that bastion of liberal values The New Republic has to say in a piece but barely able to contain its pant-wetting joy that the chief Warlock of Unreconstructed Right Wing Darkness has been defanged:

What happened? Beck built a following by making outlandish, conspiratorial claims—about ACORN, Obama, and so on. (Bizarrely, his extremism may have augmented the number of curious liberal viewers tuning in: A Pew Research Center poll from last September found that 9 percent of Beck’s Fox viewers identified as Democrats, and 21 percent as moderates or liberals.) But “anytime you have extreme stimulus,” says Alexander Zaitchik, author of the unauthorized Beck biography Common Nonsense, “you’ll have diminishing returns.” Beck, says Zaitchik, was caught “in a vicious circle”: To keep viewers coming back, he had to keep creating new, more intricate theories. Last November, in a two-part special that indirectly invoked anti-Semitism, he accused liberal Jewish financier George Soros of orchestrating the fall of foreign governments for financial gain.

Hang on a second. Is the New Republic trying to rewrite history here by telling us that ACORN isnt a monstrously corrupt, hard-left organisation which, for example, has been shown on camera advising an alleged pimp how best to hide the illegal earnings of his underage tricks? And is it also trying to tell us that George Soros the financier who, inter alia, made a fortune by betting against the British taxpayer over EMU, and who is well known for his sponsorship of revolutionary left causes is a lovable, grotesquely maligned figure of bounteous goodness whose critics only hate him because hes Jewish. (The latter is a pretty rich charge coming from a liberal: doesnt the worlds most vicious anti-Semitism come almost exclusively from the glibly pro-Palestinian, virulently anti-Israel liberal-left these days?)

Sure Glenn Beck has his faults but they are vastly outweighed by his strengths: his fearlessness in speaking truth to power; his gift for explaining political ideas in a way that galvanises the attention of Middle America; his sheer entertainment value. In Britain, we have no real equivalent of Beck and we could do with one. One of the reasons this country is so totally screwed at the moment is because of the shocking political apathy and ignorance of almost everyone outside Westminster and the media village: everyone has a vague sense that things are wrong, but almost no one has the vocabulary or ideological base to articulate what the problem is. Thanks to people like Glenn Beck, this isnt the case in America. Beck has given them a voice; he helped make the glorious popular revolt against the political class the Tea Party possible.

My guess is that Glenn Beck is going to bounce back from this low in his career and will return stronger and more popular than ever. And if youre a conservative and youve ever nurtured doubts about Beck, just ask yourself this: if hes really such a joke, why do you think it is that so many on the liberal-left so hate and fear him?

Related posts:

  1. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy
  2. How conservative pranksters made idiots of Obama’s favourite left-wing charity ACORN
  3. Why we still heart Sarah Palin
  4. Kickstarter, FrackNation and proof that there IS a God!

3 thoughts on “I heart Glenn Beck”

  1. Duncan M says:9th April 2011 at 8:54 amDarn! Beck is losing his show!! What a shame!!! Comedians like Beck and you should be on our tv more, you guys are brilliant. Along with Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party and all the hate preachers. In fact, you guys should have your own show and call it Der Stürmer.
  2. Velocity says:9th April 2011 at 9:27 pmBeck was the only political show on TV i could watch (stomach). The rest is pitiful propaganda, everything from the endless crones on Question Time to the BBC’s Politics Show which is more of the same carefully contructed sugar coated shit that never gets to the turds lurking beneath

    Beck was head-on, refreshing, brave on any topic none of which the mainstream guff would touch on. He deserves a Pulitzer no question

    My only reserves came when he coated all too much in the Constitution, religion, the pro military-industrial complex and pro Isreal (a sham state) as all pro Republicans unquestionably abide by.

    Still he will be sorely missed and, like you James, hope he returns at full force

  3. Pug says:29th April 2011 at 7:21 amJust to let you know James, it is articles of this ilk , and things like your most devoted follower on the Telegraph using a Confederate flag as his avatar, which causes a great deal of similarly anti-establishment and un-PC individuals with great taste in music (like me), who would otherwise be very well disposed toward a great deal of the points you make, to wrinkle their noses as if you smelt slightly of diarrhea.

Comments are closed.

How ‘Tech-Savvy’ Barack Obama Lost the Health Care Debate Thanks to Sinister Right-Wing Blogs Like This One

If theres one thing President Obamas good at, you would have thought, it would be harnessing the powers of new technology. Hes got the Blackberry addiction. Hes got the Twitter feeds. Hes the most tech-savvy POTUS in US history, who quite possibly wouldnt even be doing the job hes doing now if it werent for his supreme, almost Neo-like mastery of that thing we call the Interweb.

So how come he has just gone and managed to lose the most important debate of his political career so far over health care largely as a result of being beaten hollow by his opponents in the conservative blogosphere?

This is the question being asked by the new media monitoring organization Market Sentinel, in its latest report, pithily entitled How Obama lost the healthcare debate online.

It reports:

Our research suggests that Obama – the candidate who wrote the rules for achieving political success on the Internet – has lost the argument online.

To show this Market Sentinel took just one strand of that debate (comparisons between Obama’s proposals and the UK’s NHS service) and used citation analysis to identify who has influence in relation to the topic.  For the technically minded, this means that we crawl the internet looking for pages which are about the topic, then we track mutual references between people, institutions, entities mentioned in the context.  The resulting structure gives us a mathematically verifiable measurement of “authority” in the context.  This analysis began on August 28th and was completed on September 3rd.  We have sorted the results according to a sentiment metric where the negative quadrants represent hostility to state run healthcare (as exemplified by the NHS) and the positive quadrants show support for it.


Note the dismal performance in terms of influence by the dead tree press. Note too the mighty power ascribed to Telegraph blogs (led, of course, in this instance by the great Dan Hannan). OK, so were not exactly Fox News yet. But if Market Sentinel is to be believed, than two key points emerge:

1. The Blogosphere is now more powerful in shaping the worlds political agenda than the Dead Tree media.

2. Right wing blogs (Fox News; DT blogs, etc) trump Libtard blogs (Huffington Post, Matthew Yglesias, etc) every time.

Look carefully at the chart and you will also noticed an appearance on the right by Michael Moore. Almost certainly the first time in the mans life he has ever been thus categorised.

Related posts:

  1. Barack Obama: ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate?
  2. The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it’s time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy
  3. My problem with Barack Obama isn’t that he’s black…
  4. How conservative pranksters made idiots of Obama’s favourite left-wing charity ACORN