The Barnes Eye View

A Meaty Goulash of Movies, Sports, and Conservative Politics

  • Photobucket

by John Nolte


When Hollywood turns against someone, you won’t have to ask if they have. You’ll know.

When Leftist Hollywood turns against someone, like they did President George W. Bush, neither our country nor the safety of our men and women in uniform means anything -- for this industry will eagerly waste hundreds of millions of dollars on a dozen-plus lousy films specifically designed to undermine our will to win a righteous war. When Hollywood turns on someone, they not only relentlessly mock, demean and denigrate that individual; they mock, demean, and denigrate their family.
Yes, the children.


Incompetence, broken promises, partisan divisiveness, the Gulf dying before our eyes, deficit forecasts with so many zeroes Einstein couldn’t grasp them, and dirty backroom deals haven’t cooled Hollywood on President Obama one bit. The same industry that stands by a Roman Polanski certainly isn’t going to jump off the USS ObamaWorship over a little thing like double-digit unemployment. If nothing else, Tinseltowners are loyal and their rules are simple: child rape’s fine, just don’t let us catch you with a Rush Limbaugh bumper sticker.

Yes, recently we’ve heard some in the entertainment industry appear to criticize the President. Most notably “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart, who ridiculed His Own Personal One over that oh-so presidential ”ass to kick” comment, and director Spike Lee, who suggested Obama drop the cool, calm professorial act and “go off” over the oil spill. But don’t be fooled. This is simply the president’s own personal Palace Guards doing their duty and guarding the palace.

You have to keep in mind that with a very few notable exceptions, the whole of the entertainment industry is a left-wing propaganda machine manned by those who understand that politics is downstream from the culture, and who fully grasp that their primary mandate is to protect President Obama at all costs. All Threats Must Be Eliminated. The only reason Obama’s been taking a little pop culture heat lately is due to that fact that right now the biggest threat to Obama is Obama and his own incompetence and disconnect.

If anything, Hollywood is worried about and for Obama. Worried about the upcoming mid-terms, his re-election chances, his sliding poll numbers, and his gilded ship sailing off course and landing in Carter-ita-ville instead of Mt. Rushmore. Spike Lee, Jon Stewart and their ilk are certainly a little panicked over how they see things going for their guy. But these recent criticisms from the president’s entertainment community pals should be interpreted as nothing any more serious than dear and close friends staging a helpful tough-love intervention. Hollywood can’t even muster a little criticism for Obama’s mishandling of the Gulf oil spill.

The only exception I would grant to my otherwise cynical observations (but that doesn’t make them wrong) is George Clooney’s recent editorial criticism of the Obama’s administration’s lack of engagement in the Sudan. As misguided as Clooney is in all things (including his decision to make “Leatherheads”), his concern for the Sudan is sincere. But one sentence in an 800-word piece is far from a mutiny.

Rest assure that the president can sleep well in the comfortable knowledge that as soon as any kind of existential threat looms on the horizon -- like, say, a feisty, self-made female governor from some far off state -- the entertainment industry will immediately snap back into line and set their powerful, elite broadcast capabilities on DESTROY.

Bookmark and Share

Obama singing "Kick Ass" Song

Posted by Anonymous On 10:15 PM 0 comments

Wonder how long it will take to have the creator of this video called a racist??



Bookmark and Share

Not quite sure how I feel about this if it is indeed true but then again I never thought Heath Ledger would have been a good Joker.  -Barnes

Laura Schreffler with reporting by Russ Weakland from Hollywoodlife.com


Director Christopher Nolan trades in the Joker for the Riddler in the next Batman movie and has pegged his ‘Inception’ star, JGL, to star!


What started off as a joke has become a reality —Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who stars in Christopher Nolan’s new film, Inception, is the director’s first pick to play The Riddler in the next installment of the Batman franchise!

“Chris really dug Joseph [as an actor],” a source close to the director tells HollywoodLife.com exclusively. “There was a joke at first between them [on the set of Inception] that Joseph wanted to read for Batman 3 and things heated up as filming continued.”

Adds the insider, “It’s not 100% confirmed that he’s getting [the role of The Riddler] but there’s certainly talk about it. Joseph is definitely on the short list.” This should make fans happy, especially as several fan sites have expressed a wish to see the 500 Days of Summer cutie score the role!


But don’t expect to find out anytime soon whether the 29-year-old actor will actually become The Riddler in reality — the script is still being written! Also don’t expect to see JGL take on his 10 Things I Hate About You co-star Heath Ledger’s posthumous Oscar-winning role of The Joker, either — Nolan has already confirmed that he won’t be recasting that particular part. Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s rep says, “This is not true.”

The working titled Batman 3 is slated for a July 2012 release, but if you can’t wait to see a Joseph Gordon-Levitt/Christopher Nolan collaboration, check out Inception when it premieres July 16.

Bookmark and Share

On the Set of "Thor"

Posted by Anonymous On 8:52 PM 0 comments



Bookmark and Share

The Alien in the White House

Posted by Anonymous On 5:35 PM 0 comments

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ from the Wall Street Journal

The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.

There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.

Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.


A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.


One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.


Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.


Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.


Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."


And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."


He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."


Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.


Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.


It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.


It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.


It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.


So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.


It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.


They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.


The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.


Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.

Bookmark and Share

From the upcoming release starring Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan.


Bookmark and Share

Thor Concept Art Surfaces

Posted by Anonymous On 6:22 PM 0 comments


To go along with the recent release of the Captain America concept art and the recent film clip of Chris Hemsworth as Thor we now have the full body concept art of the Thunder God himself for the soon to be released Kenneth Branagh film of the same title.  Check it out gang.




Bookmark and Share



Bookmark and Share

Christie speaks in Washington DC, calling Newark schools 'absolutely disgraceful'

Bookmark and Share

by Greg Gutfeld

So, on his t.v. show last week, Bill Maher accused our President of not acting like a "real black president," because he wasn't carrying a piece in his pants, when dealing with BP.


Check it out, check it outers.


"I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt where you can see the gun in his pants. That's -- 'we've got a m*therf*cking problem here?' Shoot somebody in the foot."

"I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president."

Translation: when he means black, he means a pimp, a gangbanger - a stereotype of both lowered jeans and expectations. He wants a novelty black - once seen in 1970's cop shows, selling reefer and hookers. But Maher's defense will be typical of the white liberal racist: it was meant to be a compliment! Blacks are cooler than white people! They have guns!

Which Bill no doubt believes. Because unlike a lot of law abiding blacks - Maher doesn't live among criminals who do have guns in their pants. From his Brentwood pad, the gangbanger is just an arousing abstraction - instead of someone who shot his kid in the face.

And this points out another hypocrisy of the guilt-drenched lefty: white people with guns, bad. Black people with guns? Bad! But in a good, Samuel Jackson-kind-of-way!

Maher's comments are well-meaning, of course - but aren't they just like saying black men are always well-endowed, and can play basketball? It's all harmless- just ask Jimmy the Greek.


Remember him? Back in 1988, he was the sportscaster who said blacks "can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs." He got canned for that one.

Not that Maher should or will be fired - he's a white lefty, so the white lefty press gives him a pass.

But hey, if we had - statistically speaking - a REALLY black president, maybe Maher would hate him. According to polls, African Americans are nowhere as progressive as our Gradstudent-in chief. But Maher doesn't know those blacks. A black man voting Republican who runs a small business? To Maher, that's science fiction. He prefers his African American in one flavor: Huggy Bear.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe who once dated Bombshell Magee.

Bookmark and Share



This may be the first look at Captain America.





Bookmark and Share

Cartoon

Cartoon